You may be thinking of "moral rights." These may include a right of paternity (the right to be identified as the author of a work--or to have your name withheld, if you chose), a right to withdraw your work from the market (though you may have to buy it back), and a right not to have the work mutilated or altered in a way that could damage the artist's reputation. In U.S. copyright law, there are some limited moral rights for visual artworks, but not for writings or music. Moral rights are perhaps strongest in France, where these rights never expire, even long after the author's death and after the copyright has expired.
From a moral standpoint, it's simply showing respect to the creator of a work, and acknowledging the value of his or her hard work and intellectual property.
Perhaps the most straightforward right is the right to copy. In many countries, copyright also confers a moral right, which gives the right to be identified as the creator.
Text copyright Eoin Colfer, 2001- present day. The moral rights of the author have been asserted.
Both economic rights and moral rights are based in copyright laws, but there are many countries that do not recognize moral rights. Economic rights generally include the exclusive rights to copy, alter, distribute, or perform/display the work; typically those rights are expected to make money. Moral rights generally include the right to attribution, the right to have a work published anonymously or pseudonymously, and the right to integrity of the work (ie the prevention of alteration, distortion, or mutilation). While economic rights expire after a set amount of time (life of the creator plus 50 years in most cases, although the US and some other countries have extended this to life plus 70 years), moral rights can be for perpetuity.
Creative Commons is a global organisation for sharing creativity and knowledge. This should not affect anyone's moral rights in any way, especially since it doesn't violate any copyright laws.
Churches are bound by the same laws as any other organisation, including copyright. Some would say they have an even greater moral obligation to uphold both the letter and the spirit of the law.An unauthorised public performance of music, even in a church, could be a breach of copyright.
Dating from the 15th century, the painting is in the public domain; however, moral rights may be claimed by descendents.
If you painted it, yes. What the law calls "mere possession" does not mean the possessor has any rights. This is fairly obvious in other disciplines--having a copy of a Harry Potter book doesn't give me copyright in the book--but can be confusing in visual arts.Copyright can be transferred by written agreement.If your country recognizes moral rights (the droit d'auteur), it is possible to transfer economic rights but retain moral rights.
No, but images (such as photos) of the paintings may be protected. Works of that period may also be protected by moral rights in some countries.
"Copyright in fragment" is a common misspelling of "copyright infringement," which is the violation of copyright.
Because it's impossible for rightsholders or their agents to notice and identify every single infringing act, it's the user's responsibility to do the right thing, even when there's little to no threat of getting caught. Ultimately, copyright enforcement is a moral and ethical idea more than a legal one.
license agreement