The dual nature of authorial rights encompassing both economic interests and the inalienable sanctity of the creator’s persona remains one of the most conceptually demanding areas of intellectual property law. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of personal non-property rights, tracing their theoretical trajectory from the classical idealism of Immanuel Kant and the dogmatic distinctions of Josef Kohler to contemporary international standards. By navigating the systemic divide between the Anglo-American "Copyright" tradition and the Continental-European "Author’s Right" system, the research evaluates the tension between the commercialization of creative output and the protection of the author’s moral interests. Central to this study is a critical examination of the criteria for legal protection, with a particular focus on the transition from "originality" to "individualism" as a primary benchmark for creative merit. The research utilizes significant judicial precedents including the Supreme Court of Georgia’s interpretation of graphic adaptations to illustrate the practical challenges of delineating between derivative copying and original creative labor. Furthermore, the paper addresses the evolving commercial value of moral rights in a globalized market, exploring how identity-linked prerogatives, such as the right to publicity and disclosure, have acquired proprietary characteristics. A significant portion of the analysis is dedicated to the Georgian legal landscape. By identifying specific terminological ambiguities and "legal errors" within national legislation particularly concerning the post-mortem exercise of moral rights this study proposes a path toward more precise normative regulation. Ultimately, the research advocates for a shift toward "individualism" as a more loyal and effective criterion for protection, ensuring that the legal framework remains robust enough to safeguard the author’s personal and intellectual integrity in an increasingly complex creative environment.
Zaza Mtchedlishvili (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: