, April 25 -- What recourse does an artist have in instances where they upload a seemingly innocent painting to a website that governs its adaptation by others with public licenses, only to discover that someone has distorted it by editing hate symbols on it? What would happen if that image were to then 'go viral', resulting in consumers boycotting the author, even though he/she was not responsible for the adaptation?

The answer lies in the nature of moral rights of authors as it relates to works licensed under terms suggested by the Creative Commons.

The Creative Commons and their copyright licenses have been at the forefront of the open access copyright movement since the inception in 2001. Subsequently, since December 2002, they have...