COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 2 November 1988)

§ Lord Young of Graffham

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 73. Clause 73 concerns the author's or film director's right to be identified. Subsection (8) provides that when he is asserting this right, the author or director may specify the form he would like his identification to take. As the clause stood when it left your Lordships' House, there was no indication of the type of identification which could be specified.

It is clear however that the author cannot be given infinite scope in the way in which he can exercise this right. For example, it would be unreasonable to allow an architect to require that his name appears in solid gold letters 10 feet tall. What we had intended was that the author should have control over the way his identification is expressed; not over the way it is presented. Clause 73 as amended will allow the author to specify the use of a pseudonym, initials or some other form of identification, but could not now be construed as allowing him to say how that identification can be presented.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, in general we are quite content with the amendment. The only clarification I seek from the noble Lord relates to the identity of the author. The problem is that an author could adopt a pseudonym or initials or some other designation which might give rise to confusion. For example, my name is Charles Williams and there are other authors who are called Charles Williams. The noble Lord's name is David Young and no doubt there are other authors called David Young. His initials, my initials and other pseudonyms which we may adopt are legitimate and quite proper. The question on which I should like clarification is how does the appropriate authority detect whether a pseudonym or the name is the right one for the purposes of assertion of moral rights? It may be no problem, but I should be grateful for clarification.