Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org>]

Alex Schroeder wrote:
> You treat moral rights like a big unknown that can be used to silence 
> you at any time.  This is not true, however.  In Switzerland, moral 
> rights include the "right to be named the author of a work" and the 
> "right to prevent derivatives that damage your reputation".  Those terms 
> are not some vague hammer to silence the obnoxious.  They are very 
> concrete terms.  If I write a song for you, you may not claim to have 
> written it yourself.  If I write a song for you, you may not change the 
> words such that it glorifies Hitler (and thus damages my reputation).

I've heard this exact argument (invoking Hitler or Nazi propaganda as 
the defining case of reputational damage) several times.  It doesn't 
strike me as particularly useful.  It is hardly an edge case.  And you 
know the cliche, "easy cases make bad law."

How is it actually decided what constitutes damage to reputation and was 
does not (e.g., in Switzerland)?  Anything the author decides they don't 
like?  A legislated standard with a list of reputation-damaging 
associations, presumably including nazism?  Up to a judge's discretion 
based on their intepretation of current social norms?

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights "Article 6bis of 
the Berne Convention protects attribution and integrity, stating:

        Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after 
the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to 
claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation 
or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the 
said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation."

Which still leaves me completely in the dark as to what standards are used.

--
  Mike Linksvayer
  http://creativecommons.org/about/people#21