of the proposed Directive on copyright harmonisation(2000)comes into force and is duly It is equally incontrovertible that much of the thinking behind the Directives, at least at a formal or structural level, is influenced by civilian notions of authors' rights (16) That comment should, however, be qualified by the caution that neither the common nor the civil law can be thought of as monolithic. German copyright law differs significantly in its approach from French law so too US law differs from the UK's. The familiar metaphor of points on a ectrum, with US copyright law representing strong common law tendencies at one end, French droits d'auteur representing strong civil law tendencies at the other, and the remaining states ranged along a continuum running from those ends, seems apt. The UK and Ireland may be found close to the common law side of midway on this scale That said. the ideas that protection should flow from an author's 'own intellectual creativity protection be automatic and not depend on registration or other formality. the rights extended to those who exercise intellectual creativity -authors- should be sharply distinguished from rights granted to other people adding value to or distributing the work(e.g performers, sound recorders, broadcasters, cablecasters and publishers) authors should have long-term, continuing and maximum control over their productions, are consistently reflected throughout the Directives. They are ideas common to a protective scheme that involves economic rights and 'moral rights'(droit moraux), the twin pillars of the authors right edifice (17) Under the civilian approach, economic rights- from reproduction, public performance and broadcast rights, to rental rights and rights to profit on the resale price of artworks(droit de suite provide the author with a seemingly never-ending menu of means to profit from his work. Moral rights, on the other hand, provide the author with continuing control over the work despite its exploitation. Under moral rights doctrine, the author alone decides when the work is ready for release and how it may be exploited; the work must be properly credited; it must not be modified contrary to the author's wishes, or at least in ways prejudicial to the author's honour or reputation The author can sometimes even recall the work if it no longer reflects his or her views In this scheme, the author is front and centre stage. Later exploiters and users of the work performers, recorders, broadcasters and cablecasters- are secondary players and stand in the wings. The rights they acquire through execution or distribution of the work are doctrinally treated as derivative and subsidiary. Such 'neighbouring or 'related rights( droits voisins), while powerful and substantial, are less intensive than authors' rights and typically run for shorter periods(15 to 50 years)than the author's right, which now lasts up to 70 years after the author's deathof the proposed Directive on copyright harmonisation (2000) comes into force and is duly implemented. It is equally incontrovertible that much of the thinking behind the Directives, at least at a formal or structural level, is influenced by civilian notions of authors' rights.(16) That comment should, however, be qualified by the caution that neither the common nor the civil law can be thought of as monolithic. German copyright law differs significantly in its approach from French law; so too US law differs from the UK's. The familiar metaphor of points on a spectrum, with US copyright law representing strong common law tendencies at one end, French droits d'auteur representing strong civil law tendencies at the other, and the remaining states ranged along a continuum running from those ends, seems apt. The UK and Ireland may be found close to the common law side of midway on this scale. That said, the ideas that - protection should flow from an author's 'own intellectual creativity', - protection be automatic and not depend on registration or other formality, - the rights extended to those who exercise intellectual creativity - authors - should be sharply distinguished from rights granted to other people adding value to or distributing the work (e.g., performers, sound recorders, broadcasters, cablecasters and publishers), - authors should have long-term, continuing and maximum control over their productions, are consistently reflected throughout the Directives. They are ideas common to a protective scheme that involves economic rights and 'moral rights' (droit moraux), the twin pillars of the authors' right edifice.(17) Under the civilian approach, economic rights - from reproduction, public performance and broadcast rights, to rental rights and rights to profit on the resale price of artworks (droit de suite) - provide the author with a seemingly never-ending menu of means to profit from his work. Moral rights, on the other hand, provide the author with continuing control over the work despite its exploitation. Under moral rights doctrine, the author alone decides when the work is ready for release and how it may be exploited; the work must be properly credited; it must not be modified contrary to the author's wishes, or at least in ways prejudicial to the author's honour or reputation. The author can sometimes even recall the work if it no longer reflects his or her views. In this scheme, the author is front and centre stage. Later exploiters and users of the work - performers, recorders, broadcasters and cablecasters - are secondary players and stand in the wings. The rights they acquire through execution or distribution of the work are doctrinally treated as derivative and subsidiary. Such 'neighbouring' or 'related' rights (droits voisins), while powerful and substantial, are less intensive than authors' rights and typically run for shorter periods (15 to 50 years) than the author's right, which now lasts up to 70 years after the author's death