We must not forget the producer of the film, deemed as co-owner (with the director) of the copyright in British law, who fulfils the necessary conditions and requirements to the making of it.
RESUME : Les lois portugaise et marocaine consacrent la copaternité des œuvres audiovisuelles : celle des auteurs des contributions artistiques et littéraires. Vraiment, les films sont des œuvres de création de peu de personnes : seules le réalisateur et l’auteur du scénario et, en occasions, le créateur des logiciels utilisés peuvent réclamer une copaternité non fictive des ces œuvres.
On ne peut pas oublier aussi le producteur du film. En droit anglais, le producteur est considéré un co-titulaire (un vrai co-auteur?) de l’œuvre audiovisuelle. Le producteur est, en effet, quelqu'un indispensable à l’existence, elle-même, du film, considérant qu’il rassemble et fournit touts les apports indispensables à que l’œuvre audiovisuelle vienne à l’existence.
MOTS-CLEFS: Contrat; réalisateur audiovisuel; producteur audiovisuel; copaternité des œuvres.
The indecision or the exile of about God in modern man‟s life, leads yet to another serious problem, the problem that there can be no normative standard; no any other final goal, and no higher end whatsoever (except science and technology) to guide, direct or limit the whole process of technological progress except technology itself. In the case that any normative standard outside of science and technology is to be perceived, then, it is conceived as deterrence to science and technology in their attempt to realize their purposes, a kind of disillusionment to the scientific and technological spirit (Ichuloi, 2015).
Paul Downes (Downes, 2003), in his commentary on Heidegger argues that a comprehensive understanding of Ultimate transcendence cannot be resolved by any logical principle drawn from science and technology, except one of existence: the interactive one. Ultimate transcendence is an ontological (existential) foundation for the understanding of human nature, where we achieve authentic human subjectivity and understanding of ourselves; our existence is not found in a mere human ontic aspiration as its form of self-definition. Without Ultimate transcendence, we lose the pulling and unifying force that integrates us as humans, opening us to the limitless future of our existence that is not to be bound and defined by the logic of science and technology. Anthony Ichuloi (2016) postulates that to undermine the Ultimate Transcendent leads the modern subject into two possibilities: either to be totally doomed in life or to believe so much in herself, in her science and technology and feel that she is living a „superhuman‟ level of being. This is the illusion of both science and technology; it is an illusion in the sense that if there are basic human facts that are beyond the domain of science and technology.
The paper has argued that technology has become an indispensable dimension of being church, and it is becoming impossible today to think of any Christian community independent of being-with-technology. But even though cyberspace technologies have significant contribution to the
6church‟s life, we cannot close our eyes from the fact that it challenges thebasic church “doctrine” principle that gives it identity and consistency. The very enabling cyberspace technologies used by the church to enhance her mission have reconstituting downsides on the same church; cyberspace technologies reconstitutes the basicprinciples and foundations of the church like church doctrine on transcendence, physical space for community religious and church experience, and a meaningful celebration of the sacraments.