While this composition easily indicates the compass of the moral right of integrity, significant ignorance about it remains. The stylish illustration of this passed in March 2015, when the metropolitan megacity of Lima canceled several cultural showpieces in the major centre of the megacity without the concurrence of their authors. To date, this is the most representational case of violation of the moral right of integrity that has arisen in Peru.
Among the showpieces canceled was a work called" Aire", which had been commissioned by the former external administration to the artist Leonardo Fernández" Olfer", who was the only one of those affected who denounced these data before the Copyright Commission of the National Institute of the Defense of Competition and Intellectual Property Protection( Indecopi).
The megacity's defence argued that the author's moral right of integrity in relation to" Aire" hadn't been infringed because the author had inked an affidavit of confidentiality in which he'd given his concurrence that the intellectual rights of the products and documents produced as a result of the provision of the service would be the property of the megacity.
The Commission rejected this argument because moral rights are inalienable and thus can not be assigned. It also emphasised the ideal and material aspect of the violation of the moral right of integrity in relation to workshop of visual art – as they're unique clones, their mutilation or revision implies their destruction, which is one of the most serious contraventions of brand.
In this sense, the Commission declared the complaint well- innovated and sanctioned the megacity of Lima with the payment of a heavy forfeiture. The megacity appealed this decision to the alternate case, the Specialised Intellectual Property Court, which verified the actuality of an violation of the moral right of integrity following the same criteria as the Commission. still, the Specialised Intellectual Property Court significantly reduced the fine assessed.
The impact of this case was similar that it motivated the revision of composition 25 of Legislative DecreeNo. 822. The correction added the term" destruction", which hadn't originally been expressly indicated, as one of the hypotheticals to which the author of a work is entitled to oppose in order to cover the integrity thereof.
From this correction, it can be derived that the former drafting of composition 25 of Legislative DecreeNo. 822 didn't take into account the special characteristics of workshop of visual art, the integrity of which can be affected to the point of total exposure since they're unique and unrepeatable samples. This situation is doubtful to be, for illustration, in the case of musical or erudite workshop, since these can be replicated, which means that every individual dupe would have to be destroyed.
The moral right of integrity deserves special protection in workshop of visual art, in order to avoid the exposure of unique creations due to arbitrary and unjustified acts similar as those of the megacity of Lima. Unfortunately, the fact that the Court tends to reduce the forfeitures assessed by the Commission, indeed if they're reasonable, rather of helping to fulfill their dissuasive purpose, encourages malefactors to appeal the Comission's judgments , since they will probably achieve a reduction in the fine anyway. still, the positive aspect of the showpieces case is that it emphasised to the Peruvian authorities the significance of valuing art in all its forms of expression.