The moral right aspect of copyright includes the right of public release, the right of paternity and the right of integrity. “The right of public release” is the right to issue publicly the content of a work, which has never been publicly issued, through publication, broadcast, presentation, recitation, performance, display, or other means. “The right of paternity” means the author of a work shall have the right to indicate its name, a pseudonym, or no name on the original or copies of the work, or when the work is publicly released. “The right of integrity” means the author has the right to prohibit others from distorting, mutilating, modifying, or otherwise changing the content, form, or name of the work, thereby damaging the author's reputation. The appellant has the moral right of the disputed cover. However, the disputed cover has been published due to the publication of the video and issued on the appellant’s website, which renders the cover a published work. The appellee’s act therefore cannot infringe upon the right of public release. Secondly, the appellee merely reproduced the appellant’s website including the disputed cover in order to appendix it in the attorney’s letter sent to the appellant. There was no such action as to distort, mutilate, modify, or otherwise change the content, form, or name of the work, to damage the author's reputation, and neither were there infringement of the right of paternity and integrity. Consequently, based on the appellant’s evidence, the court cannot conclude that the appellee has infringed the moral right.

Copyright, Moral Right, The Right of Public Release, The Right of Paternity, The Right of Integrity