Back in February 2016 the blog reported about a suspected plagiarism case (s) blaming Mr César Acuña Peralta who was running at the time for the Peruvian Presidency.
Mr Acuña was accused of copying his doctoral thesis (submitted at the Universidad Complutense, Madrid, in 2009) as well as his master’s thesis (submitted at the Universidad de los Andes, Colombia) and a whole book (authored in fact by Peruvian Professor Otoniel Oyarce Alvarado). As these accusations were so strong the Peruvian National Institute for the Defence of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property (Indecopi) decided to investigate the accusations (Organization and Functions Act and Decree Legislative 822 gives INDECOPI the powers to investigate acts affecting copyright and related rights within the country).
Last week INDECOPI finally came to a conclusion sanctioning Mr. César Acuña Peralta and the Universidad César Vallejo (UCV) for copyright infringement in relation to the authorship of the book “PolÃtica Educativa – concepto, reflexiones y propuestas”. INDECOPI also sanctioned Mr César Acuña Peralta for his the doctoral thesis “Competencia Docente y Rendimiento Académico del Estudiante de la Universidad Privada en el Perú”.
In the procedure, INDECOPI’s Copyright Commission concluded that:
• Mr Acuña Peralta infringed the moral right of paternity: claiming to be co-author of the book although the only author is Otoniel Alvarado Oyarce.
• The UCV infringed the moral right of paternity since it published the book, attributing sole authorship to Mr César Acuña; and so giving authorship to the book to a third party other than its creator.
• The UCV made another publication which although correctly attributed authorship to Otoniel Oyarce Alvarado, on the credits page of that book the copyright sign ( © ) was added next to Mr Acuña Peralta name, who is also mentioned as an author in the preface. By this the publisher granted authorship to the book to a third party other than its creator.
• In these two published books the Commission noted that the moral right of integrity of the author was also infringed since at least one paragraph of that work was mutilated.
• The patrimonial right of distribution was also infringed since both publications are kept and loaned at the Resource Center for Learning and Research of the UCV. The INDECOPI has ordered to withdraw from circulation such copies.
• In the proceedings against the UCV INDECOPI also found that there was infringement of the moral right of paternity of the author of the prologue of such books. The prologue was written by the priest Otoniel Ricardo Morales Basadre for Oyarce Alvarado. Both publications were altered and so, changing the name for the person for whom he wrote the foreword.
• As the prologue of the infringing copies were distributed for loan in the Resource Center for Learning and Research of the UCV, the Commission determined that the patrimonial right of distribution was infringed.
In regards to the doctoral thesis the Copyright Commission sanctioned with fines to Mr Acuña Peralta due to reproducing fragments of works of others without acknowledging the authorship of them; therefore the Commission concluded that Mr Acuña Peralta infringed the moral right of paternity of those authors.
INDECOPI notes that this “decision may be appealed to the Special Branch Intellectual Property of INDECOPI, which is the second and final administrative authority” of the INDECOPI.
Mr Acuña was accused of copying his doctoral thesis (submitted at the Universidad Complutense, Madrid, in 2009) as well as his master’s thesis (submitted at the Universidad de los Andes, Colombia) and a whole book (authored in fact by Peruvian Professor Otoniel Oyarce Alvarado). As these accusations were so strong the Peruvian National Institute for the Defence of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property (Indecopi) decided to investigate the accusations (Organization and Functions Act and Decree Legislative 822 gives INDECOPI the powers to investigate acts affecting copyright and related rights within the country).
In the procedure, INDECOPI’s Copyright Commission concluded that:
• Mr Acuña Peralta infringed the moral right of paternity: claiming to be co-author of the book although the only author is Otoniel Alvarado Oyarce.
• The UCV infringed the moral right of paternity since it published the book, attributing sole authorship to Mr César Acuña; and so giving authorship to the book to a third party other than its creator.
• The UCV made another publication which although correctly attributed authorship to Otoniel Oyarce Alvarado, on the credits page of that book the copyright sign ( © ) was added next to Mr Acuña Peralta name, who is also mentioned as an author in the preface. By this the publisher granted authorship to the book to a third party other than its creator.
• In these two published books the Commission noted that the moral right of integrity of the author was also infringed since at least one paragraph of that work was mutilated.
• The patrimonial right of distribution was also infringed since both publications are kept and loaned at the Resource Center for Learning and Research of the UCV. The INDECOPI has ordered to withdraw from circulation such copies.
• In the proceedings against the UCV INDECOPI also found that there was infringement of the moral right of paternity of the author of the prologue of such books. The prologue was written by the priest Otoniel Ricardo Morales Basadre for Oyarce Alvarado. Both publications were altered and so, changing the name for the person for whom he wrote the foreword.
• As the prologue of the infringing copies were distributed for loan in the Resource Center for Learning and Research of the UCV, the Commission determined that the patrimonial right of distribution was infringed.In regards to the doctoral thesis the Copyright Commission sanctioned with fines to Mr Acuña Peralta due to reproducing fragments of works of others without acknowledging the authorship of them; therefore the Commission concluded that Mr Acuña Peralta infringed the moral right of paternity of those authors.
INDECOPI notes that this “decision may be appealed to the Special Branch Intellectual Property of INDECOPI, which is the second and final administrative authority” of the INDECOPI.