Rosado Muñoz v. Acevedo Marrero, 2016 TSPR 236
By Ferraiuoli LLC

The Supreme Court, in the reference case, stated that works of art not subject to contracts of economic exploitation or that have not been ceded upon the death of the author, belong exclusively to its author and consequently to the hereditary estate, although not derivative fruits, income, or interest generated by works of art created before or during the period of Conjugal Partnership. This, despite the fact that for their creation, funds from the Conjugal Partnership or goods obtained by the industry, salary of work of any spouse.
The Supreme Court highlighted that the Puerto Rico Author’s Moral Rights Act, Act Num. 55-2012 (hereinafter, “Author’s Moral Rights Act”), clearly states that the moral rights of an artist are inalienably personal. Works of arts however are goods that in this case where created during the Conjugal Partnership, which is governed by the Civil Code of Puerto Rico, 31 LPRA 3621 et seq.
This created a conflict between both statutes to which the Supreme Court argued it would have to find a way to reconcile both of them according to their motives.
The Court reasoned that the Author’s Moral Rights Act is a special law attending a specific matter, and for this reasons it should precede the Civil Code’s, 31 LPRA 3647, general character. Since the Author’s Moral Rights Act does not contemplate the Conjugal Partnership in its provisions, and clearly states how a work of art is an inalienably personal right, it was interpreted as separate property in the Conjugal Partnership. This statute recognizes the ownership of a work of art or creation, as well as the rights to dispose of it, to disclose it, and to retract it. For these reasons, the Supreme Court understood these creations could not be automatically considered community property in a Conjugal Partnership.
