I don’t think I agree on the application of droite morale. There’s a limited application already for visual arts produced after 1991 – and the problem with it is clear in that limited application. For instance, the right of integrity is the right of an author to prevent others from doing things to his work which can hurt his reputation. So the author can prevent others from distorting, mutilating or misrepresenting his work.
The problem with moral rights in art are that they give an artist the ability to, at his or her discretion, impede or even prevent such things as satire, collage, sampling, etc. It privileges the artists desire to keep a work intact over the right of others to, in essence, use it as their inspiration.
When we extend that right beyond the life of the author, who would own it? I think the fact that the art is in the public domain necessitates free and productive use of any potential kind – which means we have some dick uses too.
I also think that the bad treatment of good art brings up a lot of good questions (like this one) that help us understand what art really is, means, and should do to others as much as leaving the word “nigger” in Huck Finn can teach us a lot about our history (I’ll admit I understand the reticence about it – I can barely type it without cringing).
PS – I started typing this as a response to you, @submariner, before reading your last line. But it’s too late – I need to say it all now. So I don’t expect you to get into the pros and cons discussion. ;-) Just do note that we do have a limited form of droit morale.