Assume an artist Abel creates an installation from mirrors. It is placed inside a building not open to the general public, so the architecture rule for photos of it does not apply. When passing through the mirrored hallway, one will see fractured and distorted projections of oneself. With clever etching, the copyright information (in the shape of a copyright sign, year, and signature) of Abel is always seen from each angle while you see the inside of the hallway. He took the necessary steps to register the copyright in the installation with the copyright office.
Photographer Peter by chance sees the thing when in the building on an unrelated job and takes a photo series. So on first blush, he's creating a derivative work, without a license or property release that allows photographing this hallway. Now, he spends painstaking hours retouching the copyright line, altering in his own name in the same style below Abel's. He publishes the photo in a magazine, where Abel is discussed as a painter without mentioning any non-painted work. Especially, the installation itself is never mentioned, discussed, or indicated but for the photo, the photo is not captioned. The only indication that the photo is of a work of Abel is the context in which it appears and the included (altered) copyright line that is part of the installation.
Did Peter and the Magazine violate the integrity of copyright management information section 17 USC 1202 in addition to infringing on copyright as there is no discussion of the piece of art itself?