Finals take home exam for Intellectual Property

Submitted by: Jethro Villaruel Law 3-A

1.
Yes, Nabubuhay Printing Press is liable for copyright infringement and damages. Copyright
protection for a literary work last during the lifetime of the author and also extended fifty (50) years after
the death of the author. However the 50 years extension for copyright protection of the authors literary
work has not yet ended in the case at bar. The counting of 50 years extension for copyright protection of
Johns work shall start at January 1,1965 as the law provides. Therefore the act of Nabubuhay printing
press in printing of copies of Johns work constitutes copyright infringement because the 50 years
copyright protection has not yet ended.
2.
If I were the lawyer of AB Systems, I will advise him that he shall not follow the desist and cease
order. It was decided by the Supreme Court in the case of ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v.
Philippine Multimedia System, G.R. No. 175769-70, January 19, 2009, that the must carry rule should be
considered as another limitation on copyright. The must carry rule states that there is an obligation to carry
signals of local channels within their respective systems. This is to give the people wider access to more
sources of news, information, education, sports event and entertainment programs other than those provided by
mass media and afforded television programs to attain a well informed, well-versed and culturally refined
citizenry and enhance their socio-economic growth. The Channel 12 broadcast in dispute is a news broadcast
channel within the purview of this must carry rule and thus AB Systems is protected from copyright
infringement.
3.
The said Copyright shall belong National Geographic. The said pictures or the stolen shots
shall be considered as taken by Lloyd despite the fact that the monkeys were the responsible in taking of
such pictures. Therefore Lloyd was performing his duties assigned to hi.
4.
The restaurant is liable because the airing of copyrighted songs would add up to the profit of the
owner. It is a violation of the Copyright Law. ( FILIPINO SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND
PUBLISHERS, INC., vs. BENJAMIN TAN)

5.
Yes, the action may prosper. Public performance of someones copyrighted work shall be for
education purposes only and not for profit as the law provides. The facts show that the said public
performance was done for a profit, therefore there is copyright infringement.

6.
Yes. Vallero shopping Mall is liable for copyright infringement. The law provides that establishments
with persons leasing their premises shall control the conduct of the said lessees especially if the conduct
of the said lessees are unlawful such as selling of pirated DVDs. Vallero shopping Mall shall control the
conduct of such kiosk to avoid copyright infringement.
7.
a. Yes, Edna shall secure authorization from New Media Publication. When Edna made her literary work,
she was employed in the New Media Publication, her employer. Therefore Ednas employer which is the
New Media Publication is the owner of the copyright of Ednas work because Edna was working for New
Media Publication as a writer. Therefore, Edna shall secure permission from New Media Publication
before publish her work.
b. Yes, Edna has to secure authorization from New Media Enterprise.
In case of a work by an author during and in the course of his employment, the copyright shall belong to
the employer, if the work is the result of his regular duties, even if the employee uses the time, facilities
and materials of the employer.
The facts reveal that Eloise created the works in question during the course of her employment with New
Media Enterprises. Anent the fact that she was specifically hired by Petong to write a bimonthly column,
the said works are the result of her regular duties.
Hence, being a mere employee, Eloise is not the owner of the copyright and must therefore secure the
authority of the real owner before she can publish the works in her own anthology.