Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
8293
PART IV
The Law on Copyright
CHAPTER I
Preliminary Provisions
SECTION 171. Definitions. For the purpose of this Act, the following terms
have the following meaning:
A "collective work" is a work which has been created by two (2) or more
natural persons at the initiative and under the direction of another with
the understanding that it will be disclosed by the latter under his own
name and that contributing natural persons will not be identified;
A "computer" is an electronic or similar device having informationprocessing capabilities, and a "computer program" is a set of
instructions expressed in words, codes, schemes or in any other form,
which is capable when incorporated in a medium that the computer can
read, of causing the computer to perform or achieve a particular task or
result;
"Published works" means works, which, with the consent of the authors,
are made available to the public by wire or wireless means in such a way
that members of the public may access these works from a place and
time individually chosen by them: Provided, That availability of such
copies has been such, as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the
public, having regard to the nature of the work;
10
11
CHAPTER II
Original Works
CHAPTER III
Derivative Works
The works referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Subsection 173.1 shall
be protected as new works: Provided however, That such new work shall
not affect the force of any subsisting copyright upon the original works
employed or any part thereof, or be construed to imply any right to such
use of the original works, or to secure or extend copyright in such original
works. (Sec. 8, P.D. 49; Art. 10, TRIPS)
CHAPTER IV
Works Not Protected
CHAPTER V
Copyright or Economic Rights
The first public distribution of the original and each copy of the work by
sale or other forms of transfer of ownership;
CHAPTER VI
Ownership of Copyright
In the case of work created by an author during and in the course of his
employment, the copyright shall belong to:
a The employee, if the creation of the object of copyright is not a part
of his regular duties even if the employee uses the time, facilities
and materials of the employer.
CHAPTER VII
Transfer or Assignment of Copyright
180.1.
The copyright may be assigned in whole or in part. Within the
scope of the assignment, the assignee is entitled to all the rights and
remedies which the assignor had with respect to the copyright.
180.2.
The copyright is not deemed assigned inter vivos in whole or in
part unless there is a written indication of such intention.
SECTION 181. Copyright and Material Object. The copyright is distinct from the
property in the material object subject to it. Consequently, the transfer or assignment
of the copyright shall not itself constitute a transfer of the material object. Nor shall a
transfer or assignment of the sole copy or of one or several copies of the work imply
transfer or assignment of the copyright. (Sec. 16, P.D. No. 49)
SECTION 183. Designation of Society. The copyright owners or their heirs may
designate a society of artists, writers or composers to enforce their economic rights and
moral rights on their behalf.
CHAPTER VIII
Limitations on Copyright
184.1.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter V, the following acts shall not
constitute infringement of copyright:
a. The recitation or performance of a work, once it has been lawfully made
accessible to the public, if done privately and free of charge or if made
strictly for a charitable or religious institution or society; (Sec. 10(1), P.D. No.
49)
b. The making of quotations from a published work if they are compatible with
fair use and only to the extent justified for the purpose, including quotations
from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries:
Provided, That the source and the name of the author, if appearing on the
work, are mentioned; (Sec. 11, third par., P.D. No. 49)
educational purpose only, whose aim is not profit making, subject to such
other limitations as may be provided in the Regulations; (n)
j. Public display of the original or a copy of the work not made by means of a
film, slide, television image or otherwise on screen or by means of any other
device or process: Provided, That either the work has been published, or,
that the original or the copy displayed has been sold, given away or
otherwise transferred to another person by the author or his successor in
title; and
k. Any use made of a work for the purpose of any judicial proceedings or
for the giving of professional advice by a legal practitioner.
184.2.
The provisions of this section shall be interpreted in such a way as to
allow the work to be used in a manner which does not conflict with the normal
exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the right holder's
legitimate interests.
a. The fair use of a copyrighted work for criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, research,
and similar purposes is not an infringement of copyright. Decompilation,
which is understood here to be the reproduction of the code and translation
of the forms of the computer program to achieve the inter-operability of an
independently created computer program with other programs may also
constitute fair use. In determining whether the use made of a work in any
particular case is fair use, the factors to be considered shall includeThe
purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;
b. The nature of the copyrighted work;
c. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and
d. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted
work.
185.2.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not by itself bar a finding of fair
use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
ISSUES: (1) If the engineering or technical drawings of an advertising display unit are
granted copyright protection is the light box depicted in such drawings ipso facto also
protected by such copyright? (2) Should the light box be registered separately? (3) Can
the owner of the registered trademark legally prevent others from using such mark if it is
mere abbreviation of a term descriptive of his goods, services or business?
Held:
1. No. Copyright is purely statutory. As such, the rights are limited to what the
statute confers. It may be obtained and enjoyed only with respect to the subjects
and by the persons, and on the terms and conditions specified in the statute.
Accordingly, it can cover only the works falling within the statutory enumeration or
description. Petitioner secured copyright under classification class O work.
Thus, copyright protection extended only to the technical drawings and not to the
light box itself because the latter was not at all in the category of prints, pictorial
illustrations, advertising copies, labels, tags and box wraps.
What the law does not include, it excludes, and for the good reason: the
light box was not a literary or artistic piece which could be copyrighted under the
copyright law. And no less clearly, neither could the lack of statutory authority to
make the light box copyrightable be remedied by the simplistic act of entitling the
copyright certificate issued by the National Library as Advertising Display Units.
meaning. Poster Ads was generic and incapable of being used as a trademark
because it was used in the field of poster advertising the very business engaged
in by petitioner. Secondary meaning means that a word or phrase originally
incapable of exclusive appropriation with reference to an article in the market
might nevertheless have been used for so long and so exclusively by one
producer with reference to his article that , in the trade and to that branch of the
purchasing public, the word or phrase has come to mean that the article was his
property.
PETITION WAS DENIED.
Facts:
P is the owner and general manager of Jeshicris Manufacturing Co., the maker and
manufacturer of a Utility Model, described as Leaf Spring Eye Bushing for Automobile
made up of plastic, which was issued by the National Library Certificates of Copyright
Registration and Deposit.
P requested the NBI for police/investigative assistance for the apprehension and
prosecution of illegal manufacturers, producers and/or distributors of the works. After
due investigation, the NBI filed applications for SWs against R alleging that the latter
therein reproduced and distributed the said models penalized under R.A. No. 8293.
RTC granted the application and issued SWs for the seizure of the aforecited articles.
R filed a motion to quash the search warrants averring that the works covered by the
certificates issued by the National Library are not artistic in nature; they are considered
automotive spare parts and pertain to technology. They aver that the models are not
original, and as such are the proper subject of a patent, not copyright.
RTC quashed the SW. Ps MR having been denied; he filed a petition for certiorari in the
CA. The petition was dismissed.
Issues:
(1) Whether or not Ps certificate of copyright registration over said utility models are
valid; and
(2) Whether or not Ps utility models can be considered literary and artistic works
subject to copyright protection.
Ruling:
(1) The petition has no merit. To discharge his burden, the applicant may present the
certificate of registration covering the work or, in its absence, other evidence. A
copyright certificate provides prima facie evidence of originality which is one element of
copyright validity. It constitutes prima facie evidence of both validity and ownership and
the validity of the facts stated in the certificate. The presumption of validity to a
certificate of copyright registration merely orders the burden of proof. The applicant
should not ordinarily be forced, in the first instance, to prove all the multiple facts that
underline the validity of the copyright unless the respondent, effectively challenging
them, shifts the burden of doing so to the applicant.
A certificate of registration creates no rebuttable presumption of copyright validity where
other evidence in the record casts doubt on the question. In such a case, validity will not
be presumed. No copyright granted by law can be said to arise in favor of the petitioner
despite the issuance of the certificates of copyright registration and the deposit of the
Leaf Spring Eye Bushing and Vehicle Bearing Cushion.
(2) We agree with the contention of the petitioner (citing Section 171.10 of R.A. No.
8293), that the authors intellectual creation, regardless of whether it is a creation with
utilitarian functions or incorporated in a useful article produced on an industrial scale, is
protected by copyright law. However, the law refers to a work of applied art which is an
artistic creation. It bears stressing that there is no copyright protection for works of
applied art or industrial design which have aesthetic or artistic features that cannot be
identified separately from the utilitarian aspects of the article. Functional components of
useful articles, no matter how artistically designed, have generally been denied
copyright protection unless they are separable from the useful article.
In this case, the petitioners models are not works of applied art, nor artistic works. They
are utility models, useful articles, albeit with no artistic design or value. Being plain
automotive spare parts that must conform to the original structural design of the
components they seek to replace, the Leaf Spring Eye Bushing and Vehicle Bearing
Cushion are not ornamental. They lack the decorative quality or value that must
characterize authentic works of applied art. They are not even artistic creations with
incidental utilitarian functions or works incorporated in a useful article. In actuality, the
personal properties described in the search warrants are mechanical works, the
principal function of which is utility sans any aesthetic embellishment.
In this case, the bushing and cushion are not works of art. They are, as the petitioner
himself admitted, utility models which may be the subject of a patent.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is hereby DENIED for lack of
merit. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the CA are AFFIRMED.
FACTS: Petitioners are authors and copyright holders of books on the English language
(College English for TodayBook 1 and 2, and Workbook for College Freshman
English). They were revising their books and were scouting for other books of similar
subject matter when they chanced upon the books of Respondents published by
Goodwill Trading Co. Inc. (Developing English ProficiencyBooks 1 and 2). Upon
further perusal they discovered that the content of said books was very much similar to
theirs, and in fact several pages were even identical. Some illustrative examples were
exactly the same. However, while herein Petitioners researched on said examples by
foreign authors and made due acknowledgement, Respondents made use of the same
and never cited the authors. They did not even cite the Petitioners as the first to use
said example.
Petitioners tried to settle the matter extra-judicially by asking Respondents to cease and
desist from selling and distributing the books and by claiming for damages due to lost
profit. But said demands were ignored. So they filed action for Infringement and or/
Unfair Competition with damages before the RTC against Respondents and Goodwill.
The trial court ruled in favor of Respondents and dismissed the claim against Goodwill.
It subscribed to the arguments of Respondents that there was no plagiarism resulting to
Infringement because the examples were by foreign authors and for educational
purposes subject to fair use. It also agreed with Respondents that the similarities were
brought about by the fact that the books dealt with the same subject matter and adhered
to the same presentation format prescribed by the Philippine Colleges of Arts and
Sciences (APCAS). Goodwill was also said to be absolved because it was not privy to
the plagiarism and in their contract with Respondents, there was a guaranty that the
work was original and the publisher will not be liable in case Infringement claims. The
trial court also subscribed to the notion of Respondents that Petitioner was motivated by
bad faith in filing the case due to professional jealousy. This is because the assailed
books replaced Petitioners as official textbook of the FEU Graduate Studies
Department.
Petitioners appealed before the CA. But just the same, the appellate court ruled in favor
of Respondents opining that the topics said to be plagiarized were also topics or matters
also found in earlier books on college English, even including foreign books. But it ruled
that Petitioners were not in bad faith in filing the claim. Hence Petitioners filed for
Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) before the SC.
FILIPINO
SOCIETY
OF
COMPOSERS,
AUTHORS
&
(FILSCAP) vs BENJAMIN TAN [G.R. No. L-32339. March 29, 1988]
PUBLISHERS, INC.
FILSCAP:
- Is the owner of certain musical compositions among which are the songs entitled:
"Dahil SaIyo", "Sapagkat Ikaw Ay Akin," "Sapagkat Kami Ay Tao Lamang" and "The
Nearness Of You."
- Filed a complaint with the lower court for infringement of copyright against defendantappellee for allowing the playing in defendant-appellee's restaurant of said songs
copyrighted in the name of the former.
Benjamin Tan:
- Countered that the complaint states no cause of action. While not denying the playing
of said copyrighted compositions in his establishment, appellee maintains that the mere
singing and playing of songs and popular tunes even if they are copyrighted do not
constitute an infringement under the provisions of Section 3 of the Copyright Law.
ISSUE: whether or not the playing and signing of musical compositions which have
been copyrighted under the provisions of the Copyright Law (Act 3134) inside the
establishment of the defendant-appellee constitute a public performance for profit within
the meaning and contemplation of the Copyright Law of the Philippines; and assuming
that there were indeed public performances for profit, whether or not appellee can be
held liable therefor.
Held:
NO. It has been held that "The playing of music in dine and dance establishment which
was paid for by the public in purchases of food and drink constituted "performance for
profit" within a Copyright Law." Thus, it has been explained that while it is possible in
such establishments for the patrons to purchase their food and drinks and at the same
time dance to the music of the orchestra, the music is furnished and used by the
orchestra for the purpose of inducing the public to patronize the establishment and pay
for the entertainment in the purchase of food and drinks. The defendant conducts his
place of business for profit, and it is public; and the music is performed for profit.
Nevertheless, appellee cannot be said to have infringed upon the Copyright Law.
Appellee's allegation that the composers of the contested musical compositions waived
their right in favor of the general public when they allowed their intellectual creations to
become property of the public domain before applying for the corresponding copyrights
for the same is correct.
The Supreme Court has ruled that "Paragraph 33 of Patent Office Administrative Order
No. 3(as amended, dated September 18, 1947) entitled 'Rules of Practice in the
Philippines Patent Office relating to the Registration of Copyright Claims' promulgated
pursuant to Republic Act165, provides among other things that an intellectual creation
should be copyrighted thirty (30)days after its publication, if made in Manila, or within
the (60) days if made elsewhere, failure of which renders such creation public property."
Indeed, if the general public has made use of the object sought to be copyrighted for
thirty (30) days prior to the copyright application the law deems the object to have been
donated to the public domain and the same can no longer be copyrighted. Under the
circumstances, it is clear that the musical compositions in question had long become
public property, and are therefore beyond the protection of the Copyright Law.