(p.34) What contractual stipulations are required in all technology transfer was protected by copyright.
opyright. Manoling Santiago sued Juan Xavier for
agreements? (2%)
The following stipulations are required in all technology transfer agreements:
(1) The laws of the Philippines shall govern its interpretation and in the event
of litigation, the venue shall be the proper court in the place where the licensee
has its principal office;
(2) Continued access to improvements in techniques and processes related to
the technology shall be made available during the period of the technology
transfer arrangement;
(3) In case it shall provide for arbitration, the Procedure of Arbitration of the
Arbitration Law of the Philippines or the Arbitration Rules of the United
Nations Commission on International Trade Law or the Rules of Arbitration of
the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) shall apply and the venue of
arbitration shall be the Philippines or any neutral country;
(4) The Philippine taxes on all payments relating to the technology transfer
agreement shall be borne by the licensor (Sec. 88, Intellectual Property Code).
(p.34) Enumerate three stipulations that are prohibited in technology
transfer agreements. (3%)
The following stipulations are prohibited in technology transfer agreements:
(1) Those that contain restrictions regarding the volume and structure of
production;
(2) Those that prohibit the use of competitive technologies in a non-exclusive
agreement; and
(3) Those that establish a full or partial purchase option in favor of the licensor
(Subsections 87.3, 87.4 and 87.5 of the Intellectual Property Code).
(p. 281) Juan Xavier wrote and published a story similar to an unpublished
copyrighted story of Manoling Santiago. It was, however, conclusively
proven that Juan Xavier was not aware that the story of Manoling Santiago
infringement of copyright. Is Juan Xavier liable? (2%)
Yes. Juan Xavier is liable for infringement of copyright. It is not necessary that
Juan Xavier is aware that the story of Manoling Santiago was protected by
copyright. The work of Manoling Santiago is protected at the time of its
creation.
(p. 281) While vacationing in Boracay, Valentino surreptitiously took
photographs of his girlfriend Monaliza in her skimpy bikini. Two weeks
later, her photographs appeared in the Internet and in a national celebrity
magazine.
Monaliza found out that Valentino had sold the photographs to the
magazine, adding insult to injury, uploaded them to his personal blog on the
Internet.
(A) Monaliza filed a complaint against Valentino damages based on, among
other grounds, violation of her intellectual property rights. Does she have
any cause of action? Explain. (2%)
Monaliza cannot sue Valentino for violation of her intellectual property rights,
because she was not the one who took the pictures (Subsection 178.1 of the
Intellectual Property Code). She may sue Valentino instead for violation of her
right to privacy. He surreptitiously took photographs of her and then sold the
photographs to a magazine and uploaded them to his personal blog in the
Internet (Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the
Philippines, Vol. I, 1987 ed., p. 169).
(B) Valentino’s friend Francesco stole the photographs and duplicated them
and sold them to a magazine publication. Valentino sued Francisco for
infringement and damages. Does Valentino have any cause of action?
Explain. (2%)
Valentino cannot sue Francesco for infringement, because he has already sold
the photographs to a magazine (Angeles vs. Premier Productions, Inc., 6 CAR
(2s) 159).
Yes, as the author of the photographs, Valentino has exclusive economic rights
thereto, which include the rights to reproduce, to distribute, to perform, to
display, and to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work.
He sold only the photographs to the magazine; however, he still retained some
economic rights thereto. Thus, he has a cause of action against infringement
against Francesco.
(C) Does Monaliza have any cause of action against Francesco? Explain. (2%)
Monaliza can also sue Francesco for violation of her right to privacy.
(pp. 281-282) Ruby is a fine arts student in a university. He stays in a
boarding house with Bernie as his roommate. During his free time, Rudy
would paint and leave his finished works lying around the boarding house.
One day, Rudy saw one of his works – an abstract painting entitled Manila
Traffic Jam – on display at the university cafeteria. The cafeteria operator
said he purchased the painting from Bernie who represented himself as its
painter and owner.
Rudy and the cafeteria operator immediately confronted Bernie. While
admitting that he did not do the painting,. Bernie claimed ownership of its
copyright since he had already registered it in his name with the National
Library as provided in the Intellectual Property Code.
Who owns the copyright to the painting? Explain (8%).
Rudy owns the copyright to the painting because he was the one who actually
created it. (Section 178.1 of the Intellectual Property Code) His rights existed
from the moment of its creation (Section 172 of the Intellectual Property Code;
Unilever Philippines (PRC) v. Court of Appeals, 498 SCRA 334, 2006). The
registration of the painting by Bernie with the National Library did not confer
copyright upon him. The registration is merely for the purpose of completing
the records of the National Library. (Section 191 of the Intellectual Property
Code).
(p. 282) Diana and Piolo are famous personalities in showbusiness who kept
their love affair secret. They use a special instant messaging service which
allows them to see one another’s typing on their own screen as each letter
key is pressed. When Greg, the controller of the service facility, found out
their identities, he kept a copy of all the messages Diana and Piolo sent each
other and published them. Is Greg liable for copyright infringement?
Reason briefly. (5%)
Yes, Greg is liable for copyright infringement. Letter are among the works
which are protected from the moment of their creation (Section 172, intellectual
Property Code; Columbia Pictures, Inc. v Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA 144
[1996]). The publication of the letters without the consent of their writers
constitutes infringement of copyright.
No, Greg is not liable for copyright infringement. There is no copyright
protecting electronic documents. What are involved here are text messages, not
letter in their ordinary sense. Hence, the protection under the copyright law
does not extend to text messages (Section 172, Intellectual Property Code).
The messages that Diana and Piolo exchanged through the use of messaging
service do not constitute literary and artistic works under Section 172 of the
Intellectual Property Code. They are not letter under Section 172(d).
For copyright to subsist in a “message”, it must qualify as a “work” (Section
172 Intellectual Property Code). Whether the messages are entitled or not to
copyright protection would have to be resolved in the light of the provision of
the Intellectual Property Code.
(pp. 283-284) 1989
(p. 286) 1989
(p. 291) Solid Investment House (SOLID) commissioned Mon Blanco and his
son Steve, both noted artists, to paint a mural for the Main Lobby of the new
building of SOLID for a contract price of P2 Million.
a) Who owns the mural? Explain.
SOLID owns the mural. Solid was the one who commissioned the artists to do
the work and paid for the work in the sum of P2M.
b) Who owns the copyright of the mural? Explain.
Unless there is a stipulation to the contrary in the contract, the copyright shall
belong in joint ownership to SOLID and Mon and Steve.
(pp. 293-294) Eloise, an accomplished writer, was hired by Petong to write a
bimonthly newspaper column for Diario de Manila, a newly-established
newspaper of which Petong was the editor-in-chief. Eloise was to be paid
P1,000 for each column that was published. In the course of two months,
Eloise submitted three columns which, after some slight editing, were
printed in the newspaper. However, Diario de Manila proved unprofitable
and closed only after two months. Due to the minimal amounts involved,
Eloise chose not to pursue any claim for payment from the newspaper, which
was owned by New Media Enterprises.
Three years later, Eloise was planning to publish an anthology of her works,
and wanted to include the three columns that appeared in the Diario de
Manila in her anthology She asks for you legal advice:
(A) Does Eloise have to secure authorization from New Media Enterprises to
be able to publish her Diario de Manila columns in her own anthology?
Explain fully. (4%)
Eloise may publish the columns without securing authorization from New
Media Enterprises. Under Sec. 172 of the Intellectual Property Code, original
intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain are protected from the
moment of their creation and shall include those in periodicals and
newspapers. Under Sec. 178, copyright ownership shall belong to the author.
In case of commissioned work, the person who so commissioned work shall
have ownership of work, but copyright shall remain with creator, unless there
is a written stipulation to the contrary.
(B) Assume that New Media Enterprises plans to publish Eloise’s columns
in its own anthology entitled, ―The Best of Diario de Manila‖ Eloise wants
to prevent the publication of her columns in that anthology since she was
never paid by the newspaper. Name one irrefutable legal argument Eloise
could cite to enjoin New Media Enterprises from including her columns in
its anthology. (2%)
Under the IPC, the copyright or economic rights to the columns she authored
pertains only to Eloise. She can invoke the right to either “authorize or prevent”
reproduction of the work, including the public distribution of the original and
each copy of the work “by sale or other forms of transfer of ownership,” Since
this would be the effect of including her column in the anthology.
(p. 297) In a written legal opinion for a client on the difference between
apprenticeship and learnership, Liza quoted without permission a labor law
expert’s comment appearing in his book entitled “Annotations on the Labor
Code.”
Can the labor law expert hold Liza liable for infringement of copyright for
quoting a portion of his book without his permission? (5%)
Liza cannot be held liable for infringement of copyright since under the
Intellectual Property Code, one of the limitations on the copyright is the
making of quotations from a published work for purpose of any judicial
proceedings or for giving of professional advise by legal practitioner, provided
that the source, and name of the author are identified (Sec. 181.4[k] of the
Intellectual Property Code).
(p. 315) May a person have photocopies of some pages of the book of
Professor Rosario made without violating the copyright law?
Yes. The private reproduction of a published work in a single copy, where the
reproduction is made by a natural person exclusively for research and private
study, is permitted without the authorization of the owner of the owner of the
copyright in the work.
(p. 323) 2014