TO:

FROM:
SUBJECT:

MAM ZOA
NGR
Review/ Examination of IIYDS Immersion
Book/Manual based on Exploring English
published by Longman Pearson
DATE:
April 26, 2016
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM
On April 13, 2016, the following Person Longmans books
were received by our law firm:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

What A World 3, Amazing Stories from

Around the Globe by Milada Broukal
Exploring English 1 by Harris and Rowe
Exploring English 2 by Harris and Rowe
Exploring English 3 by Harris and Rowe
Exploring English 4 by Harris and Rowe
Exploring English 5 by Harris and Rowe
Exploring English 6 by Harris and Rowe

On the same date, the following IBYs manuals were received

by our law firm:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.

Grammar and Immersion and Grammar

Grammar and Immersion and Grammar
Grammar and Immersion and Grammar
Grammar and Immersion and Grammar
Grammar and Immersion and Grammar
Grammar and Immersion and Grammar
Homework Notebook 1
Homework Notebook 2
Homework Notebook 3
Homework Notebook 4
Homework Notebook 5
Homework Notebook 6
What A World 3 Homework Book 1-8

Activity
Activity
Activity
Activity
Activity
Activity

1
2
3
4
5
6

14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.

What
What
What
What
What
What
What
What
What

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

World
World
World
World
World
World
World
World
World

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

Homework Book 9-16

Grammar 1-8
Grammar Book 9-16
Listening Book 1-8
Listening Book 9-16
Writing 1-8
Writing 9-16
Vocabulary 1-8
Vocabulary 9-16

According to IISD1, the Immersion book used the name of the

main character from Exploring English, follow the grammar
structure, and made its own example, additional exercises in
reading, listening, grammar, writing, and speaking skills. The
query to be answered is:
Is the IISD is liable for any violation if this
immersion book will be published?2

To answer the clients query, I propose to examine the

materials provided for by the client, and determine possible
copyright infringement in light of Habana v. Robles3, and relevant
provisions of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines.
1. Presently,
copyright
is
governed by Republic Act 8293
as known as the Intellectual
Property
Code
of
the
Philippines.
--------------------------------------------At present, all laws dealing with the protection of intellectual
property rights have been consolidated in the Intellectual Property
Code of the Philippines4 (IP Code). Under the IP Code, the author
1
2
3
4

Letter- inquiry dated April 7, 2016

Id.
G.R. No. 131522, July 19, 1999
Republic Act 8293
2

has the exclusive right to carry out, authorize or prevent

reproduction of a work or derivative works over his original work.
The doing of these acts without the permission of the author
constitutes copyright infringement; thus:
CHAPTER
RIGHTS

V.

COPYRIGHT

OR

ECONOMIC

Sec. 177. Copy or Economic Rights. Subject to the provisions of Chapter VIII,
copyright or economic rights shall consist of the
exclusive right to carry out, authorize or
prevent the following acts:
177.1. Reproduction of the work or substantial
portion of the work;
177.2
Dramatization,
translation,
adaptation, abridgment, arrangement or
other transformation of the work;

2. While the author has the

exclusive right over his work,
the law allows adaptation of a
previous work. However, for
this purpose, the authors
consent must be secured first.
--------------------------------------------A derivative work includes translation/adaptation of an
original work. This can only be done by securing a prior consent of
the author of the original work because it is included as one of the
economic rights under Section 177.2 Thus:

Sec. 173. Derivative Works. 3

173.1. The following derivative works shall also

be protected by copyright:
(a) Dramatizations, translations, adaptations,
abridgments,
arrangements,
and
other
alterations of literary or artistic works; and

3. Without the consent of the

original author and attribution
of his name in the subsequent
work, a person who exploits an
original
work
commits
copyright infringement.
-----------------------------------------------------

Copyright infringement is determined whether the whole or

even a large portion of the work shall have been copied;
intellectual piracy should be determined in conceptual terms. In
the leading case of Habana v. Robles5, the Supreme Court said:

In determining the question of infringement,

the amount of matter copied from the
copyrighted
work
is
an
important
consideration. To constitute infringement, it is
not necessary that the whole or even a large
portion of the work shall have been copied. If so
much is taken that the value of the original is
sensibly diminished, or the labors of the original
author are substantially and to an injurious
extent appropriated by another, that is sufficient
in point of law to constitute piracy.

5 G.R. No. 131522. July 19, 1999

4

The essence of intellectual piracy should be

essayed in conceptual terms in order to
underscore its gravity by an appropriate
understanding
thereof. Infringement
of
a
copyright is a trespass on a private domain
owned and occupied by the owner of the
copyright, and, therefore, protected by law, and
infringement of copyright, or piracy, which
is a synonymous term in this connection,
consists in the doing by any person,
without the consent of the owner of the
copyright, of anything the sole right to do
which is conferred by statute on the owner
of the copyright.

Aside from the requirement of prior consent from the original

author, there must be a proper attribution be indicated in the
prominent way on the copies. This forms part of the moral right of
an author under Section 193.1 of the IP Code; thus:

Sec. 193. Scope of Moral Rights. - The author of

a work shall, independently of the economic
rights in Section 177 or the grant of an
assignment or license with respect to such right,
have the right:
193.1. To require that the authorship of the
works be attributed to him, in particular, the
right that his name, as far as practicable, be
indicated in a prominent way on the copies, and
in connection with the public use of his work

Sec. 184.1 Limitations on copyright.-Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter V, the

5

following acts shall not constitute infringement of

copyright:

(e) The inclusion of a work in a publication,

broadcast, or other communication to the public,
sound recording of film, if such inclusion is made
by way of illustration for teaching purposes and
is compatible with fair use: Provided, That the
source and the name of the author, if
appearing in the work is mentioned

4. In determining copyright
infringement, comparison of
the
original
and
the
subsequent works must be
made.
----------------------------------------------------In the Habana v. Robles, the court mentioned that several
pages of the original book and the derivative book are similar. In
the decision of the Supreme Court, at least two (2) pages of the
books were cited to exemplify the similarity of the books. Thus:
A perusal of the records yields several pages
of the book DEP that are similar if not identical
with the text of CET.

On page 404 of petitioners Book 1 of College

English for Today, the authors wrote:

Items in dates and addresses:

He died on Monday, April 15, 1975.
6

Miss Reyes lives in 214 Taft Avenue,

Manila

On page 73 of respondents
Developing English Today, they wrote:

Book

He died on Monday, April 25, 1975.

Miss Reyes address is 214 Taft Avenue Manila

On Page 250 of CET, there is this example

on parallelism or repetition of sentence
structures, thus:

The proposition is peace. Not peace through the

medium of war; not peace to be hunted through
the
labyrinth
of
intricate
and
endless
negotiations; not peace to arise out of universal
discord, fomented from principle, in all parts of
the empire; not peace to depend on the juridical
determination of perplexing questions, or the
precise marking of the boundary of a complex
government. It is simple peace; sought in its
natural course, and in its ordinary haunts. It is
peace sought in the spirit of peace, and laid in
principles purely pacific.

--- Edmund Burke, Speech on Criticism.

On page 100 of the book DEP, also in the

topic of parallel structure and repetition, the
same example is found in toto. The only
difference is that petitioners acknowledged the
author Edmund Burke, and respondents did not.

In several other pages, the treatment and

manner of presentation of the topics of DEP are
similar if not a rehash of that contained in CET.

From the foregoing, the Court concludes:

We believe that respondent Robles act of
lifting from the book of petitioners substantial
portions of discussions and examples, and her
failure to acknowledge the same in her book is
an infringement of petitioners copyrights.

5. If the value of the

original work is sensibly
diminished, or the labors
of the original authors are
substantially appropriated
by another, the same
constitutes
copyright
infringement.
-------------------------------------There is no concrete line delineated by the Court in saying
whether the subsequent work would be legally acceptable under
the Fair Use Doctrine, or whether it would violate the exclusive
economic rights of an author under the law. Expressed in rather
an abstract standard, the Court has the following to say:

When is there a substantial reproduction of a

book? It does not necessarily require that
the entire copyrighted work, or even a
large portion of it, be copied. If so much is
taken that the value of the original work is
substantially diminished, there is an infringement
of copyright and to an injurious extent, the work
is appropriated.

In determining the question of infringement,

the amount of matter copied from the
copyrighted
work
is
an
important
consideration. To constitute infringement, it
is not necessary that the whole or even a
large portion of the work shall have been
copied. If so much is taken that the value of
the original is sensibly diminished, or the
labors
of
the
original
author
are
substantially and to an injurious extent
appropriated by another, that is sufficient
in point of law to constitute piracy.

6. There are four factors

considered leading to the
conclusion that there was
a copyright infringement.
------------------------------------------

While there was no mention of a specific standard, the

following factors were considered by the Court in the text of its
decision:
(1) apparent textual, thematic and sequential
similarity;
(2)
parallelism or repetition of sentence
structures;
(3) same examples; and
9

(4) similarity in the treatment and manner of

presentation
of the topics.

Conclusion
Applying the four (4) factors mentioned in Havana v. Robles6,
IBYs Immersion Manuals are substantially similar to Longman
Pearsons Exploring English Books in terms of the following (1)
textual, thematic and sequence; (2) parallelism or repetition of
sentence structures; (3) same examples employed; and (4)
similarity in the treatment and manner of presentation of the
topics.
Moreover, the title of the selections found in Pearsons What
a World 3: Amazing Stories from Around the Globe, are also found
in IBYs Listening Book, without the necessary attribution in the
name of their authors.
Attached hereto are the findings placed in a table form.

6 Id.
10