Professional Documents
Culture Documents
collect performing license fees for the performance of musical compositions, with
or without words, which are incorporated into the work; and
6 In respect of letters, the copyright shall belong to the writer subject to the
provisions of Article 723 of the Civil Code. (Sec. 6, P.D.
No. 49a)
Section 179. Anonymous and Pseudonymous Works. - For purposes of this Act, the
publishers shall be deemed to represent the authors of articles and other writings
published without the names of the authors or under pseudonyms, unless the
contrary appears, or the pseudonyms or adopted name leaves no doubt as to the
author's identity, or if the
author of the anonymous works discloses his identity. (Sec. 7, P.D. 49) Civil Code:
Art. 723.
Letters and other private communications in writing are owned by the person to
whom they are addressed and delivered, but they cannot be published or
disseminated without the consent of the writer or his heirs. However, the court may
authorize their publication or dissemination if the public good or the interest of justice
so requires. (n)
P16,000.00, because it has placed plaintiff's professional integrity and ethics under
serious question and caused him grave embarrassment before Ambassador Neri. He
further prayed for the additional sum of P3,000.00 by way of attorney's fee.
Issues
1 Whether plaintiff is entitled to protection, notwithstanding the, fact that he has
not copyrighted his design?
2 Whether the publication is limited, so as to prohibit its use by others, or it is
general publication?
3 Whether the provisions of the Civil Code or the Copyright Law should apply
in the case?
Law
Art. 721. By intellectual creation, the following persons acquire ownership:
(1) The author with regard to his literary, dramatic, historical, legal, philosophical,
scientific or other work; (2) The composer; as to his musical composition;
3
The painter, sculptor, or other artist, with respect to the product of his art;
4 The scientist or technologist or any other person with regard to his discovery
or invention. (n)
Art. 722. The author and the composer, mentioned in Nos. 1 and 2 of the preceding
article, shall have the ownership of their creations even before the publication of the
same. Once their works are published, their rights are governed by the Copyright
laws.
The painter, sculptor or other artist shall have dominion over the product of his art
even before it is copyrighted.
The scientist or technologist has the ownership of his discovery or invention even
before it is patented. (n)
Held
1st issue:
The Supreme Court found that plaintiff is not entitled to a protection, the provision of
the Civil Code, notwithstanding. 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 Act 165, provides, among others, that an
intellectual creation should be copyrighted thirty (30) days after its publication, if
made in Manila, or within sixty (60) day's if made elsewhere, failure of which renders
such creation public property. In the case at bar, even as of this moment, there is no
copyright for the design in question.
2nd issue:
We are not also prepared to accept the contention of appellant that the publication of
the design was a limited one, or that there was an understanding that only
Ambassador Neri should, have absolute right to use the same. In the first place, if
such were the condition then Ambassador Neri would be the aggrieved party, and not
the appellant. In the second place, if there was such a limited publication or
prohibition, the same was not shown on the face of the design. When the purpose is
a limited publication, but the effect is general publication, irrevocable rights thereupon
become vested in the public, in consequence of which enforcement of the restriction
becomes impossible (Nutt vs. National Institute, 31 F [2d] 236). It has been held that
the effect of offering for sale a dress, for example manufactured in accordance with
an original design which is not protected by either a copyright or a patent, is to divest
the owner of his common law rights therein by virtue of the publication of a 'copy' and
thereafter anyone is free to copy the design or the dress (Fashion Originators Guild
of America v. Federal Trade Commission, 114 F [2d] 80). When Ambassador Neri
distributed 800 copies of the design in controversy, the plaintiff lost control of his
design and the necessary implication was that there had been a general publication,
there having been no showing of a clear indication that a limited publication was
intended. The author of a literary composition has a light to the first publication
thereof. He has a right to determine whether it shall be published at all, and if
published, when, where, by whom, and in what form. This exclusive right is confined
to the first publication. When once published, it is dedicated to the public, and the
author loses the exclusive right to control subsequent publication by others, unless
the work is placed under the protection of the copyright law. (See II Tolentino's
Comments on the Civil Code, p. 433, citing
Wright v. Eisle 83 N.Y. Supp. 887.)
3rd issue:
Art. 722. The author and the composer, mentioned in Nos. 1 and 2 of the preceding
article, shall have the ownership of their creations even before the publication of the
same. Once their works are published, their rights are governed by the Copyright
laws.
The painter, sculptor or other artist shall have dominion over the product of his art
even before it is copyrighted.
The scientist or technologist has the ownership of his discovery or invention even
before it is patented. (n)
1 it was never his intention to divest himself of all his rights and interest over
the musical compositions in question;
2 the contracts he entered into with Bayanihan are mere music publication
agreements giving Bayanihan, as assignee, the power to administer his
copyright over his two songs and to act as the exclusive publisher thereof;
3 he was not cognizant of the application made by and the subsequent grant of
copyrights to Bayanihan;
4 Bayanihan was remissed in its obligations under the contracts because it
failed to effectively advertise his musical compositions for almost twenty (20)
years, hence, he caused the rescission of said contracts in 1997.
Issues
Whether or not Bayanihan as assignee of the copyrights over the musical
compositions in question has a clear legal right to a writ of preliminary injunction?
Held
No, Bayanihan has no right for right for injunction over the subject musical
compositions.
The issuance of an injunctive writ if the following requisites provided for by law are:
1 there must be a right in esse or the existence of a right to be protected;
2 the act against which the injunction is to be directed is a violation of such
right, the trial court threaded the correct path in denying petitioner's prayer
therefor.
Chan, the composer and author of the lyrics of the two (2) songs, is protected by the
mere fact alone that he is the creator thereof, conformably with Republic Act No.
8293, otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code, Section 172.2 of which
reads:
172.2. Works are protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their
mode or form of expression, as well as of their content, quality and purpose.
The copyrights obtained by Bayanihan on the basis of the selfsame two (2) contracts,
suffice it to say 'that such purported copyrights are not presumed to subsist in
accordance with Section 218[a] and [b], of the Intellectual Property Code, because
respondent Chan had put in issue the existence thereof.
2nd issue:
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 Act 165, 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." (Santos v. McCullough Printing Company, 12 SCRA
324-325 [1964]. 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.
A careful study of the records reveals that the song "Dahil Sa Iyo" which was
registered on April 20, 1956 (Brief for Appellant, p. 10) became popular in radios, juke
boxes, etc. long before registration (TSN, May 28, 1968, pp. 3-5; 25) while the song
"The Nearness Of You" registered on January 14, 1955 (Brief for Appellant, p. 10)
had become popular twenty five (25) years prior to 1968, (the year of the hearing) or
from 1943 (TSN, May 28, 1968, p. 27) and the songs "Sapagkat Ikaw Ay Akin" and
"Sapagkat Kami Ay Tao Lamang" both registered on July 10, 1966, appear to have
been known and sang by the witnesses as early as 1965 or three years before the
hearing in 1968. The testimonies of the witnesses at the hearing of this case on this
subject were unrebutted by the appellant. (Ibid, pp. 28; 29 and 30).
Manly Sportswear Manufacturing v. Dadodette Enterprises and/or Hermes
Sports Center
G.R. No. 165306
FACTS: Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
(NBI applied for a search warrant before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Quezon City, based on the information that Dadodette Enterprises and/or
Hermes Sports Center were in possession of copyrighted goods of Manly
Sportswear Mfg., Inc. (MANLY).
On March 17, 2003, RTC issued a search warrant against Dadodette
Enterprises and/or Hermes Sports Center after finding reasonable grounds that
respondents violated Sections 172 and 217 of Republic Act (RA) No. 8293
Respondents moved to quash the search warrant claiming that the sporting
goods are ordinary hence, not among the classes protected under Sec. 172 of
RA 8293.
Trial court granted the motion to quash based on its finding that the
copyrighted products of MANLY do not appear to be original creations and were
being manufactured and distributed by different companies locally and abroad
under various brands.
MANLY filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. MANLY filed a
petition for review of certiorari in the Court of Appeals but was also denied.
ISSUE:
Whether the CA erred in finding that the trial court did not gravely
abuse its discretion in declaring in the hearing for the quashal of the search
warrant that the copyrighted products of MANLY are not original creations
subject to the protection of RA 8293.
HELD:
The power to issue search warrants comes with the power to quash the same if
it finds upon reevaluation of evidence that no probable cause exists.
Upon trial courts reevaluation, products do not appear to be original
creations of MANLY and are not among the classes of work enumerated under
Section 172 of RA 8293.
The trial court properly quashed the search warrant it earlier issued after
finding upon reevaluation of the evidence that no probable cause exists to justify
its issuance in the first place. As ruled by the trial court, the copyrighted
products do not appear to be original creations of MANLY and are not among the
classes of work enumerated under Section 172 of RA 8293
Further, the copyright certificates by MANLY constitute merely prima
facie evidence of validity and ownership.
However, when other evidence exist that may cast doubt on the
copyright validity, the presumption will not exist. Hence, where there is sufficient
proof that the copyrighted products are not original creations but are readily
available in the market under various brands, the presumption will not arise and
the trial court may properly quash the issued warrant for lack of probable cause.
On August 1, 1994, Unilever filed a Complaint with the Advertising Board of the
Philippines to prevent P&GP from airing the "Kite" television advertisement.
On July 15, 1994, P&GP aired in the Philippines, the same "Kite" television
advertisement it used in Italy in 1986, merely dubbing the Italian language with
Filipino for the same produce "Ace" bleaching liquid which P&GPnow markets in
the Philippines.
On September 19, 1994, P&GP received a copy of the order dated September
16, 1994 ordering the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and fixing a
bond of P100,000. On the same date, P&GP filed the required bond issued by
Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. Petitioner appealed to the CA. the CA
rendered its decision finding that Judge Gorospe did not act with grave abuse of
discretion in issuing the disputed order. The petition for certiorari was thus
dismissed for lack of merit.
HELD: After a careful perusal of the records, we agree with the CA and affirm its
decision in toto:
Petitioner does not deny that the questioned TV advertisements are substantially
similar to P&GPs "double tug" or "tac-tac" key visual. However, it submits that
P&GP is not entitled to the relief demanded, which is to enjoin petitioner from
airing said TV advertisements, for the reason that petitioner has Certificates of
Copyright Registration for which advertisements while P&GP has none with
respect to its "double-tug" or "tac-tac" key visual. In other words, it is petitioners
contention that P&GP is not entitled to any protection because it has not
registered with the National Library the very TV commercials which it claims
have been infringed by petitioner.
Limitations of Copyright
(a) Limitations On Copyright
Sec. 184
CHAPTER VIII
LIMITATIONS ON COPYRIGHT
Section 184. 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)
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.
(b) Fair Use of Work
Sec. 185
Section 185. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work. - 185.1. 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
interoperability 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 include:
a The 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.
Case: PHILIPPINE EDUCATION COMPANY, INC. v. VICENTE SOTTO and
V.R. ALINDADA (52 Phil. 580)
Date: January 29, 1929
Ponente: J. Johns
Facts:
Ratio:
The present case calls for the interpretation of Section 5 of Act 3134 i.e.
An Act to Protect Intellectual Property which is known as the Copyright Law of
the Philippine Islands.
Analyzing the language used, such news items, editorial paragraphs and
articles in periodicals may be reproduced unless they contain a notice that their
publication is reserved or unless they contain a notice of copyright. In either
event, the law specifically provides that the source of the reproduction or original
reproduced shall be cited. To give the Section another construction would be to
nullify, eliminate and take from the paragraph the works they contain a notice
that their publication is reserved. The words are plain and clear, it should be
applied.
In the case at bar, PECI did not give notice of its copyright for the simple
reason that it did not have one but it did notify Sotto and Alindada that in the
publication of the article we reserved all right, which was legally equivalent to a
notice of copyright. Furthermore, the latter would have had the legal right to
publish the article by giving the source of the reproduction to which it failed to.
If it had been the purpose of and intent of the Legislature to limit the
reproduction of news items, editorial paragraphs and articles in periodicals to
those which have a notice of copyright only, it never would have said if they
contain a notice that their publication is reserved.
Facts
PMSI Argument
Broadcasting Channels 1 & 23 is subject to the must-carry rule under Memorandum
Circular No. 04-08-88.
Issues
1 Whether or not PMSIs unauthorized rebroadcasting of Channels 2 and 23 is
an infringement of its broadcasting rights and copyright under the Intellectual
Property Code?
2 Whether or not Memorandum Circular No. 04-08-88 excludes DTH satellite
television operators?
Held
PMSI did not infringe on ABS-CBNs intellectual property rights under the IP Code.
Section 202.7 of the IP Code defines broadcasting as the transmission by wireless
means for the public reception of sounds or of images or of representations thereof;
such transmission by satellite is also broadcasting where the means for decrypting
are provided to the public by the broadcasting organization or with its consent.
On the other hand, rebroadcasting as defined in Article 3(g) of the International
Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and
Broadcasting Organizations, otherwise known as the 1961 Rome Convention, of
which the Republic of the Philippines is a signatory, is the simultaneous broadcasting
by one broadcasting organization of the broadcast of another broadcasting
organization. PMSI would not qualify as a broadcasting organization because it
does not have the aforementioned responsibilities imposed upon broadcasting
organizations, such as ABS-CBN.
ABS-CBN creates and transmits its own signals; PMSI merely carries such signals
which the viewers receive in its unaltered form. PMSI does not produce, select, or
determine the programs to be shown in Channels 2 and 23. Likewise, it does not
pass itself off as the origin or author of such programs. Insofar as Channels 2 and 23
are concerned, PMSI merely retransmits the same in accordance with Memorandum
Circular 04-08-88. With regard to its premium channels, it buys the channels from
content providers and transmits on an as-is basis to its viewers. Clearly, PMSI does
not perform the functions of a broadcasting organization; thus, it cannot be said that it
is engaged in rebroadcasting Channels 2 and 23.
The retransmission of ABS-CBNs signals by PMSI which functions essentially
as a cable television does not therefore constitute rebroadcasting in violation of
the formers intellectual property rights under the IP Code.
CHAPTER IX
safeguards and regulations as may be necessary to implement this Section and other
provisions of this Act. (Sec. 61, P.D. No. 49)
Section 229. Copyright Division; Fees. - The Copyright Section of the National Library
shall be classified as a Division upon the effectivity of this Act. The National Library
shall have the power to collect, for the discharge of its services under this Act, such
fees as may be promulgated by it from time to time subject to the approval of the
Department Head.
(Sec. 62, P.D. 49a)
-It uses, the trademark "CHARLIE BROWN" & "DEVICE" on children's wear such
as T-shirts, undershirts, sweaters, brief and sandos, in class 25; whereas
"CHARLIE BROWN" is used only by petitioner as character, in a pictorial
illustration used in a comic strip appearing in newspapers and magazines. It has
no trademark significance and therefore respondent-registrant's use of
"CHARLIE BROWN" & "DEVICE" is not in conflict with the petitioner's use of
"CHARLIE BROWN"
-Relied on the ruling on October 2, 1984 in which the Director of the Philippine
Patent Office rendered a decision in this case holding that a copyright
registration like that of the name and likeness of CHARLIE BROWN may not
provide a cause of action for the cancellation of a trademark registration.
Issue: WHETHER THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION WHEN BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL TO IT FROM THE
DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, IT KNOWINGLY
DISREGARDED ITS OWN DECISION IN AC-GR. SP. NO. 0342, WHICH WAS
AFFIRMED BY THIS HONORABLE SUPREME COURT TO THE EFFECT THAT
A COPYRIGHTED CHARACTER MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATED AS A
TRADEMARK BY ANOTHER UNDER PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 49.
S.C. Ruling:
The petitioner is impressed with merit.
Since the name "CHARLIE BROWN" and its pictorial representation were
covered by a copyright registration way back in 1950 the same are entitled to
protection under PD No. 49, otherwise known as the "Decree on Intellectual
Property".
Aside from its copyright registration, petitioner is also the owner of several
trademark registrations and application for the name and likeness of "CHARLIE
BROWN" which is the duly registered trademark and copyright of petitioner
United Feature Syndicate Inc. as early as 1957 and additionally also as TV
SPECIALS featuring the "PEANUTS" characters "CHARLIE BROWN.
It is undeniable from the records that petitioner is the actual owner of said
trademark due to its prior registration with the Patent's Office.
Columbia Pictures, Inc., et.al. v. Court of Appeals, et.al., G.R. No. 110318,
August 28, 1996 (En Banc)
Columbia Pictures vs. CA, 261 SCRA 144 (1996)
Facts
Columbia Pictures lodged a formal complaint with the National Bureau of
Investigation for violation of PD No. 49, as amended, and sought its assistance in
their anti-film piracy drive. Agents of the NBI and private researchers made discreet
surveillance on various video establishments in Metro Manila including Sunshine
Home Video Inc. owned and operated by Danilo A. Pelindario.
On November 14, 1987, NBI Senior Agent Lauro C. Reyes applied for a search
warrant with the court a quo against Sunshine seeking the seizure, among others, of
pirated video tapes of copyrighted films all of which were enumerated in a list
attached to the application; and, television sets, video cassettes and/or laser disc
recordings equipment and other machines and paraphernalia used or intended to be
used in the unlawful exhibition, showing, reproduction, sale, lease or disposition of
videograms tapes in the premises above described. In the hearing of the application,
NBI Senior Agent Lauro C. Reyes, upon questions by the court a quo, reiterated in
substance his averments in his affidavit. His testimony was corroborated by another
witness, Mr. Rene C. Baltazar. Atty. Rico V. Domingos deposition was also taken.
On the basis of the affidavits and depositions of NBI Senior Agent Lauro C. Reyes,
Rene C. Baltazar and Atty. Rico V. Domingo, Search Warrant No 87-053 for violation
of Section 56 of PD No. 49, as amended, was issued by the court a quo.
NBI Agents found and seized various video tapes of duly copyrighted motion
pictures/films owned or exclusively distributed by private complainants, and
machines, equipment, television sets, paraphernalia, materials, accessories all of
which were included in the receipt for properties accomplished by the raiding team.
Copy of the receipt was furnished and/or tendered to Mr. Danilo A. Pelindario,
registered owner-proprietor of Sunshine Home Video.
Issues
Whether or not absence such registration, as in this case, there was no right
created, hence, no infringement under PD 49 as amended?
Held
As correctly pointed out by private complainants-oppositors, the Department of
Justice has resolved this legal question as far back as December 12, 1978 in its
Opinion No. 191 of the then Secretary of Justice Vicente Abad Santos which stated
that Sections 26 and 50 do not apply to cinematographic works and PD No. 49 had
done away with the registration and deposit of cinematographic works and that
even without prior registration and deposit of a work which may be entitled to
protection under the Decree, the creator can file action for infringement of its rights.
He cannot demand, however, payment of damages arising from infringement. The
same opinion stressed that the requirements of registration and deposit are thus
retained under the Decree, not as conditions for the acquisition of copyright and other
rights, but as prerequisites to a suit for damages. The statutory interpretation of the
Executive Branch being correct, is entitled (to) weight and respect.
Furthermore, a closer review of Presidential Decree No. 49 reveals that even with
respect to works which are required under Section 26 thereof to be registered and
with copies to be deposited with the National Library, such as books, including
composite and cyclopedic works, manuscripts, directories and gazetteers; and
periodicals, including pamphlets and newspapers; lectures, sermons, addresses,
dissertations prepared for oral delivery; and letters, the failure to comply with said
requirements does not deprive the copyright owner of the right to sue for
infringement. Such non-compliance merely limits the remedies available to him and
subjects him to the corresponding sanction.
The reason for this is expressed in Section 2 of the decree which prefaces its
enumeration of copyrightable works with the explicit statement that the rights
granted under this Decree shall, from the moment of creation, subsist with respect to
any of the following classes of works. This means that under the present state of the
law, the copyright for a work is acquired by an intellectual creator from the moment of
creation even in the absence of registration and deposit. As has been authoritatively
clarified:
The registration and deposit of two complete copies or reproductions of the work with
the National Library within three weeks after the first public dissemination or
performance of the work, as provided for in Section 26 (P.D. No. 49, as amended), is
not for the purpose of securing a copyright of the work, but rather to avoid the penalty
for non-compliance of the deposit of said two copies and in order to recover damages
in an infringement suit.