COPYRIGHT

DAY 8
-

Copyright Definition
Copyright is a legal right created by the law of a country
that grants the creator of an original work exclusive rights
for its use and distribution. This is usually only for a
limited time. The exclusive rights are not absolute but
limited by limitations and exceptions to copyright law,
including fair use
Legislative History
Spanish Intellectual Property Law of 1879
US Copyright Law of 1909
Proposed Copyright Act of 1995
Intellectual Property Code of 1997 (Influenced by Phils.
joining TRIPS)
Its Amendments

Purpose
Feist Publication vs. Rural Telephone
Background: Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc. is a
telephone cooperative providing services for areas in northwest
Kansas, with headquarters in the small town of Lenora, in Norton
County. The company was under a statutory obligation to compile
a phone directory of all their customers free of charge as a
condition of their monopoly franchise.
Feist Publications, Inc. specialized in compiling telephone
directories from larger geographic areas than Rural from other
areas of Kansas. They had licensed the directory of 11 other local
directories, with Rural being the only hold-out in the region.
Despite Rural's denial of a license to Feist, Feist copied some 4000
entries from Rural's directory. Because Rural had placed a small
number of phony entries to detect copying, Feist was caught.

Prior to this case, the substance of copyright in United States law

followed the sweat of the brow doctrine, which gave copyright to
anyone who invested significant amount of time and energy into
their work. At trial and appeal level the courts followed this
doctrine, siding with Rural.
Ruling of the Court: The ruling of the Court was written by Justice
O'Connor. It examined the purpose of copyright and explained the
standard of copyrightability as based on originality.
The case centered on two well-established principles in United
States copyright law: That facts are not copyrightable, but that
compilations of facts can be.
"There is an undeniable tension between these two propositions,"
O'Connor wrote in her decision. "Many compilations consist of
nothing but raw data -- i.e. wholly factual information not
accompanied by any original expression. On what basis may one
claim a copyright upon such work? Common sense tells us that
100 uncopyrightable facts do not magically change their status
when gathered together in one place. The key to resolving the
tension lies in understanding why facts are not copyrightable: The
sine qua non of copyright is originality."
Rural claimed a collection copyright in its directory. The court
clarified that the intent of copyright law was not, as claimed by
Rural and some lower courts, to reward the efforts of persons
collecting information the so-called "sweat of the brow" or
"industrious collection" doctrine but rather "to promote the
Progress of Science and useful Arts" (U.S. Const. 1.8.8). That is,
to encourage creative expression.
The standard for creativity is extremely low. It need not be novel,
rather it only needs to possess a "spark" or "minimal degree" of
creativity to be protected by copyright.

In regard to collections of facts, O'Connor stated that copyright can

only apply to the creative aspects of collection: the creative
choice of what data to include or exclude, the order and style in
which the information is presented, etc., but not on the
information itself. If Feist were to take the directory and rearrange
it, it would destroy the copyright owned in the data.
"Notwithstanding a valid copyright, a subsequent compiler remains
free to use the facts contained in another's publication to aid in
preparing a competing work, so long as the competing work does
not feature the same selection and arrangement," O'Connor wrote.
The court ruled that Rural's directory was nothing more than an
alphabetic list of all subscribers to its service, which it was
required to compile under law, and that no creative expression was
involved. The fact that Rural spent considerable time and money
collecting the data was irrelevant to copyright law, and Rural's
copyright claim was dismissed.
Ching vs. Salinas
CHINGVS SALINASG.R. No. 161295 June 29, 2005
FACTS:
Jessie G. Ching 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. On September 4, 2001, Ching and Joseph Yu
were issued by the National Library Certificates of Copyright
Registration and Deposit of the said work described therein as "Leaf Spring
Eye Bushing for Automobile."
After due investigation, the NBI filed applications for search warrants in the
RTCof Manila against William Salinas, Sr. and the officers and
members of the Board of Directors of Wilaware Product Corporation. It

was alleged that the respondents therein reproduced and distributed the said
models penalized under Sections 177.1 and 177.3of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
8293. The respondents averred 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.
Moreover, according to the petitioner, what the Copyright Law
protects is the authors intellectual creation, regardless of
whether it is one with utilitarian functions or incorporated in a
useful article produced on an industrial scale.
The petitioner also maintains that the law does not provide that the
intended use or use in industry of an article eligible for patent bars
or invalidates its registration under the Law on Copyright. The test
of protection for the aesthetic is not beauty and utility, but art for
the copyright and invention of original and ornamental design for
design patents. In like manner, the fact that his utility designs or
models for articles of manufacture have been expressed in the field
of automotive parts, or based on something already in the public
domain does not automatically remove them from the protection of
the Law on Copyright.
ISSUE:
WON the Leaf Spring Eye Bushing for Automobile is a work of art
HELD:
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.
RATIORECIDENDI:
It bears stressing that the focus of copyright is the usefulness of the
artistic design, and not its marketability. The central inquiry is
whether the article is a work of art. Works for applied art include
all original pictorials, graphics, and sculptural works that are
intended to be or have been embodied in useful article regardless

of factors such as mass production, commercial exploitation, and

the potential availability of design patent protection.
As gleaned from the description of the models and their objectives,
these articles are useful articles which are defined as one having an
intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the
appearance of the article or to convey information. Indeed, while
works of applied art, original intellectual, literary and artistic
works are copyrightable, useful articles and works of industrial
design are not.[35] A useful article may be copyrightable only if
and only to the extent that such design incorporates pictorial,
graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately
from, and are capable of existing independently of the utilitarian
aspects of the article.
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.[36]
Functional components of useful articles, no matter how
artistically designed, have generally been denied copyright
protection unless they are separable from the useful article.[37]
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.

Scope of Application of Protection

Section 221. Points of Attachment for Works under Sections 172
and 173. - 221.1. The protection afforded by this Act to
copyrightable works under Sections 172 and 173 shall apply to:
(a) Works of authors who are nationals of, or have
their habitual residence in, the Philippines;
(b) Audio-visual works the producer of which has
his headquarters or habitual residence in the
Philippines;
(c) Works of architecture erected in the Philippines
or other artistic works incorporated in a building or
other structure located in the Philippines;
(d) Works first published in the Philippines; and
(e) Works first published in another country but also
published in the Philippines within thirty days,
irrespective of the nationality or residence of the
authors.
221.2. The provisions of this Act shall also apply to works that are
to be protected by virtue of and in accordance with any
international convention or other international agreement to which
the Philippines is a party. (n)
Section 222. Points of Attachment for Performers. - The provisions
of this Act on the protection of performers shall apply to:
222.1. Performers who are nationals of the Philippines;
222.2. Performers who are not nationals of the Philippines but
whose performances:

(a) Take place in the Philippines; or

Ownership

(b) Are incorporated in sound recordings that are

protected under this Act; or

Section 178. Rules on Copyright Ownership. - Copyright

ownership shall be governed by the following rules:

(c) Which has not been fixed in sound recording but

are carried by broadcast qualifying for protection
under this Act. (n)

178.1 Subject to the provisions of this section, in the case of

original literary and artistic works, copyright shall belong to the
author of the work;

Section 223. Points of Attachment for Sound Recordings. - The

provisions of this Act on the protection of sound recordings shall
apply to:

178.2. In the case of works of joint authorship, the co-authors shall

be the original owners of the copyright and in the absence of
agreement, their rights shall be governed by the rules on coownership. If, however, a work of joint authorship consists of parts
that can be used separately and the author of each part can be
identified, the author of each part shall be the original owner of the
copyright in the part that he has created;

223.1. Sound recordings the producers of which are nationals of

the Philippines; and
223.2. Sound recordings that were first published in the
Philippines. (n)
Section 224. Points of Attachment for Broadcasts. - 224.1. The
provisions of this Act on the protection of broadcasts shall apply
to:
(a) Broadcasts of broadcasting organizations the
headquarters of which are situated in the
Philippines; and
(b) Broadcasts transmitted
situated in the Philippines.

from

transmitters

224.2. The provisions of this Act shall also apply to performers

who, and to producers of sound recordings and broadcasting
organizations which, are to be protected by virtue of and in
accordance with any international convention or other international
agreement to which the Philippines is a party. (n)

178.3. 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.
(b) The employer, if the work is the result of the performance of
his regularly-assigned duties, unless there is an agreement, express
or implied, to the contrary.
178.4. In the case of a work commissioned by a person other than
an employer of the author and who pays for it and the work is
made in pursuance of the commission, the person who so
commissioned the work shall have ownership of the work, but the
copyright thereto shall remain with the creator, unless there is a
written stipulation to the contrary;

178.5. In the case of audiovisual work, the copyright shall belong

to the producer, the author of the scenario, the composer of the
music, the film director, and the author of the work so adapted.
However, subject to contrary or other stipulations among the
creators, the producer shall exercise the copyright to an extent
required for the exhibition of the work in any manner, except for
the right to collect performing license fees for the performance of
musical compositions, with or without words, which are
incorporated into the work; and
178.6. 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)
CHAPTER VII
TRANSFER OR ASSIGNMENT OF COPYRIGHT
Section 180. Rights of Assignee. - 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.
180.3. The submission of a literary, photographic or artistic work
to a newspaper, magazine or periodical for publication shall
constitute only a license to make a single publication unless a

greater right is expressly granted. If two (2) or more persons jointly

own a copyright or any part thereof, neither of the owners shall be
entitled to grant licenses without the prior written consent of the
other owner or owners. (Sec. 15, P.D. No. 49a)
a. Definition: Author
171.1. "Author" is the natural person who has created the work;
b. Created pursuant to an employment agreement
i.
Employee
ii.
Employer
c. Created pursuant to commissioned work
d. Letter
e. Assignee, successors-in-interest
f. Joint owner, co-authors
(See Provisions above)
Term of Protection
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. (Sec. 2, P.D. No. 49a)
Section 213. Term of Protection. - 213.1. Subject to the provisions
of Subsections 213.2 to 213.5, the copyright in works under
Sections 172 and 173 shall be protected during the life of the
author and for fifty (50) years after his death. This rule also applies
to posthumous works. (Sec. 21, first sentence, P.D. No. 49a)
213.2. In case of works of joint authorship, the economic rights
shall be protected during the life of the last surviving author and
for fifty (50) years after his death. (Sec. 21, second sentence, P.D.
No. 49)

213.3. In case of anonymous or pseudonymous works, the

copyright shall be protected for fifty (50) years from the date on
which the work was first lawfully published: Provided, That
where, before the expiration of the said period, the author's identity
is revealed or is no longer in doubt, the provisions of Subsections
213.1. and 213.2 shall apply, as the case may be: Provided, further,
That such works if not published before shall be protected for fifty
(50) years counted from the making of the work. (Sec. 23, P.D. No.
49)

Section 172. Literary and Artistic Works. - 172.1. Literary

and artistic works, hereinafter referred to as "works", are
original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic
domain protected from the moment of their creation and
shall include in particular:

213.4. In case of works of applied art the protection shall be for a

period of twenty-five (25) years from the date of making. (Sec.
24(B), P.D. No. 49a)

(c)
Lectures, sermons, addresses, dissertations prepared
for oral delivery, whether or not reduced in writing or other
material form;

213.5. In case of photographic works, the protection shall be for

fifty (50) years from publication of the work and, if unpublished,
fifty (50) years from the making. (Sec. 24(C), P.D. 49a)

(d)

213.6. In case of audio-visual works including those produced by

process analogous to photography or any process for making
audio-visual recordings, the term shall be fifty (50) years from date
of publication and, if unpublished, from the date of making. (Sec.
24(C), P.D. No. 49a)
Section 214. Calculation of Term. - The term of protection
subsequent to the death of the author provided in the preceding
Section shall run from the date of his death or of publication, but
such terms shall always be deemed to begin on the first day of
January of the year following the event which gave rise to them.
(Sec. 25, P.D. No. 49)

Scope of Protection
a. Literary and Artistic Works

(a)

Books, pamphlets, articles and other writings;

(b)

Periodicals and newspapers;

Letters;

(e)
Dramatic or dramatico-musical compositions;
choreographic works or entertainment in dumb shows;
(f)

Musical compositions, with or without words;

(g)
Works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture,
engraving, lithography or other works of art; models or
designs for works of art;
(h)
Original ornamental designs or models for articles
of manufacture, whether or not registrable as an industrial
design, and other works of applied art;
(i)
Illustrations, maps, plans, sketches, charts and
three-dimensional works relative to geography, topography,
architecture or science;
(j)
Drawings or plastic works of a scientific or
technical character;

(k)
Photographic works including works produced by a
process analogous to photography; lantern slides;
(l)
Audiovisual works and cinematographic works and
works produced by a process analogous to cinematography
or any process for making audio-visual recordings;
(m)

Pictorial illustrations and advertisements;

(n)

Computer programs; and

(o)
Other literary, scholarly, scientific and artistic
works.
b. Derivative Works
(See Feist Publication v. Rural Telephone)
Section 173. Derivative Works.
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
(b) Collections of literary, scholarly or artistic works, and
compilations of data and other materials which are original
by reason of the selection or coordination or arrangement
of their contents. (Sec. 2, [P] and [Q], P.D. No. 49)
173.2. 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)
Not Protected
a. Non-Copyrightable Works
Joaquin Jr. vs. Drilon
BJ Productions Inc. (BJPI) was the holder of copyright over the
show Rhoda and Me. It holds rights over the shows format and
style of presentation. In 1991, BJPIs president Francisco Joaquin
saw on TV RPN 9s show Its a Date, which is basically the same
as Rhoda and Me. He eventually sued Gabriel Zosa, the manager
of the show Its a Date. Zosa later sought a review of the
prosecutors resolution before the Secretary of Justice (Franklin
Drilon). Drilon reversed the findings of the fiscal and directed him
to dismiss the case against Zosa.
ISSUE: Whether or not the decision of Drilon is valid.
HELD: Yes. The essence of copyright infringement is the copying,
in whole or in part, of copyrightable materials as defined and
enumerated in Section 2 of PD. No. 49 (Copyright Law). Apart
from the manner in which it is actually expressed, however, the
idea of a dating game show is a non-copyrightable material. Ideas,
concepts, formats, or schemes in their abstract form clearly do
not fall within the class of works or materials susceptible of
copyright registration as provided in PD. No. 49. What is

covered by BJPIs copyright is the specific episodes of the show

DAY 9

Rhoda and Me.

Criteria for Protection

Further, BJPI should have presented the master videotape of the

See Feist Publication vs. Rural Telephone

show in order to show the linkage between the copyright show

(Rhoda and Me) and the infringing show (Its a Date). This is

Sambar vs. Levi Srauss

th

based on the ruling in 20 Century Fox vs CA (though this has

Though BJPI did provide a lot of written evidence and description

VENANCIO SAMBAR, doing business under the name and style

of CVS Garment Enterprises vs. LEVI STRAUSS & CO., LEVI
STRAUSS (PHIL.), INC.

to show the linkage between the shows, the same were not enough.

FACTS:

been qualified by Columbia Pictures vs CA, this is still good law).

A television show includes more than mere words can describe

because it involves a whole spectrum of visuals and effects, video
and audio, such that no similarity or dissimilarity may be found by
merely describing the general copyright/format of both dating
game shows.
b. Works of Government
171.11.A "work of the Government of the Philippines" is a
work created by an officer or employee of the Philippine
Government or any of its subdivisions and
instrumentalities,
including
government-owned
or
controlled corporations as a part of his regularly prescribed
official duties.

Private respondents alleged in their complaint that Levi Strauss

and Co. (LS&Co.), an internationally known clothing
manufacturer, own the arcuate design trademark which was
registered under US Trademark Registration No. 404,248 on
November 16, 1943. That sometime in 1987, CVSGIC and
Venancio Sambar, without the consent and authority of private
respondents and in infringement and unfair competition, sold and
advertised, and despite demands to cease and desist, continued to
manufacture, sell and advertise denim, pants under the brand name
Europress with back pockets bearing a design similar to the
arcuate trademark of private respondents, thereby causing
confusion on the buying public, prejudiced to private respondents
goodwill
and
property
right.
Sambar filed a separate answer. He admitted that copyright
Registration No. 1-1998 was issued to him, but he denied using it.
He said he did not authorize anyone to use the copyrighted design.
Trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining
CVSGIC and petitioner from manufacturing, advertising and
selling pants with the arcuate design on their back pockets.

Private respondents moved for reconsideration praying for the

cancellation
of
petitioners
copyright
registration.
Trial

court

granted

the

o Cascade argued that Brandir could not copyright the

bike racks because they weren't works of art, they
were utilitarian, and utilitarian items (aka useful
articles) are not copyrightable.

prayer.

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the

ruling
of
the
trial
court.
ISSUE:
Whether petitioner infringe on private respondents arcuate design.
HELD:
To be entitled to a copyright, the thing being copyrighted must be
original, created by the author through his own skill, labor and
judgment, without directly copying or evasively imitating the
work
of
another.
Both the trail court and the Court of Appeals found there was
infringement.
Denicola Test:
functionality)

Conceptual

Separability

(aesthetics

vs.

Brandir Intl vs. Cascade Pacific

Brandir designed a sleek new metal bike rack (Ribbon

Rack) for people to lock their bikes to.
o The racks were featured in design magazines and
won an award from the Industrial Designers
Society.

Cascade began copying the bike racks. Brandir sued for

copyright infringement.

The Trial Court found for Cascade. Brandir appealed.

The Appellate Court affirmed.

o The Appellate Court looked to 17 U.S.C. 101 and
found that works with utilitarian features are only
copyrightable to thee extent that the design features
"can be identified separately from, and are capable
of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects
of the article."

This separablity can be either physical or

conceptual.

o The Court interpreted 101 to mean that, "if design

elements reflect a merger of aesthetic and functional
considerations, the artist aspects of a work cannot
be said to be conceptually separable from the
utilitarian elements. Conversely, where design
elements can be identified as reflecting the
designer's artistic judgment exercised independently
of functional influences, conceptual separability
exists."

Basically, the courts must look at the

features of a work and decide if the creator

chose those features for design reasons or

aesthetic reasons.

That's a very subjective standard.

o The Court looked at the features of the bike rack

and found that the form of the bike rack was
significantly influenced by utilitarian concerns and
not aesthetic concerns. Therefore there was no
conceptual separability.
o Works of art" classification of Copyright Act of
1909 was replaced by reference to "pictorial,
graphic, and sculptural works" in the Copyright Act
of 1976, to supply a clear line between
copyrightable works of applied art and uncopyrighted works of industrial design. Statutory
def. of "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works": if
the design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or
sculptural features that can be identified separately
from utilitarian aspects of the article. Conceptual
separability: the design of a useful article is not
essential for the usefulness of the article. Best Test
for conceptual separability: Denicola test: should
"depend on the extent to which the work reflects
artistic expression uninhibited by functional
considerations"
o Dissent: 1) Denicola test diminishes conceptual
separability to its vanishing point 2) Their focus on
process or sequence followed by the designer makes
copyright protection depend upon largely fortuitous
circumstances concerning the design creation.
Conceptual separability: the article must stimulate
in the mind of the beholder a concept that is
separate from the concept evoked by its utilitarian

function the onlooker must perceive an aesthetic

concept unrelated to the articles use.
Copyright Dichotomies
Idea/Expression
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.
Section 175. Unprotected Subject Matter. - Notwithstanding the
provisions of Sections 172 and 173, no protection shall extend,
under this law, to any idea, procedure, system, method or
operation, concept, principle, discovery or mere data as such, even
if they are expressed, explained, illustrated or embodied in a work;
news of the day and other miscellaneous facts having the character
of mere items of press information; or any official text of a
legislative, administrative or legal nature, as well as any official
translation thereof (n)
See Feist vs. Rural Telephone
Object/Content
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)
KINDS OF AUTHORS RIGHTS
a. Economic Rights

SECTION 177. Copyright 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; aisadc
177.3. The first public distribution of the original and each copy of
the work by sale or other forms of transfer of ownership;
177.4. Rental of the original or a copy of an audiovisual or
cinematographic work, a work embodied in a sound recording, a
computer program, a compilation of data and other materials or a
musical work in graphic form, irrespective of the ownership of the
original or the copy which is the subject of the rental; (n)
177.5. Public display of the original or a copy of the work;
177.6. Public performance of the work; and
177.7. Other communication to the public of the work. (Sec. 5, P.
D. No.
49a)
G.R. No. L-36402. March 16, 1987.] FILIPINO SOCIETY OF
COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS, INC.,
(FILSCAP) plaintiff- appellant, vs. BENJAMIN TAN,
defendant-appellee. (Taken from a SCRIBD Digest)
Plaintiff-appellant:
*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 defendant-appellee for allowing the playing in defendantappellee's restaurant of said songs copyrighted in the name of the
former.
Defendant-appellee,

*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.

SECTION 194. Breach of Contract. An author cannot be

compelled to perform his contract to create a work or for the
publication of his work already in existence. However, he may be
held liable for damages for breach of such contract. (Sec. 35, P.D.
No. 49)
SECTION 195. Waiver of Moral Rights. An author may
waive his rights mentioned in Section 193 by a written instrument,
but no such waiver shall be valid where its effects is to permit
another:
195.1. To use the name of the author, or the title of his work, or
otherwise to make use of his reputation with respect to any version
or adaptation of his work which, because of alterations therein,
would substantially tend to injure the literary or artistic reputation
of another author; or

b. Moral Rights
SECTION 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;
193.2. To make any alterations of his work prior to, or to withhold
it from publication;
193.3. To object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification
of, or other derogatory action in relation to, his work which would
be prejudicial to his honor or reputation; and
193.4. To restrain the use of his name with respect to any work not
of his own creation or in a distorted version of his work. (Sec. 34,
P.D. No. 49)

195.2. To use the name of the author with respect to a work he did
not create. (Sec. 36, P.D. No. 49)
SECTION 196. Contribution to Collective Work. When an
author contributes to a collective work, his right to have his
contribution attributed to him is deemed waived unless he
expressly reserves it. (Sec. 37, P.D. No.49)
SECTION 197. Editing, Arranging and Adaptation of Work.
In the absence of a contrary stipulation at the time an author
licenses or permits another to use his work, the necessary editing,
arranging or adaptation of such work, for publication, broadcast,
use in a motion picture, dramatization, or mechanical or electrical
reproduction in accordance with the reasonable and customary
standards or requirements of the medium in which the work is to
be used, shall not be deemed to contravene the author's rights
secured by this chapter. Nor shall complete destruction of a work
unconditionally transferred by the author be deemed to violate
such rights. (Sec. 38, P.D. No. 49)


SECTION 198. Term of Moral Rights.
198.1. The rights of an author under this chapter shall last during
the lifetime of the author and for fifty (50) years after his death and
shall not be assignable or subject to license. The person or persons
to be charged with the posthumous enforcement of these rights
shall be named in writing to be filed with the National Library. In
default of such person or persons, such enforcement shall devolve
upon either the author's heirs, and in default of the heirs, the
Director of the National Library.
198.2. For purposes of this Section, "Person" shall mean any
individual, partnership, corporation, association, or society. The
Director of the National Library may prescribe reasonable fees to
be charged for his services in the application of provisions of this
Section. (Sec. 39, P.D. No. 49)

In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It

involves both stealing someone else's work and
lying
about
it
afterward.
(http://www.plagiarism.org/plagiarism101/what-is-plagiarism/)

ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ARE CONSIDERED

PLAGIARISM:
turning in someone else's work as your own
copying words or ideas from someone else
without giving credit
failing to put a quotation in quotation marks
giving incorrect information about the
source of a quotation
changing words but copying the sentence
structure of a source without giving credit
copying so many words or ideas from a
source that it makes up the majority of your
work, whether you give credit or not (see
our section on "fair use" rules)
(http://www.plagiarism.org/plagiarism101/what-is-plagiarism/)

Plagiarism occurs when an author uses anothers

work without acknowledgement. Plagiarism is an
issue of academic integrity separate from any
question of copyright infringement. However, under
the Copyright Act, authors have the right to have
their work properly acknowledged when it is
quoted, and the right not to have their work
subjected to unreasonable derogatory treatment.

SECTION 199. Enforcement Remedies. Violation of any of

the rights conferred by this Chapter shall entitle those charged with
their enforcement to the same rights and remedies available to a
copyright owner. In addition, damages which may be availed of
under the Civil Code may also be recovered. Any damage
recovered after the creator's death shall be held in trust for and
remitted to his heirs, and in default of the heirs, shall belong to the
government. (Sec. 40, P. D. No. 49)
MORAL RIGHTS v. PLAGIARISM
ACCORDING TO THE MERRIAM-WEBSTER
ONLINE DICTIONARY, TO "PLAGIARIZE"
MEANS:
to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of
another) as one's own
to use (another's production) without
crediting the source
to commit literary theft

to present as new and original an idea or

product derived from an existing source

These rights are called moral rights and are

separate from copyright. It is an added reason why
it is important to acknowledge the sources you use.
(https://www.library.qut.edu.au/copyrightguide/gene
ralinfor/plagiarisman.jsp)

Transfer, Assignment or License

SECTION 200. Sale or Lease of Work. In every sale or lease
of an original work of painting or sculpture or of the original
manuscript of a writer or composer, subsequent to the first
disposition thereof by the author, the author or his heirs shall have
an inalienable right to participate in the gross proceeds of the sale
or lease to the extent of five percent (5%). This right shall exist
during the lifetime of the author and for fifty (50) years after his
death. (Sec. 31, P.D. No. 49)
SECTION 201. Works Not Covered. The provisions of this
Chapter shall not apply to prints, etchings, engravings, works of

applied art, or works of similar kind wherein the author primarily

derives gain from the proceeds of reproductions. (Sec. 33, P.D. No.
49)
Other Rules
SECTION 174. Published Edition of Work. In addition to the
right to publish granted by the author, his heirs, or assigns, the
publisher shall have a copyright consisting merely of the right of
reproduction of the typographical arrangement of the published
edition of the work. (n)
SECTION 186. Work of Architecture. Copyright in a work of
architecture shall include the right to control the erection of any
building which reproduces the whole or a substantial part of the
work either in its original form or in any form recognizably
derived from the original: Provided, That the copyright in any such
work shall not include the right to control the reconstruction or
rehabilitation in the same style as the original of a building to
which that copyright relates.