IPL Notes 1 - 1

GENERAL OVERVIEW
The law:
Republic Act No. 8293 [An Act Prescribing the Intellectual Property Code and
Establishing the Intellectual Property Office, Providing for Its Powers and
Functions, and for Other Purposes] otherwise known as the Intellectual
Property Code of the Philippines.
State policy declaration:
The State recognizes that an effective intellectual and industrial property
system is vital to the development of domestic and creative activity,
facilitates transfer of technology, attracts foreign investments, and ensures
market access for our products. It shall protect and secure the exclusive
rights of scientists, inventors, artists and other gifted citizens to their
intellectual property and creations, particularly when beneficial to the
people, for such periods as provided in this Act.
The use of intellectual property bears a social function. To this end, the
State shall promote the diffusion of knowledge and information for the
promotion of national development and progress and the common good.
It is also the policy of the State to streamline administrative procedures of
registering patents, trademarks and copyright, to liberalize the registration
on the transfer of technology, and to enhance the enforcement of
intellectual property rights in the Philippines.
Effect on international conventions and on principle of reciprocity:
Any person who is a national or who is domiciled or has a real and effective
industrial establishment in a country which is a party to any convention,
treaty or agreement relating to intellectual property rights or the repression
of unfair competition, to which the Philippines is also a party, or extends
reciprocal rights to nationals of the Philippines by law, shall be entitled to
benefits to the extent necessary to give effect to any provision of such
convention, treaty or reciprocal law, in addition to the rights to which any
owner of an intellectual property right is otherwise entitled by this Act.
Laws repealed:
Republic Act No. 8293 repealed all Acts and parts of Acts inconsistent
therewith, more particularly:
1. Republic Act No. 165, as amended [An Act Creating a Patent Office,
Prescribing its Powers and Duties, Regulating the Issuance of Patents, and
Appropriating Funds Therefor];

2. Republic Act No. 166, as amended[An Act to Provide for the

Registration and Protection of Trademarks, Trade-Names, and Service-Marks,
Defining Unfair Competition and False Marking and Providing Remedies
Against the Same, and for Other Purposes].
3. Presidential Decree No. 49 [Decree on the Protection of Intellectual
Property];
4. Presidential Decree No. 285, as amended [Decree on the Protection
of Intellectual Property];
5. Articles 188 and 189 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines.
Parts of the law:
The Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines is divided into five
[5] parts, to wit:
PART I

The Intellectual Property Office

PART II

The Law on Patents

PART III -

The Law on Trademarks, Service Marks and Trade Names

PART IV -

The Law on Copyright

PART V

Final Provisions

Intellectual property rights under the I. P. Code:

The intellectual property rights under the Intellectual Property Code are as
follows:
1. Copyright and related rights;
2. Trademarks and service marks;
3. Geographic indications;
4. Industrial designs;
5. Patents;
6. Layout designs [topographies] of integrated circuits; and
7. Protection of undisclosed information.
Government Agencies:

IPL Notes 1 - 2
The agency of the government in charge of the implementation of the
Intellectual Property Code is the Intellectual Property Office which replaced
the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer. It is divided into
six [6] Bureaus, namely:
[1] Bureau of Patents;
[2] Bureau of Trademarks;
[3] Bureau of Legal Affairs;
[4] Documentation, Information and Technology Transfer Bureau;
[5] Management Information System and EDP Bureau; and
[6] Administrative, Financial and Personnel Services Bureau.
Functions of the Intellectual Property Office:
The Intellectual Property Office is mandated under the law to:
1. Examine applications for the grant of letters patent for inventions
and register utility models and industrial designs;
2. Examine applications for the registration of marks, geographic
indication and integrated circuits;
3. Register technology transfer arrangements and settle disputes
involving technology transfer payments covered by the provisions of Part II,
Chapter IX on Voluntary Licensing and develop and implement strategies to
promote and facilitate technology transfer;
4. Promote the use of patent information as a tool for technology
development;
5. Publish regularly in its own publication the patents, marks, utility
models and industrial designs, issued and approved, and the technology
transfer arrangements registered;
6. Administratively adjudicate contested proceedings affecting
intellectual property rights; and
7. Coordinate with other government agencies and the private sector
efforts to formulate and implement plans and policies to strengthen the
protection of intellectual property rights in the country.
Significant features of the law:

1. A shift was made from the "first-to-invent system" under R. A. 165

[old law] to "first-to-file system" under the new law.
2. In the case of inventions, the period of the grant was increased from
17 years from grant under the old law to 20 years from date of filing under
the new law.
3. In the case of utility models, the previous grant of 5 years plus
renewals of 5 years each under the old law was changed to 7 years without
renewal under the new law.
4. In the case of industrial designs, the previous grant of 5 years plus
renewals of 5 years each was maintained.
5. Under the old law, there was no opposition proceedings and the
examination is mandatory; under the new law, the examination is made only
upon request [possibly with or without examination].
6. Under the old law, publication is made after the grant; under the new
law, publication is effected after 18 months from filing date or priority date.
7. Under the old law, the penalties for repetition of infringement are:
PhP10,000 and/or 5 years of imprisonment and the offense prescribes in 2
years; under the present law, the penalties range from PhP100,000 to
PhP300,000 and/or 6 months to 3 years of imprisonment and the offense
prescribes in 3 years.
Significant changes in the trademark law:
The significant changes in the trademark law under the old law [R. A. No.
166] and the present law are as follows:
1. Under the former, the element of use before filing a local application
is a requirement although this is not required when the application is based
on foreign registration; while under the latter, the element of use has been
eliminated as a requirement for application.
2. Under the former, the term granted is 20 years renewable for 20year periods; while under the latter, the term is for 10 years, renewable for
10-year periods.
3. Under the former, the affidavit of use or non-use is required on the
5th, 10th and 15th anniversaries; while under the latter, proof of use within
3 years from the filing of the application is required and the affidavit of use
should be filed within 1 year from the 5th anniversary.

IPL Notes 1 - 3
4. Under the former, a Supplemental Register is required to be
maintained; while under the latter, it is no longer required.

the relation between labor and ownership pertains only to property that was
unowned before such labor took place.

5. Under the former law, penalties for infringement, unfair

competition, false designation of origin and false description or
representation range from fine of PhP500 to PhP2,000 and/or 6 months to 3
years and 4 months of imprisonment; while under the latter law, the
penalties range from fine of PhP50,000 to PhP200,000 and/or 2 to 5 years of
imprisonment.

Enclosure vs mixing labor

Significant changes in the copyright law:

It is now required that after the first public dissemination of performance by
authority of the copyright owner of certain specified work, there shall, for the
purpose of completing the records of the National Library and the Supreme
Court library, within three (3) weeks, be registered and deposited with it, by
personal delivery or by registered mail, two (2) complete copies or
reproductions of the work in such form as the directors of said libraries may
prescribe. The scheme of penalties for infringement has also been changed.
From the previous fine of Php200 to Php2,000 and/or imprisonment of 1
year, the current range of penalties are as follows:
For first offenders - fine of PhP50,000 to PhP150,000 and/or imprisonment
of 1 to 3 years
For second offenders - fine of PhP150,000 to PhP500,000 and/or
imprisonment of 3 to 6 years
For third and subsequent offenders - fine of PhP500,000 to PhP1.5 Million
and/or imprisonment of 6 to 9 years.
In case of insolvency, the offender shall furthermore suffer subsidiary
imprisonment.
NATURAL RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE
Exclusive ownership and creation
Locke argued in support of individual property rights as natural rights.
Following the argument the fruits of one's labor are one's own because one
worked for it. Furthermore, the laborer must also hold a natural property
right in the resource itself because as Locke believes exclusive
ownership was immediately necessary for production.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau later criticized this second step in Discourse on
Inequality, where he effectively argues that the natural right argument does
not extend to resources that one did not create. Both philosophers hold that

Land in its original state would be considered unowned by anyone, but if an

individual applied his labor to the land by farming it, for example, it becomes
his property. Merely placing a fence around land rather than using the land
enclosed would not bring property into being according to most natural law
theorists. Even then, justification through mixing of labor rests upon the
assumption that land, something uncreated (as it is not created by any
human being), can be rightly owned by way of a non sequitur in which
mixing labor with land somehow makes the uncreated land equivalent to the
created products of the labor.
For example, economist Murray Rothbard stated (in Man, Economy, and
State):
If Columbus lands on a new continent, is it legitimate for him to proclaim all
the new continent his own, or even that sector 'as far as his eye can see'?
Clearly, this would not be the case in the free society that we are
postulating. Columbus or Crusoe would have to use the land, to 'cultivate' it
in some way, before he could be asserted to own it.... If there is more land
than can be used by a limited labor supply, then the unused land must
simply remain unowned until a first user arrives on the scene. Any attempt
to claim a new resource that someone does not use would have to be
considered invasive of the property right of whoever the first user will turn
out to be.
Acquisition vs mixing labor
The labor theory of property does not only apply to land itself, but to any
application of labor to nature. For example, natural-rightist Lysander
Spooner,[1] says that an apple taken from an unowned tree would become
the property of the person who plucked it, as he has labored to acquire it. He
says the "only way, in which ["the wealth of nature"] can be made useful to
mankind, is by their taking possession of it individually, and thus making it
private property."[2]
However, some, such as Benjamin Tucker have not seen this as creating
property in all things. Tucker argued that "in the case of land, or of any other
material the supply of which is so limited that all cannot hold it in unlimited
quantities," these should only be considered owned while the individual is in
the act of using or occupying these things.[3] This is a rejection of Absentee
ownership for land.

IPL Notes 1 - 4
Lockean proviso

Copyright Clause:

Locke held that individuals have a right to homestead private property from
nature by working on it, but that they can do so only "...at least where there
is enough, and as good, left in common for others".[4] The proviso maintains
that appropriation of unowned resources is a diminution of the rights of
others to it, and would be acceptable only so long as it does not make
anyone worse off than they would have been before. The phrase "Lockean
Proviso" was coined by political philosopher Robert Nozick, and is based on
the ideas elaborated by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Government.

The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and
useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. Article 1, Sec.
18 US Constitution

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE Secs. 1-3

Section 1. Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Intellectual Property Code
of the Philippines."
Section 2. Declaration of State Policy. - The State recognizes that an effective
intellectual and industrial property system is vital to the development of
domestic and creative activity, facilitates transfer of technology, attracts
foreign investments, and ensures market access for our products. It shall
protect and secure the exclusive rights of scientists, inventors, artists and
other gifted citizens to their intellectual property and creations, particularly
when beneficial to the people, for such periods as provided in this Act.
The use of intellectual property bears a social function. To this end, the State
shall promote the diffusion of knowledge and information for the promotion
of national development and progress and the common good.
It is also the policy of the State to streamline administrative procedures of
registering patents, trademarks and copyright, to liberalize the registration
on the transfer of technology, and to enhance the enforcement of
intellectual property rights in the Philippines. (n)
Section 3. International Conventions and Reciprocity. - Any person who is a
national or who is domiciled or has a real and effective industrial
establishment in a country which is a party to any convention, treaty or
agreement relating to intellectual property rights or the repression of unfair
competition, to which the Philippines is also a party, or extends reciprocal
rights to nationals of the Philippines by law, shall be entitled to benefits to
the extent necessary to give effect to any provision of such convention,
treaty or reciprocal law, in addition to the rights to which any owner of an
intellectual property right is otherwise entitled by this Act. (n)
PART I: Copyright
U.S. Constitution

The State shall protect and secure the exclusive rights of scientists,
inventors, artists, and other gifted citizens to their intellectual property and
creations, particularly when beneficial to the people, for such period as may
be provided by law. Article XIV, Sec. 13 PH Constitution
History
On August 18, 1787, the Constitutional Convention was in the midst of a
weeks-long stretch of proposals to establish what would become the
enumerated powers of the United States Congress. Three such proposals
made on that day addressed what are now lumped together under
intellectual property rights. One, by Charles Pinckney was "to secure to
authors exclusive rights for a limited time". The other two were made by
James Madison, who had previously served on a committee of the Congress
established under the Articles of Confederation which had encouraged the
individual states to adopt copyright legislation. Madison proposed that the
Constitution permit Congress "to secure to literary authors their copyrights
for a limited time", or, in the alternative, "to encourage, by proper premiums
& Provisions, the advancement of useful knowledge and discoveries".[1]
Both proposals were referred to the Committee of Detail, which reported
back on September 5, 1787 with a proposal containing the current language
of the clause. No record exists to explain the exact choice of words selected
by the Committee on Detail, whose task was essentially no more than
creating a draft Constitution by arranging the proposals that had been made
into the most appropriate language. On September 17, 1787, the members
of the Convention unanimously agreed to the proposed language, without
debate, and this language was incorporated into the Constitution.[1]

Effect
The clause actually confers two distinct powers: the power to secure for
limited times to authors the exclusive right to their writings is the basis for
U.S. copyright law, and the power to secure for limited times to inventors the
exclusive rights to their discoveries is the basis for U.S. patent law. Because
the clause contains no language under which Congress may protect
trademarks, those are instead protected under the Commerce Clause. Some

IPL Notes 1 - 5
terms in the clause are used in archaic meanings, potentially confusing
modern readers. For example, "useful Arts" does not refer to artistic
endeavors, but rather to the work of artisans, people skilled in a
manufacturing craft; "Sciences" refers not only to fields of modern scientific
inquiry but rather to all knowledge.[2]
The Copyright Clause is the only clause granting power to Congress for
which the means to accomplish its stated purpose are specifically provided.
The exact limitations of this clause have been defined through a number of
United States Supreme Court cases interpreting the text. For example, the
Court has determined that because the purpose of the clause is to stimulate
development of the works it protects, its application cannot result in
inhibiting such progress.[citation needed] However, there has been a
countervailing strain in the courts that has promoted a varying view.
Furthermore, the clause only permits protection of the writings of authors
and the discoveries of inventors. Hence, writings may only be protected to
the extent that they are original,[3] and "inventions" must be truly inventive
and not merely obvious improvements on existing knowledge.[4] The term
"writings of authors" appears to exclude non-human authorship such as
painting by chimpanzees and computer code written by programmed
computers,[5] but the issue has not been tested in litigation.
Although perpetual copyrights and patents are prohibitedthe language
specifies "limited times"the Supreme Court has ruled in Eldred v. Ashcroft
(2003) that repeated extensions to the term of copyright do not constitute a
perpetual copyright. In that case, the United States Supreme Court rejected
a challenge to the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, also known
pejoratively as the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act."[6] Petitioners in that case
argued that successive retroactive extensions of copyright were functionally
unlimited and hence violated the limited times language of the clause.
Justice Ginsburg, writing for the Court, rejected this argument, reasoning
that the terms provided by the Act were limited in duration and noted that
Congress had a long history of granting retroactive extensions.
DEFINITIONS
Copyright Act of 1976
Sect. 201. Ownership of copyright
(a) Initial ownership.
Copyright in a work protected under this title [17 USCS Sects. 101 et seq.]
vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint
work are co-owners of copyright in the work.

(b) Works made for hire.

In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom
the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title [17
USCS Sects. 101 et seq.], and, unless the parties have expressly agreed
otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights
comprised in the copyright.
(c) Contributions to collective works.
Copyright in each separate contribution to a collective work is distinct from
copyright in the collective work as a whole, and vests initially in the author
of the contribution. In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or
of any rights under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is
presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and distributing
the contribution as part of that particular collective work, any revision of that
collective work, and any later collective work in the same series.
(d) Transfer of ownership.
(1) The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by
any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed
by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate
succession.
(2) Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any
subdivision of any of the rights specified by section 106 [17 USCS Sect. 106],
may be transferred as provided by clause (1) and owned separately. The
owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that right,
to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the copyright owner by this
title [17 USCS Sects. 101 et seq.].
(e) Involuntary transfer.
When an individual author's ownership of a copyright, or of any of the
exclusive rights under a copyright, has not previously been transferred
voluntarily by that individual author, no action by any governmental body or
other official or organization purporting to seize, expropriate, transfer, or
exercise rights of ownership with respect to the copyright, or any of the
exclusive rights under a copyright, shall be given effect under this title [17
USCS Sects. 101 et seq.], except as provided under title 11 [11 USCS Sects.
1 et seq.].
Sect. 202. Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material
object

IPL Notes 1 - 6
Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright,
is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is
embodied. Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy
or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any
rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of
an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive
rights under a copyright convey property rights in any material object.
Sect. 203. Termination of transfers and licenses granted by the author
(a) Conditions for termination.
In the case of any work other than a work made for hire, the exclusive or
nonexclusive grant of a transfer or license of copyright or of any right under
a copyright, executed by the author on or after January 1, 1978, otherwise
than by will, is subject to termination under the following conditions:
(1) In the case of a grant executed by one author, termination of the grant
may be effected by that author or, if the author is dead, by the person or
persons who, under clause (2) of this subsection, own and are entitled to
exercise a total of more than one-half of that author's termination interest. In
the case of a grant executed by two or more authors of a joint work,
termination of the grant may be effected by a majority of the authors who
executed it; if any of such authors is dead, the termination interest of any
such author may be exercised as a unit by the person or persons who, under
clause (2) of this subsection, own and are entitled to exercise a total of more
than one-half of that author's interest.
(2) Where an author is dead, his or her termination interest is owned, and
may be exercised, by his widow or her widower and his or her children or
grandchildren as follows:
(A) the widow or widower owns the author's entire termination interest
unless there are any surviving children or grandchildren of the author, in
which case the widow or widower owns one-half of the author's interest;
(B) the author's surviving children, and the surviving children of any dead
child of the author, own the author's entire termination interest unless there
is a widow or widower, in which case the ownership of one-half of the
author's interest is divided among them;
(C) the rights of the author's children and grandchildren are in all cases
divided among them and exercised on a per stirpes basis according to the
number of such author's children represented; the share of the children of a
dead child in a termination interest can be exercised only by the action of a
majority of them.

(3) Termination of the grant may be effected at any time during a period of
five years beginning at the end of thirty-five years from the date of
execution of the grant; or, if the grant covers the right of publication of the
work, the period begins at the end of thirty-five years from the date of
publication of the work under the grant or at the end of forty years from the
date of execution of the grant, whichever term ends earlier.
(4) The termination shall be effected by serving an advance notice in writing,
signed by the number and proportion of owners of termination interests
required under clauses (1) and (2) of this subsection, or by their duly
authorized agents, upon the grantee or the grantee's successor in title.
(A) The notice shall state the effective date of the termination, which shall
fall within the five-year period specified by clause (3) of this subsection, and
the notice shall be served not less than two or more than ten years before
that date. A copy of the notice shall be recorded in the Copyright Office
before the effective date of termination, as a condition to its taking effect.
(B) The notice shall comply, in form, content, and manner of service, with
requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.
(5) Termination of the grant may be effected notwithstanding any agreement
to the contrary, including an agreement to make a will or to make any future
grant.
(b) Effect of termination.
Upon the effective date of termination, all rights under this title [17 USCS
Sects. 101 et seq.] that were covered by the terminated grants revert to the
author, authors, and other persons owning termination interests under
clauses (1) and (2) of subsection (a), including those owners who did not join
in signing the notice of termination under clause (4) of subsection (a), but
with the following limitations:
(1) A derivative work prepared under authority of the grant before its
termination may continue to be utilized under the terms of the grant after its
termination, but this privilege does not extend to the preparation after the
termination of other derivative works based upon the copyrighted work
covered by the terminated grant.
(2) The future rights that will revert upon termination of the grant become
vested on the date the notice of termination has been served as provided by
clause (4) of subsection (a). The rights vest in the author, authors, and other
persons named in, and in the proportionate shares provided by, clauses (1)
and (2) of subsection (a).

IPL Notes 1 - 7
(3) Subject to the provisions of clause (4) of this subsection, a further grant,
or agreement to make a further grant, of any right covered by a terminated
grant is valid only if it is signed by the same number and proportion of the
owners, in whom the right has vested under clause (2) of this subsection, as
are required to terminate the grant under clauses (1) and (2) of subsection
(a). Such further grant or agreement is effective with respect to all of the
persons in whom the right it covers has vested under clause (2) of this
subsection, including those who did not join in signing it. If any person dies
after rights under a terminated grant have vested in him or her, that
person's legal representatives, legatees, or heirs at law represent him or her
for purposes of this clause.
(4) A further grant, or agreement to make a further grant, of any right
covered by a terminated grant is valid only if it is made after the effective
date of the termination. As an exception, however, an agreement for such a
further grant may be made between the persons provided by clause (3) of
this subsection and the original grantee or such grantee's successor in title,
after the notice of termination has been served as provided by clause (4) of
subsection (a).

authorized to administer oaths whose authority is proved by a certificate of

such an officer.
Sect. 205. Recordation of transfers and other documents
(a) Conditions for recordation. Any transfer of copyright ownership or other
document pertaining to a copyright may be recorded in the Copyright Office
if the document filed for recordation bears the actual signature of the person
who executed it, or if it is accompanied by a sworn or official certification
that it is a true copy of the original, signed document.
(b) Certificate of recordation. The Register of Copyrights shall, upon receipt
of a document as provided by subsection (a) and of the fee provided by
section 708 [17 USCS Sect. 708], record the document and return it with a
certificate of recordation.
(c) Recordation as constructive notice. Recordation of a document in the
Copyright Office gives all persons constructive notice of the facts stated in
the recorded document, but only if-

(5) Termination of a grant under this section affects only those rights
covered by the grants that arise under this title [17 USCS Sects. 101 et seq.],
and in no way affects rights arising under any other Federal, State, or foreign
laws.

(1) the document, or material attached to it, specifically identifies the work
to which it pertains so that, after the document is indexed by the Register of
Copyrights, it would be revealed by a reasonable search under the title or
registration number of the work; and

(6) Unless and until termination is effected under this section, the grant, if it
does not provide otherwise, continues in effect for the term of copyright
provided by this title [17 USCS Sects. 101 et seq.].

(2) registration has been made for the work.

Sect. 204. Execution of transfers of copyright ownership

(a) A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not
valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the
transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such
owner's duly authorized agent.
(b) A certificate of acknowledgement is not required for the validity of a
transfer, but is prima facie evidence of the execution of the transfer if(1) in the case of a transfer executed in the United States, the certificate is
issued by a person authorized to administer oaths within the United States;
or
(2) in the case of a transfer executed in a foreign country, the certificate is
issued by a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, or by a person

(d) Priority between conflicting transfers. As between two conflicting

transfers, the one executed first prevails if it is recorded, in the manner
required to give constructive notice under subsection (c), within one month
after its execution in the United States or within two months after its
execution outside the United States, or at any time before recordation in
such manner of the later transfer. Otherwise the later transfer prevails if
recorded first in such manner, and if taken in good faith, for valuable
consideration or on the basis of a binding promise to pay royalties, and
without notice of the earlier transfer.
(e) Priority between conflicting transfer of ownership and nonexclusive
license. A nonexclusive license, whether recorded or not, prevails over a
conflicting transfer of copyright ownership if the license is evidenced by a
written instrument signed by the owner of the rights licensed or such
owner's duly authorized agent, and if(1) the license was taken before execution of the transfer; or
(2) the license was taken in good faith before recordation of the transfer and
without notice of it.

IPL Notes 1 - 8
Intellectual Property Code PH
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:

(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;

(a)

Books, pamphlets, articles and other writings;

(j)

(b)

Periodicals and newspapers;

(k)
Photographic works including works produced by a process analogous
to photography; lantern slides;

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

for

oral

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;

Drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical character;

(l)
Audiovisual works and cinematographic works and works produced by
a process analogous to cinematography or any process for making audiovisual recordings;
(m)

Pictorial illustrations and advertisements;

(n)

Computer programs; and

(o)

Other literary, scholarly, scientific and artistic works.

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)