LAW ON COPYRIGHT

UNPROTECTED WORKS
a) 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.
(i.e. a format of a television game show is not subject to
copyright, [Joaquin v. Drilon, GR No. 108946, January 28, 1999])
 UNPROTECTED WORKS
Joaquin v. Drilon, GR No. 108946, January 28, 1999]
FACTS:
BJ Productions, Inc. (BJPI) is the holder/grantee of Certificate of Copyright
No. M922, dated January 28, 1971 of, of Rhoda and Me, a dating game show
aired from 1970 to 1977.
On June 28, 1973, petitioner BJPI submitted to the National Library an
addendum to its certificate of copyright specifying the show’s format and style of
presentation.
On July 14, 1991, while watching television, petitioner Francisco Joaquin, Jr.
president of BJPI, saw on RPN Channel 9 an episode of It’s a Date, which was
produced by IXL Productions, Inc. (IXL). On July 18, 1991, he wrote a letter to
private respondent Gabriel M. Zosa, president and general manager of IXL,
informing Zosa that BJPI had a copyright to Rhoda and Me and demanding that
IXL discontinue airing It’s a Date.
 UNPROTECTED WORKS
Joaquin v. Drilon, GR No. 108946, January 28, 1999]
FACTS:
In a letter, dated July 19, 1991, private respondent Zosa apologized to
petitioner Joaquin and requested a meeting to discuss a possible settlement. IXL,
however, continued airing It’s a Date, prompting petitioner Joaquin to send a second
letter on July 25, 1991 in which he reiterated his demand and waned that, if IXL did
not comply, he would endorse the matter to his attorneys for proper legal action.
Meanwhile, private respondent Zosa sought to register IXL’s copyright to the
first episode of It’s a Date for which it was issued by the National Library a certificate
of copyright on August 14, 1991.
Upon complaint of petitioners, an information for violation of P.D. No. 49 was
filed against private respondent Zosa together with certain officers of RPN Channel 9,
in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City where it was docketed as criminal case no.
92-27854. However, private respondent Zosa sought a review of the resolution of the
Assistant City Prosecutor before the Department of Justice.
 UNPROTECTED WORKS
Joaquin v. Drilon, GR No. 108946, January 28, 1999]
FACTS:
On August 12, 1992, respondent Secretary of Justice Franklin M. Drilon
reversed the Assistant City Prosecutor’s findings and directed him to move for the
dismissal of the case against private respondents. Petitioner Joaquin filed a
motion for reconsideration, but his motion was denied by respondent Secretary of
Justice on December 3, 1992.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether the format or mechanics of petitioners’ television show is entitled
to copyright protection.
 UNPROTECTED WORKS
Joaquin v. Drilon, GR No. 108946, January 28, 1999]
RULING:
1. Format of a show is not copyrightable.
- The format or mechanics of a television show is not included in the list of
protected works in Sec. 2 of P.D. No. 49 (Decree on Intellectual
Property).
2. Copyright, in the strict sense of the term, is purely a statutory right.
- Being a statutory grant, the rights are only such as the statute confers,
and may be obtained and enjoyed only with respect to the subjects
and by the persons, and on terms and conditions specified in the
statute.
 UNPROTECTED WORKS
Joaquin v. Drilon, GR No. 108946, January 28, 1999]
ISSUE:
What is then the subject matter of petitioners’ copyright?
RULING:
The petitioner BJPI’s copyright covers audiovisual recordings of each
episode of Rhoda and Me, as falling within the class of works mentioned in
P.D. No. 49, Section 2(M), to wit:
Cinematographic works and works produced by a process
analogous to cinematography or any process for making
audiovisual recordings.
 UNPROTECTED WORKS
Joaquin v. Drilon, GR No. 108946, January 28, 1999]
RULING:
3. The copyright does not extend to the general concept or format of its dating
game show.
- The investigating prosecutor compared the videotapes of the two shows.
- Mere description by words of the general format of the 2 dating shows is
insufficient; the presentation of the master videotape in evidence was
indispensable to the determination of the existence of probable cause.
- “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.”
 “FAIR USE” DOCTRINE

• Fair use is using somebody else’s work fairly.

• The concept of fair use is considered as an
exempting circumstance against an allegation
of copyright infringement.

• The following are the circumstances of fair use:

 “FAIR USE” DOCTRINE

• Fair use is using somebody else’s work fairly (i.e.

what is reasonable under the circumstances.
• It is a universally accepted limitation to
copyright.
• The concept of fair use is considered as an
exempting circumstance against an allegation
of copyright infringement.
 CIRCUMSTANCES OF FAIR USE:

➢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.
➢The private reproduction of a published work in a single
copy, where the reproduction is made by a natural person
exclusively for research and private study, shall be
permitted, without the authorization of the owner of
copyright in the work.
 REPRODUCTION OF PUBLISHED WORK
➢The private reproduction of a published work in a
single copy, where the reproduction is made by a
natural person exclusively for research and private
study, shall be permitted, without the authorization
of the owner of the copyright in the work.
➢This governs the practice usually resorted to by
students in reproducing a copyrighted book for their
study.
 REPRODUCTION OF PUBLISHED WORK
➢The following elements must be present:
i. Only a natural person may avail of the right.
ii. Purpose is exclusively for research and private study.
iii. Shall not extend to reproduction of:
a) A work of architecture in the form of building or other construction;
b) An entire book, or a substantial part thereof, or of a musical work in
which form by reprographic means;
c) A compilation of data and other materials;
d) A computer program except as provided in Sec. 189; and
e) Any work in cases where reproduction would unreasonably conflict
with a normal exploitation of the work or would otherwise
unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.
• Any library or archive whose activities are not for profit
may, without the authorization of the author of copyright
owner, make a single copy of the work by reprographic
reproduction:
1. Where the work by reason of its fragile character or rarity cannot be
lent to user in its original form;
2. Where the works are isolated articles contained in composite works
or brief portions of other published works and the reproduction is
necessary to supply them;
3. Where the making of such limited copies is in order to preserve and, if
necessary in the event that it is lost, destroyed or rendered unusable,
replace a copy, or to replace, in the permanent collection of another
similar library or archive, a copy which has been lost, destroyed or
rendered unusable and copies are not available with the publisher.
• It shall not be permissible to produce a volume of
a work published in several volumes or to
produce missing tomes or pages of magazines or
similar works, unless the volume, tome or part is
out of stock.
 FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED TO
DETERMINE “FAIR USE”
1. The purpose and character of the use, including
whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for
non-profit education purposes;
2. The nature of the copyrighted work;
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in
relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or
value of the copyrighted work.
 HABANA V. ROBLES AND GOODWILL
TRADING “UNFORTUNATE COPYING”
FACTS:
Petitioners are authors and copyright owners of duly issued
certificates of copyright registration covering their published works,
produced through their combined resources and efforts, entitled
COLLEGE ENGLISH FOR TODAY (CET), Books 1 and 2, and
WORKBOOK FOR COLLEGE FRESHMAN ENGLISH, s. 1.
Respondents are the author/publisher and distributor/seller of
another published work entitled “DEVELOPING ENGLISH
PROFICIENCY” (DEP), Books 1 and 2 which book was covered by
copyright issued to them.
 HABANA V. ROBLES AND GOODWILL
TRADING “UNFORTUNATE COPYING”
FACTS:
In the course of revising their published works, petitioners scouted and
looked around various bookstores to check on other textbooks dealing with
the same subject matter. By chance they came upon the book of
respondent Robles and upon perusal of said book they were surprised to see
that the book was strikingly similar to the contents, scheme of presentation,
illustrations and illustrative examples in their own book, CET.
After an itemized examination and comparison of the two books,
petitioners found that several pages of the respondent’s book are similar, if
not all together a copy of petitioner’s book, which is a case of plagiarism
and copyright infringement.
 HABANA V. ROBLES AND GOODWILL
TRADING “UNFORTUNATE COPYING”
FACTS:
Petitioners then made demands for damages against
respondents and also demanded that they cease and desist from
further selling and distributing to the general public the infringed
copies of respondent Robles’ works.
However, respondents ignored the demands, hence,
petitioners filed with the RTC, Makati a complaint for “Infringfment
and/or Unfair Competition with damages” against private
respondents.
 HABANA V. ROBLES AND GOODWILL
TRADING “UNFORTUNATE COPYING”
FACTS:
Petitioners alleged the respondent Robles without securing their
permission, lifted, copied, plagiarized and/or transposed certain
portions of their book CET. The textual contents and illustrations were
literally reproduced in the book DEP. The plagiarism, incorporation and
reproduction of particular portions of the book CET in the book DEP,
without the authority or consent of petitioners, and the
misrepresentations of respondent Robles that the same was her original
work and concept adversely affected and substantially diminished the
sale of the petitioners’ book and caused them actual damages by
way of unrealized income.
 HABANA V. ROBLES AND GOODWILL
TRADING “UNFORTUNATE COPYING”
FACTS:
Respondent Robles denied the allegations of plagiarism and
copying. She stressed that (1) the book DEP is the product of her
independent researches, studies and experiences, and was not a copy
of any existing valid copyrighted book; (2) DEP followed the scope and
sequence or syllabus which are common to all English grammar writers
as recommended by the Association of Philippine Colleges of Arts and
Sciences.
 HABANA V. ROBLES AND GOODWILL
TRADING “UNFORTUNATE COPYING”
FACTS:
The RTC ordered that the case be dismissed. Petitioners
appealed to the Court of Appeals. The CA rendered judgment in
favor of the respondents Robles and Goodwill. Hence, the petition to
the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
Whether, despite the apparent textual, thematic and sequential
similarity between DEP and CET, respondents committed no copyright
infringement.
 HABANA V. ROBLES AND GOODWILL
TRADING “UNFORTUNATE COPYING”
RULING:
There was copyright infringement.
1. Respondent’s act of lifting from the book of petitioners substantial
portions of discussions and examples, and her failure to
acknowledge the same in her book is an infringement of petitioners’
copyrights.
2. Measure of substantiality of reproduction. – it does not necessarily
require that the entire copyrighted work or even a large portion of
it, be copied.
 HABANA V. ROBLES AND GOODWILL
TRADING “UNFORTUNATE COPYING”
RULING:
3. Respondent’s copying is injurious.
4. Pulling out of books from the stores are indicia of guilt.
5. Failure to acknowledge original author produces “injurious effect”. –
copying alone is not what is prohibited, the copying must produce
injurious effect. Respondent Robles lifted from petitioners’ book
materials that were the result of the latter’s research work and
compilation and misrepresented them as her own. She circulated
the book DEP for commercial use and she did not acknowledge
petitioners as her source.
 HABANA V. ROBLES AND GOODWILL
TRADING “UNFORTUNATE COPYING”
RULING:
Hence, there is a clear case of appropriation of copyrighted
work for her benefit that respondent Robles committed.
Petitioners’ work as authors is the product of their long and
assiduous research and for another to represent it as her own is
injury enough.
In copyrighting books, the purpose is to give protection to
the intellectual product of an author.
 TRANSFER AND ASSIGNMENT
OF COPYRIGHT

• The copyright may be assigned in whole or in

part inter vivos only if there is a written
indication of such intention.
 TRANSFER AND ASSIGNMENT
OF COPYRIGHT
RIGHTS OF ASSIGNEE:
• Within the scope of assignment or license, the
assignee or licensee is entitled to all the rights and
remedies which the assignor or licensor had with
respect to the copyright.
 TRANSFER AND ASSIGNMENT
OF COPYRIGHT
RIGHT OF OWNER TO ACCOUNTING:
• The copyright owner has the right to regular
statement of accounts from the assignee or
the licensee with regard to assigned or
licensed work.
 TRANSFER AND ASSIGNMENT
OF COPYRIGHT
CO-OWNED WORK:

• 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.
 TRANSFER AND ASSIGNMENT
OF COPYRIGHT
COPYRIGHT & THE MATERIAL OBJECT:
• The copyright is distinct from the property in the material
object subject to it. The transfer assignment or licensing of
the copyright shall not itself constitute a transfer of the
material object. Nor shall a transfer or assignment of the
sole copy of one or several copies of the work imply transfer
assignment or licensing of the copyright.
 TRANSFER AND ASSIGNMENT
OF COPYRIGHT
FILLING OF ASSIGNMENT OF LICENSE:
• An assignment or exclusive license may be filed in duplicate
with the National Library upon payment of the prescribed
fee for registration in books and records kept for the
purpose. Upon recording, a copy of the instrument shall be,
returned to the sender with a notation of the fact of record.
Notice of the record shall be published in the IPO Gazette.
 TRANSFER AND ASSIGNMENT
OF COPYRIGHT
DESIGNATION OF SOCIETY:
• The owners of copyright and related rights or their heirs may
designate a society of artists, writer, composers, and other
right-holders to collectively manage their economic or
moral rights on their behalf. For the said societies to enforce
the rights on their members, they shall first secure the
necessary accreditation from the IPO.
 COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
• Copyright infringement occurs when there is a
violation of any of the exclusive economic or moral
rights granted to the copyright owner.

• Copyright Infringement is committed by one who:

1. Directly commits an infringement;
2. Benefits from the infringing activity;
3. Knowledge, inducement, or contribution to the
infringing conduct of another.
 REMEDIES FOR COPYRIGHT
INFRINGEMENT
• Injunction
• An injunction is a court order requiring a person to do or
cease doing a specific action.

• Actual damages and legal costs

• Impounding of documents/materials

• Destruction of copies/devices

• Moral and exemplary damages

 PRESCRIPTION OF ACTION
FOR DAMAGES

• Four (4) years from the time the cause of

action arose.
 CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT:
• First Offense:
Imprisonment between 1 to 3 years and a
Fine between 50,000 to 150,000 pesos

• Second Offense:
Imprisonment 3 years and 1 day to six years and
Fine between 150,000 to 500,000 pesos

• Third and subsequent offenses:

Imprisonment 6 years and 1 day to 9 years and
Fine from 500,000 to 1,500,000 pesos
 PRESUMPTIONS
1. Copyright shall be presumed to subsist in the work or
other subject matter to which the action relates if the
defendant does not put in issue the question whether
copyright subsists in the work or other subject matter.
2. Where the subsistence of the copyright is established,
the plaintiff shall be presumed to be the owner of the
copyright if he claims to be the owner of the copyright
and the defendant does not put in issue the question of
his ownership.
 PRESUMPTION OF AUTHORSHIP
▪ The natural person whose name is indicated on a work in the
usual manner as the author shall, in the absence of proof to the
contrary, be presumed to be the author of the work.
▪ This provision shall be applicable even if the name is a
pseudonym, where the pseudonym leaves no doubt as to the
identity of the author.
▪ The person or body corporate whose name appear on an
audiovisual work in the usual manner shall, in the absence of
proof to the contrary, be presumed to be the maker of said
work.
 JURISDICTION
▪ Actions under this Act shall be cognizable by the
courts with appropriate jurisdiction under existing
law.
▪ Exception: Subsection 7.1(c) – Director General shall exercise
original jurisdiction to resolve disputes relating to the terms of a
license involving the author’s right to public performance or
other communication of his work. Appealable to the Secretary
of Trade and Industry.
 NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT
▪ Each copy of a work published or offered for sale
may contain a notice bearing –
✓ the name of the copyright owner, and the year of
its first publication, and
▪ in copies produced after the creator’s death –
✓ the year of such death.
 WHERE TO REGISTER?

▪ NATIONAL LIBRARY
▪ SUPREME COURT
- law books or legal materials
 OWNERSHIP OF DEPOSIT AND
INSTRUMENT
▪ All copies deposited and instruments in
writing filed with the National Library and the
Supreme Court in accordance with the
provisions of this Act shall become the
property of the Government.
 EFFECT OF REGISTRATION AND
DEPOSIT OF WORK
▪ The registration and deposit of the work is purely
for recording the date of registration and deposit
of the work and shall not be conclusive as to
copyright ownership or the term of the copyrights
or the rights of the copyright owner, including
neighboring rights.
 MANLY SPORTSWEAR MANUFACTURING, INC. VS.
DADODETTE ENTERPRISES AND/OR HERMES SPORTS CENTER

ISSUE:
Whether the copyright registration in favor of
MANLY can sustain the action against the
respondents?
RULING:
NO.
RULING: NO
No copyright accrues in favor of Manly despite issuance of the
certificate. The copyright certificates constitute merely prima
facie evidence of validity and ownership. However, no
presumption is created where other evidence exist that may cast
doubt on the copyright validity.
Hence, where there is sufficient proof that the copyrighted
products are not original creations but are readily available in the
market under various brands, as in this case, validity and originality
will not be presumed and the trial court may properly quash the
issued warrant for lack of probable cause.
No copyright accrues in favor of MANLY despite issuance of the
certificates of registration and deposit pursuant to Sec. 2,
At most, the certificates of registration and deposit issued by the
National Library and the Supreme Court Library serve merely as a
notice of recording and registration of the work but do not confer
any right or title upon the registered copyright owner or
automatically put his work under the protective mantle of the
copyright law.
It is not conclusive proof of copyright ownership.
Non-registration and deposit of the work within the prescribed
period only makes the copyright owner liable to pay a fine.
 COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT VS. PLAGIARISM

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT PLAGIARISM

Copyright infringement occurs The practice of claiming or
when there is a violation of any implying original authorship of
of the exclusive economic or someone else’s written or
moral rights granted to the creative work, in whole or in
copyright owner. part, into one’s own without
adequate acknowledgement.
A violation of the rights of the Concerned with the unearned
copyright holder, when increment to the plagiarizing
material is used without the author’s reputation that is
copyright holder’s consent. achieved through false claims
of authorship.
 COPYRIGHT VS. PATENT VS. TRADEMARK

COPYRIGHT PATENT TRADEMARK

Subject matter of Literary, scientific or New, useful and Goods
the right artistic work industrially manufactured or
applicable produced
inventions
Where right is to be National Library Intellectual Intellectual
registered Property Office Property Office
Protections starts Creation Application Issuance of
Certificate of
Registration
Duration of right Lifetime of the 20 years 10 years
author + Generally (renewable)
50 years after
death of the author
 TEN FAST LAWS ON COPYRIGHT
1. Copyright is confined to literary and artistic works
which are original intellectual creations in the literary
and artistic domain protected from the moment of
their creation.
2. Ideas, concepts, principles, discoveries and the likes
are not subject to copyright.
3. News of the day are not subject to copyright.
4. Official government texts are not subject to copyright.
 TEN FAST LAWS ON COPYRIGHT
5. In case of commissioned work, the person who so
commissioned the work shall have ownership of work,
but the copyright thereto shall remain with the creator,
unless the contrary has been agreed upon.
6. Copyright is distinct from the material object, such that
assignment of copyright does not necessarily mean
assignment of the material object, and vice versa.
 TEN FAST LAWS ON COPYRIGHT
7. Among other limitations, 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
will not subject the performer to liability.
8. Fair use will exempt liability from copyright infringement.
9. The author enjoys not just economic right but also moral
rights over the work.
 TEN FAST LAWS ON COPYRIGHT
10. The author has an inalienable right to participate in the
gross proceeds of the sale or lease to the extent of five
(5) percent over original work or painting, or sculpture,
or of the original manuscript of a writer or composer,
subsequent to the first disposition thereof during his/her
lifetime and 50 years after his/her death. (This provision
of the law 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.)
THANK YOU!