IPL Reviewer

Intellectual Property Law: Cram Another Day
Allan Verman Ong
SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
Intellectual Property Law

RA 8293
-
for the protection of creative works/intangible goods (goods that are expressions of the mind)
framework: What are they really protecting?
Tangibles
Property
Inventions
Utility Models
Industrial Designs
Patents
Industrial
Property
Trade Secrets
Intangibles
Trade Marks
Creative
Rights
Copyrights
Neighboring Rights
Patents grants by the State given to someone so he will have monopoly right over his property
in exchange for you revealing something 1)new, 2) useful, and 3) has an inventive
step, state gives you protection
Utility Model no inventive step so lesser right and protection but it is still useful
Industrial Design has an artistic/aesthetic appeal
Trade Secrets anything that will provide business with competitive advantage,
e.g. list of customers of marketing company
not protected under the IP Code, but governed by contracts
e.g. employee contracts
Trademarks dont protect innovation, protects goodwill
specific mark on goods trademarks, servicemarks, certification marks, geographic
indicators, trade names, trade dress
even if not registered, as long as there is goodwill, you can sue
a business identification system
before Jan. 1, 1998, RP used first to use system (whoever uses first has the
trademark) with an exception to internationally known marks (e.g. Lacoste case)
now, RP is a first to file jurisdiction
Q. Before Jan. 1, 1998, an RP company registered Lacoste trademark, used it. It was first to use.
Lacoste filed trademark infringement suit. It was proven that the brand was already known in RP
by people who had travelled to Europe. Since RP is first to use jurisdiction, RP company has
trademark?
A. No. Falls under internationally known marks exception
Q. McDo came to RP in 1970. In 1980s, they had huge marketing campaign so they became
known in RP. Big Mack was a large hamburger chain in the provinces. In 1980, McDo filed
trademark infringement case. It was proven that some people actually think Big Mack is affiliated
with McDo and was creating confusion.
A. Big Mack wins. Trademark protects goodwill. McDos goodwill was established in 1980. It was
proven here that Big Mack was already established in RP before McDo became known because of
the mktg campaign.
Q. You have carinderia, Cooking Ina Mo. Neighbor sets up Cooking ng Ina Mo Rin. Trademark
infringement?
A. Maybe not. It does not cause/create confusion.
Creative Rights protect unique expression of an idea
1. copyright moral right
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
2.
- what is protected is unique expression of an idea. So Einsteins e=mc2

is not protected, but the dissertation where he explained the idea is
protected.
neighboring rights performers rights
what is protected is not idea but distinct/unique expression
Technology Transfer Agreements e.g. licensing.

Aside from patents, copyrights, there are other means of protecting property in other nations
Q. Do intangibles have to be registered to enjoy protection?
A. Generally, industrial property must be registered. No need to register in creative rights the
moment you create it, its yours. Registration of books in the National Library is only proof of
copyright
US computer programs are protected by patents. In RP, only copyright.
International Treaties Protecting Copyrights
1. Berne Convention for protection of literary works, established in Aug. 1, 1951.
Core Principles:
1. national treatment nationals from different states should have protection of their
own works
2. principle of automatic protection no need to register copyrights
3. principle of independence of protection treat foreigners the way you protect
nationals
2.
TRIPS Agreement Trade Related Aspects of IP Rights, a sub-agreement of the GATT,

Principles:
1. Establishment of minimum standards of protection as to enforcement of IPR
transnationally
2. National treatment of the IP owner
3. Most favored nation principle treat all signatories similarly, no special treatment
should be given to any nation
Q. When can you not invoke copyright?

A. When there is: 1. Conflict with normal exploitation of work
2. When it prejudices the right of legitimate owner of right of work
Issues:
copyright protection like Mickey Mouse are gradually entering public domain (since copyright
lasts until 50 years after the death of creator) so there are moves to extend the term protection
but Shakespeare works are public domain so is extending term a good thing?
US passed the Sonny Bono copyright extension act
3.
WIPO Copyright Treaty - ratified Feb. 2002, protecting rights of authors in new technologies
new technologies include internet and digital works
now, temporary copies are protected (temporary something you download from
internet)
new rights are created:
1. right to distribution
2. rental right right of author to rent out cinematic works, phonograms, computer
programs
- you cant rent out your copy of Windows 2002 CD. But if your Palm
Pilot breaks down and you rent a Palm with Windows, its okay, since
computer program isnt the thing of rent
3. right of communication to public wire/wireless means
Principles:
1. circumvention of technology measures e.g. DVD contents handling system
2. concealment of infringement search and seizure is given in civil cases
before, state files for search warrant, now, since civil case, private party can file for
search warrant and get injunction
3. protection is granted from the time of creation
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
NOTE: WIPO treaty is already ratified but still need enabling legislation, either in the form of new
law of amendment of the IP Code
PART IV
THE LAW ON COPYRIGHT
Copyright
is a bundle of rights e.g. JKR can sell various rights like right to publish (Scholastic), right to
make a movie from her story (Warner), right to make toys from characters (e.g., Mattel)
a negative right since it prevents you from enjoying, deriving benefit
property protected is intellectual
use consists of derivative rights, e.g. reproduction, translation, dramatization

Q. Database, is this protected?
A. Facts alone are not protected (same for multimedia). But if you do some arrangement on the
information, that is protected.
Q. Creativity = Originality?
A. No. In copyright, what is important is originality. As long as it is yours, it is protected.
List of Ateneo Grads public domain
List of Ateneo Grades who worked in Judiciary protected
if someone else rearranges your list and does your list in alphabetical order you can sue
if there is distinction in the way the facts were selected, coordinated, arranged and presented,
copyrightable
Novelty an essential element in patentability
means that no one else in the world has come up with the same invention anywhere,
anytime
not the same with originality, although in both, you come up with a new idea
if you develop it without outside influence, you can copyright. Several people can
own the copyright but only one person can hold the patent
SEC. 171. DEFINITIONS. - FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ACT, THE FOLLOWING TERMS HAVE THE FOLLOWING
MEANING:
171.1. "AUTHOR" IS THE NATURAL PERSON WHO HAS CREATED THE WORK;
171.2. A "COLLECTIVE WORK" IS A WORK WHICH HAS BEEN CREATED BY TWO (2) OR MORE NATURAL
PERSONS AT THE INITIATIVE AND UNDER THE DIRECTION OF ANOTHER WITH THE UNDERSTANDING
THAT IT WILL BE DISCLOSED BY THE LATTER UNDER HIS OWN NAME AND THAT CONTRIBUTING
NATURAL PERSONS WILL NOT BE IDENTIFIED;
171.3. "COMMUNICATION TO THE PUBLIC" OR "COMMUNICATE TO THE PUBLIC" MEANS THE MAKING OF
A WORK AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC BY WIRE OR WIRELESS MEANS IN SUCH A WAY THAT MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC MAY ACCESS THESE WORKS FROM A PLACE AND TIME INDIVIDUALLY CHOSEN BY THEM;
171.4. A "COMPUTER" IS AN ELECTRONIC OR SIMILAR DEVICE HAVING INFORMATION-PROCESSING

CAPABILITIES, AND A "COMPUTER PROGRAM" IS A SET OF INSTRUCTIONS EXPRESSED IN WORDS,
CODES, SCHEMES OR IN ANY OTHER FORM, WHICH IS CAPABLE WHEN INCORPORATED IN A MEDIUM
THAT THE COMPUTER CAN READ, OR CAUSING THE COMPUTER TO PERFORM OR ACHIEVE A
PARTICULAR TASK OR RESULT;
171.5. "PUBLIC LENDING" IS THE TRANSFER OF POSSESSION OF THE ORIGINAL OR A COPY OF A
WORK OR SOUND RECORDING FOR A LIMITED PERIOD, FOR NON-PROFIT PURPOSES, BY AN
INSTITUTION THE SERVICES OF WHICH ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC, SUCH AS PUBLIC LIBRARY OR
ARCHIVE;
171.6. "PUBLIC PERFORMANCE," IN THE CASE OF A WORK OTHER THAN AN AUDIOVISUAL WORK, IS
THE RECITATION, PLAYING, DANCING, ACTING OR OTHERWISE PERFORMING THE WORK, EITHER
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
DIRECTLY OR BY MEANS OF ANY DEVICE OR PROCESS; IN THE CASE OF AN AUDIOVISUAL WORK, THE
SHOWING OF ITS IMAGES IN SEQUENCE AND THE MAKING OF THE SOUNDS ACCOMPANYING IT
AUDIBLE; AND, IN THE CASE OF A SOUND RECORDING, MAKING THE RECORDED SOUNDS AUDIBLE AT A
PLACE OR AT PLACES WHERE PERSONS OUTSIDE THE NORMAL CIRCLE OF A FAMILY AND THAT
FAMILYS CLOSEST SOCIAL ACQUAINTANCES ARE OR CAN BE PRESENT, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER
THEY ARE OR CAN BE PRESENT AT THE SAME PLACE AND AT THE SAME TIME, OR AT DIFFERENT
PLACES AND/OR AT DIFFERENT TIMES, AND WHERE THE PERFORMANCE CAN BE PERCEIVED WITHOUT
THE NEED FOR COMMUNICATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SUBSECTION 171.3;
171.7. "PUBLISHED WORKS" MEANS WORKS, WHICH, WITH THE CONSENT OF THE AUTHORS, ARE
MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC BY WIRE OR WIRELESS MEANS IN SUCH A WAY THAT MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC MAY ACCESS THESE WORKS FROM A PLACE AND TIME INDIVIDUALLY CHOSEN BY THEM:
PROVIDED, THAT AVAILABILITY OF SUCH COPIES HAS BEEN SUCH, AS TO SATISFY THE REASONABLE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE PUBLIC, HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE WORK;
171.8. "RENTAL" IS THE TRANSFER OF THE POSSESSION OF THE ORIGINAL OR A COPY OF A WORK OR
A SOUND RECORDING FOR A LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME, FOR PROFIT-MAKING PURPOSES;
171.9. "REPRODUCTION" IS THE MAKING OF ONE (1) OR MORE COPIES OF A WORK OR A SOUND
RECORDING IN ANY MANNER OR FORM;
171.10. A "WORK OF APPLIED ART" IS AN ARTISTIC CREATION WITH UTILITARIAN FUNCTIONS OR
INCORPORATED IN A USEFUL ARTICLE, WHETHER MADE BY HAND OR PRODUCED ON AN INDUSTRIAL
SCALE;
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 PART OF
HIS REGULARLY PRESCRIBED OFFICIAL DUTIES.
CHAPTER II
ORIGINAL WORKS
SEC. 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:
(A) BOOKS, PAMPHLETS, ARTICLES AND OTHER WRITINGS;
(B) PERIODICALS AND NEWSPAPERS;
(C) LECTURES, SERMONS, ADDRESSES, DISSERTATIONS PREPARED FOR ORAL DELIVERY,
WHETHER OR NOT REDUCED IN WRITING OR OTHER MATERIAL FORM;
(D) 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.
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
172.2. WORKS ARE PROTECTED BY THE SOLE FACT OF THEIR CREATION, IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR
MODE OR FORM OF EXPRESSION, AS WELL AS OF THEIR CONTENT, QUALITY AND PURPOSE.
The thing should be tangible for it to come under copyright protection. (Hence, mere idea like
e=mc2 is not copyrightable.)
- if written, if recorded, then copyrightable. If not recorded, there is no protection because it is
not in a tangible form.
Q. Are functional objects copyrightable? E.g. Figurine Lamps
A. Test is if thing is more artistic than functional. Here, figurine lamp is more artistic so it is
copyrightable. But Magwheels would not be copyrightable because it is more functional.
Cause of action is violation of a design patent. There is no need to test the gray line since
there is another source of protection.
Q. Since only tangible things are protected, are architectural plans copyrightable?
A. Yes. This is an exception to the rule that only designs are copyrightable since architectural
plans are nothing without execution.
NOTE: There is a different rule with regard to design of chips, e.g. if design is obtained from
reverse engineering. Only plan of chip is protected so reverse engineered chip is not an
infringement of copyright.
NOTE: One of the defenses to copyright infringement is absence of access. If there is no
access, there is no infringement.
CHAPTER III
DERIVATIVE WORKS
SEC. 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.
Licensing is the means to protect derivative works. In licensing, JKR allows you to
make movie. Agreement should be clear: you pay for the right to make the movie,
and that is all you have if you do not stipulate on who retains copyright to the movie.
Default rule is, she retains right to the movie.
Licensing also includes rights like coming up with the movie in DVD format.
Q. If there is copyright violation, what kind of action will you bring criminal, civil,
administrative?
A. Criminal. So that issues like standing to sue (if you are doing business in RP) and
copyright ownership (whether Warner owns the copyright or JKR) will not come up
since the State is the offended party.
173.2. THE WORKS REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPHS (A) AND (B) OF SUBSECTION 173.1 SHALL BE
PROTECTED AS A 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. 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 COPY RIGHT CONSISTING MERELY OF THE
RIGHT OF REPRODUCTION OF THE TYPOGRAPHICAL ARRANGEMENT OF THE PUBLISHED EDITION OF THE
WORK. (N)
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
CHAPTER IV
WORKS NOT PROTECTED
SEC. 175. UNPROTECTED SUBJECT MATTER. - NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 172
AND 173, NO PROTECTION SHALL EXTEND, UNDER THIS LAW, TO:
(1) 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;
(2) NEWS OF THE DAY AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS FACTS HAVING THE CHARACTER OF MERE ITEMS OF
PRESS INFORMATION;
(3) OR ANY OFFICIAL TEXT OF A LEGISLATIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE OR LEGAL NATURE, AS WELL AS ANY
OFFICIAL TRANSLATION THEREOF. (N)
SEC. 176. WORKS OF THE GOVERNMENT. 176.1. NO COPYRIGHT SHALL SUBSIST IN ANY WORK OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES.
HOWEVER, PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE GOVERNMENT AGENCY OR OFFICE WHEREIN THE WORK IS
CREATED SHALL BE NECESSARY FOR EXPLOITATION OF SUCH WORK FOR PROFIT. SUCH AGENCY OR
OFFICE MAY, AMONG OTHER THINGS, IMPOSE AS A CONDITION THE PAYMENT OF ROYALTIES. NO
PRIOR APPROVAL OR CONDITIONS SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR THE USE OF ANY PURPOSE OF STATUTES,
RULES AND REGULATIONS, AND SPEECHES, LECTURES, SERMONS, ADDRESSES, AND DISSERTATIONS,
PRONOUNCED, READ OR RENDERED IN COURTS OF JUSTICE, BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES, IN
DELIBERATIVE ASSEMBLIES AND IN MEETINGS OF PUBLIC CHARACTER.
176.2. THE AUTHOR OF SPEECHES, LECTURES, SERMONS, ADDRESSES, AND DISSERTATIONS
MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS SHALL HAVE THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF MAKING A
COLLECTION OF HIS WORKS.
176.3. NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS, THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT PRECLUDED

FROM RECEIVING AND HOLDING COPYRIGHTS TRANSFERRED TO IT BY ASSIGNMENT, BEQUEST OR
OTHERWISE; NOR SHALL PUBLICATION OR REPUBLICATION BY THE GOVERNMENT IN A PUBLIC
DOCUMENT OF ANY WORK IN WHICH COPY RIGHT IS SUBSISTING BE TAKEN TO CAUSE ANY
ABRIDGMENT OR ANNULMENT OF THE COPYRIGHT OR TO AUTHORIZE ANY USE OR APPROPRIATION OF
SUCH WORK WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS.
CHAPTER V
COPYRIGHT OR ECONOMIC RIGHTS
SEC. 177. COPY OR ECONOMIC RIGHTS. - SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER VIII, COPYRIGHT
OR ECONOMIC RIGHTS SHALL CONSIST OF THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO CARRY OUT, AUTHORIZE OR PREVENT
THE FOLLOWING ACTS:
177.1. REPRODUCTION OF THE WORK OR SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE WORK;
-
reproduction must be commercial, public and substantial

substantial is vague; it should be a case to case basis. Factors to be considered
are length copied and importance of a portion copied. You may copy only one
paragraph but it could be the essence of the entire thing
177.2 DRAMATIZATION, TRANSLATION, ADAPTATION, ABRIDGMENT, ARRANGEMENT OR OTHER

TRANSFORMATION OF THE WORK;
177.3. THE FIRST PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE ORIGINAL AND EACH COPY OF THE WORK BY SALE OR
OTHER FORMS OF TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP;
-
right to determined 1) whether or not to sell, and 2) when to sell
Q. If you buy a book then after reading it, you sell it to another, infringement?
A. No. The moment it is sold, copyright protection as to public distribution is over.
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
NOTE: There is a difference between copyrighted work and the medium where it is
contained. So you can sell your book, unless it is provided in the copyright agreement
Quaerendum: Does this apply to digital works? Because under the first sale doctrine, you
can sell your copy. First sale doctrine assumes there is a tangible thing. The paper
suggests that the doctrine should not apply to internet.
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;
- There should be permission (a license) to rent out for VHS stores to operate
This has been made part of the WTO via the TRIPS agreement
So if someone borrows VHS from an unlicensed store, there is also a criminal
violation on his part.
177.5. PUBLIC DISPLAY OF THE ORIGINAL OR A COPY OF THE WORK;
177.6. PUBLIC PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK; AND
NOTE: Public Performance was defined earlier as:
171.6. "Public performance," in the case of a work other than an audiovisual work, is
the recitation, playing, dancing, acting or otherwise performing the work, either directly
or by means of any device or process; in the case of an audiovisual work, the showing
of its images in sequence and the making of the sounds accompanying it audible;
and, in the case of a sound recording, making the recorded sounds audible at a place
or at places where persons outside the normal circle of a family and that familys
closest social acquaintances are or can be present, irrespective of whether they are
or can be present at the same place and at the same time, or at different places
and/or at different times, and where the performance can be perceived without the
need for communication within the meaning of Subsection 171.3;
Q. No TV in barrio, you buy TV, subscribe from Home and charge people to watch it.
Violation?
A. Yes, It falls under public performance, same rule for broadcast.
TV
-
point to multipoint
point to point (since only subscriber can receive)
Q. Is there broadcast?
A. Yes, there is broadcast. Public performance and communication to the public is included.
There is no distinction as to TV or cable.
Website with copyrighted material point to point, protection includes broadcast and
communicating to the public so you have protection
Internet there is assumed right to transmit material in internet unless made very clear that
there are restrictions
E-Commerce Act you can enter into internet contract by clicking I agree in buttons
Therefore: if you click I agree that I will not violate copyright and still violate copyright, two
causes of action against you: 1) breach of contract and 2) copyright infringement
177.7. OTHER COMMUNICATION TO THE PUBLIC OF THE WORK
Q. Is copyright owner given right to prevent importation of the article?
A. Parallel import in patent, the right to limit importation is clearly given. But it is not clear in
copyright law.
IP Code provides in Sec. 190.
the importation of a copy of a work by an individual for his personal purposes shall be
permitted without the authorization of the author of, or other owner of copyright in, the work
under the following circumstances:
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(a) When copies of the work are not available in the Philippines and:
Not more than one (1) copy at one time is imported for strictly individual use only; or
The importation is by authority of and for the use of the Philippine Government; or
The importation, consisting of not more than three (3) such copies or likenesses in any
one invoice, is not for sale but for the use only of any religious, charitable, or educational
society or institution duly incorporated or registered, or is for the encouragement of the
fine arts, or for any state school, college, university, or free public library in the Philippines.
CHAPTER VI
OWNERSHIP OF COPYRIGHT
SEC. 178. RULES ON COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP. - COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE
FOLLOWING RULES:
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;
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 CO-OWNERSHIP. 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;
General rule: Creator has copyright. It can be co-owned.

Copyright protection lasts until 50 years after death of author. If there are two authors, it is
after the second death. So include your son for the extra 30-40 years of protection.
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.
Q. Software programmer working in a company has access to information to create accounting
computer programs. During his lunch break, he uses the equipment to create computer
games. Is there copyright infringement?
A. No. Employee has the copyright. But the ee-er contract may stipulate that employee may
assign copyright. Outright ownership is not allowed as to objects created outside the scope.
By requiring the assignment of the copyright, this is made a condition for getting the job from
day one. If employee violates the contract, the employee can be sued for 2 causes of action
breach of contract and infringement.
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 WORK, BUT THE COPYRIGHT
THERETO SHALL REMAIN WITH THE CREATOR, UNLESS THERE IS A WRITTEN STIPULATION TO THE
CONTRARY;
General rule: copyright remains with author. If commissioned work is photographed and
published, infringement of right of painter.
Contract has to be IN WRITING. If it is not in writing, artist/creator retains copyright.
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 PRODUCERS 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
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
Q. If you want to produce DVD, who do you talk to?

A. The producer. But for infringement case, who has cause of action?
178.6. IN RESPECT OF LETTERS, THE COPYRIGHT SHALL BELONG TO THE WRITER SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 723 OF THE CIVIL CODE.
Art. 723 Letters and other private communications in writing are owned by the person to
whom they are addressed and delivered, but they cannot be published or disseminated without
the consent of the writer or his heirs. However, the court may authorize their publication or
dissemination if the public good or the interest of justice so requires.
Not yet sent copyright belongs to writer
Sent belongs to person to whom it is addressed
If not received, copyright isnt transferred.
SEC. 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 DOUBTS AS TO THE AUTHORS IDENTITY, OR IF THE AUTHOR
OF THE ANONYMOUS WORKS DISCLOSES HIS IDENTITY.
CHAPTER VII
TRANSFER OR ASSIGNMENT OF COPYRIGHT
SEC. 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. 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. 182. FILING 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.
ASSIGNMENT AND LICENSE
Possible defenses to infringement are:
ASSIGNMENT
1.) you acquired copyright already

copyright was assigned
2.) you were allowed to do the stuff you did
you have a license
Allan Verman Ong
SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
Copyright a body of rights so you can assign some of these rights to other people (note, only
Economic Rights are assignable. Moral Rights are not assignable/alienable.)
Assignment has to be in writing.
NOTE: When I give a copy to a publication for publication, when there is no agreement between
the parties, I retain the copyright and it extends only to one publication.
Second reprints are not allowed, without permission.
License
-
can be free or for a fee

Trivia: A portion of costs of CD are paid to the artist as royalty.
COPYRIGHT
Yes
Transfer of Ownership?
Standing to
infringement?
sue
Kinds/Additional Info
for
Yes. Here, you own copyright,

so you can sue.
Joint ownership of copyright

(e.g. two authors)
ask permission from both
Film
all
(writer/producer/song
writer) own the copyright. But
the producer represents them
LICENSE
No. This involves only permission
from the author/creator. He retains
ownership of the copyright.
No. You cant sue because only
the copyright owner can do that.
However, you can stipulate on this.
Even to bring criminal actions?
Yes. But usually, only licensor can
sue because it is his property and
he wants to control it.
Exclusive
you can license the same right to
somebody else and not be in
breach (for instance, Neil Gaiman
licensed
movie
rights
of
Neverwhere to BBC, Miramax,
etc.)
Non-Exclusive
if JKR licenses Viva Films to
make Harry Potter, guess who will
come with a lawsuit faster than you
can say Wingardium Leviosa?
SEC. 183. DESIGNATION OF SOCIETY. - THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS OR THEIR HEIRS MAY DESIGNATE A
SOCIETY OF ARTISTS, WRITERS OR COMPOSERS TO ENFORCE THEIR ECONOMIC RIGHTS AND MORAL
RIGHTS ON THEIR BEHALF.
This is also known as collective administration of copyright. There is an organization called
Philippine Society of Songwriters and Recording Artists which is designated by all its members to
take charge of the collection of annual royalty fees from broadcast companies to broadcast their
songs, then you split it among all the artists. This does away with the need of collecting royalty
fees everytime a BSB song is played. But if youre not a member, you cant avail of their collection
services. Gotta collect on your own.
CHAPTER VIII
LIMITATIONS ON COPYRIGHT
SEC. 184. LIMITATIONS ON COPYRIGHT. 184.1. NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER V, THE FOLLOWING ACTS SHALL NOT
CONSTITUTE INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT:
(A) THE RECITATION OR PERFORMANCE OF A WORK, ONCE IT HAS BEEN LAWFULLY MADE
ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC, IF DONE PRIVATELY AND FREE OF CHARGE OR IF MADE
STRICTLY FOR A CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION OR SOCIETY;
(B) THE MAKING OF QUOTATIONS FROM A PUBLISHED WORK IF THEY ARE COMPATIBLE WITH
FAIR USE AND ONLY TO THE EXTENT JUSTIFIED FOR THE PURPOSE, INCLUDING QUOTATIONS
FROM NEWSPAPER ARTICLES AND PERIODICALS IN THE FORM OF PRESS SUMMARIES:
10
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
PROVIDED, THAT THE SOURCE AND THE NAME OF THE AUTHOR, IF APPEARING ON THE
WORK, ARE MENTIONED;
(C) THE REPRODUCTION OR COMMUNICATION TO THE PUBLIC BY MASS MEDIA OF ARTICLES
ON CURRENT POLITICAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, SCIENTIFIC OR RELIGIOUS TOPIC, LECTURES,
ADDRESSES AND OTHER WORKS OF THE SAME NATURE, WHICH ARE DELIVERED IN PUBLIC IF
SUCH USE IS FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES AND HAS NOT BEEN EXPRESSLY RESERVED:
PROVIDED, THAT THE SOURCE IS CLEARLY INDICATED;
(D) THE REPRODUCTION AND COMMUNICATION TO THE PUBLIC OF LITERARY, SCIENTIFIC OR
ARTISTIC WORKS AS PART OF REPORTS OF CURRENT EVENTS BY MEANS OF PHOTOGRAPHY,
CINEMATOGRAPHY OR BROADCASTING TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE;
(E) THE INCLUSION OF A WORK IN A PUBLICATION, BROADCAST, OR OTHER COMMUNICATION
TO THE PUBLIC, SOUND RECORDING OR FILM, IF SUCH INCLUSION IS MADE BY WAY OF
ILLUSTRATION FOR TEACHING PURPOSES AND IS COMPATIBLE WITH FAIR USE: PROVIDED,
THAT THE SOURCE AND OF THE NAME OF THE AUTHOR, IF APPEARING IN THE WORK, ARE
MENTIONED;
(F) THE RECORDING MADE IN SCHOOLS, UNIVERSITIES, OR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS OF A
WORK INCLUDED IN A BROADCAST FOR THE USE OF SUCH SCHOOLS, UNIVERSITIES OR
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS: PROVIDED, THAT SUCH RECORDING MUST BE DELETED WITHIN
A REASONABLE PERIOD AFTER THEY WERE FIRST BROADCAST: PROVIDED, FURTHER, THAT
SUCH RECORDING MAY NOT BE MADE FROM AUDIOVISUAL WORKS WHICH ARE PART OF THE
GENERAL CINEMA REPERTOIRE OF FEATURE FILMS EXCEPT FOR BRIEF EXCERPTS OF THE
WORK;
(G) THE MAKING OF EPHEMERAL RECORDINGS BY A BROADCASTING ORGANIZATION BY
MEANS OF ITS OWN FACILITIES AND FOR USE IN ITS OWN BROADCAST;
(H) THE USE MADE OF A WORK BY OR UNDER THE DIRECTION OR CONTROL OF THE
GOVERNMENT, BY THE NATIONAL LIBRARY OR BY EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC OR
PROFESSIONAL INSTITUTIONS WHERE SUCH USE IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND IS
COMPATIBLE WITH FAIR USE;
(I) THE PUBLIC PERFORMANCE OR THE COMMUNICATION TO THE PUBLIC OF A WORK, IN A
PLACE WHERE NO ADMISSION FEE IS CHARGED IN RESPECT OF SUCH PUBLIC PERFORMANCE
OR COMMUNICATION, BY A CLUB OR INSTITUTION FOR CHARITABLE OR EDUCATIONAL
PURPOSE ONLY, WHOSE AIM IS NOT PROFIT MAKING, SUBJECT TO SUCH OTHER LIMITATIONS
AS MAY BE PROVIDED IN THE REGULATIONS; (N)
(J) PUBLIC DISPLAY OF THE ORIGINAL OR A COPY OF THE WORK NOT MADE BY MEANS OF A
FILM, SLIDE, TELEVISION IMAGE OR OTHERWISE ON SCREEN OR BY MEANS OF ANY OTHER
DEVICE OR PROCESS: PROVIDED, THAT EITHER THE WORK HAS BEEN PUBLISHED, OR, THAT
ORIGINAL OR THE COPY DISPLAYED HAS BEEN SOLD, GIVEN AWAY OR OTHERWISE
TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER PERSON BY THE AUTHOR OR HIS SUCCESSOR IN TITLE; AND
(K) ANY USE MADE OF A WORK FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANY JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OR FOR
THE GIVING OF PROFESSIONAL ADVICE BY A LEGAL PRACTITIONER.
184.2. THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE INTERPRETED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO ALLOW THE
WORK TO BE USED IN A MANNER WHICH DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THE NORMAL EXPLOITATION OF
THE WORK AND DOES NOT UNREASONABLY PREJUDICE THE RIGHT HOLDER'S LEGITIMATE INTEREST.
SEC. 185. FAIR USE OF A COPYRIGHTED WORK. 185.1. THE FAIR USE OF A COPYRIGHTED WORK FOR CRITICISM, COMMENT, NEWS REPORTING,
TEACHING INCLUDING MULTIPLE COPIES FOR CLASSROOM USE, SCHOLARSHIP, RESEARCH, AND
SIMILAR PURPOSES IS NOT AN INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT. DECOMPILATION, WHICH IS
UNDERSTOOD HERE TO BE THE REPRODUCTION OF THE CODE AND TRANSLATION OF THE FORMS OF
THE COMPUTER PROGRAM TO ACHIEVE THE INTER-OPERABILITY OF AN INDEPENDENTLY CREATED
COMPUTER PROGRAM WITH OTHER PROGRAMS MAY ALSO CONSTITUTE FAIR USE. IN DETERMINING
WHETHER THE USE MADE OF A WORK IN ANY PARTICULAR CASE IS FAIR USE, THE FACTORS TO BE
CONSIDERED SHALL INCLUDE:
(A) THE PURPOSE AND CHARACTER OF THE USE, INCLUDING WHETHER SUCH USE IS OF A
COMMERCIAL NATURE OR IS FOR NON-PROFIT EDUCATION PURPOSES;
(B) THE NATURE OF THE COPYRIGHTED WORK;
published/unpublished
factual/fictional
11
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
- Defense of fair use has more chance in unpublished work than a published work.
However, there is little chance for the defense of an unpublished creative work to hold
since in fictional work, there is more creative input than factual work
(C) THE AMOUNT AND SUBSTANTIALITY OF THE PORTION USED IN RELATION TO THE
COPYRIGHTED WORK AS A WHOLE; AND
-if portion copied is heart of the work
(D) THE EFFECT OF THE USE UPON THE POTENTIAL MARKET FOR OR VALUE OF THE
COPYRIGHTED WORK.
-
test is both the present and future market
NOTE: Each Fair Use case is treated differently. The most important test in each case
differs.
185.2 THE FACT THAT A WORK IS UNPUBLISHED SHALL NOT BY ITSELF BAR A FINDING OF FAIR USE IF
SUCH FINDING IS MADE UPON CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE ABOVE FACTORS.
Fair Use always involves a balancing of interests of the copyright owner and the public.
The copyright owner has the right to exploit his work;
The public has the right to information and the right to share this information.
When you cross the line, it is considered copyright infringement.
At this point, Atty. Lim discussed the Napster case (unassigned). Here is a Q&A.
Q: Napster itself does not copy or distribute music files. So, why are the record companies suing Napster?
A: It was the end users who were allegedly committing the direct infringement by making music files available and
downloading files without authorization. For several reasons, such as the problem of end-users being judgment-proof,
or the need to bring thousands, if not millions, of lawsuits to stop the infringement, the record companies initiated the
action against the company, which in their eyes facilitated the infringement.
It was alleged that Napster should be liable under a theory of either contributory infringement or vicarious
liability One may be liable for contributory infringement if one "with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes,
or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another." In the Napster case, the plaintiffs alleged that Napster's
facilitation of the identifying and downloading of files constituted contributory infringement. In the Napster case, the
plaintiffs claimed that Napster had the ability to control the activity, by allowing or filtering out the music files. Because
Napster could get advertising revenue based upon the number of "hits," it, too, was alleged that Napster had a financial
interest in the infringement.
Q: Isn't this a "fair use"?
A: The fair use doctrine, sometimes called "an equitable rule of reason," was initially judicially created to allow the use
of portions of a work for purposes of criticism and comment, news reporting, scholarship, teaching, etc. The fair use
doctrine is now part of the current Copyright Act.
(1) The Purpose And Character Of The Use
Merely uploading and downloading copies of the music files -- was not transformative. The court then proceeded to
look to the commercial or non-commercial nature of the work. The more commercial the use, the less latitude for the
unauthorized user.
In the Napster case, the court found the use to be commercial. Although there was no exchange of money or sale of
the files, the court nonetheless found the use to be commercial, affirming the district court's findings that (1) "a host
user sending a file cannot be said to engage in personal use when distributing that file to an anonymous requester" and
(2) "Napster users get for free something they would ordinarily have to buy." The court continued, "Commercial use is
demonstrated by a showing that repeated and exploitative unauthorized copies of copyrighted works were made to
save the expense of purchasing copies." The court also noted that for purposes of criminal law, the definition of
"financial gain" also includes "the receipt of other copyrighted works."
(2) The Nature of the Copyrighted Work
In the Napster case, the works being copied are creative works -- music. The creative nature of the musical
compositions and sound recordings "cut against" a finding of fair use. The Ninth Circuit again agreed with the lower
court's determination.
(3) The Amount And Substantiality Of The Portion Used In Relation To The Copyrighted Work As A Whole
In the Napster case, the determination was easy. The end-users who were doing the downloading were taking copies
of the entire song. The taking was therefore both quantitatively and qualitatively substantial. Therefore, this factor also
favored the plaintiff record companies.
12
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
(4) The Effect on the Potential Market of Value for the Work
The Ninth Circuit court in the Napster case affirmed the lower court's finding that Napster harmed the market for the
works in "at least" two ways: (1) "it reduces audio CD sales among college students" and 2) "it raises barriers to
plaintiffs' entry into the market for the digital downloading of music." In reaching its decision, the court paid particular
attention to the expert's report showing that on college campuses, there was evidence of lost retail sales of CDs on
college campuses. Such lost sales were taken to be sufficient to support the finding of "irreparable harm" needed for an
injunction. The court did not place very much credence in the report by Napster's expert that the sharing of files
stimulates demand for sales of CDs.
The court did not accept that argument. The court also found Napster interfered with the record companies' efforts to
legitimately license their sound recordings and musical compositions for Internet-related downloads themselves. If it is
easy to get the music files for free, why would one go to the authorized site and pay for them? This, of course,
assumes that the end-users have a sense of not being in any danger whatsoever for doing the uploading and
downloading.
Q: Isn't this like the Universal City Studios v. Sony case? If it was OK to videotape television shows for
personal use in Sony, why isn't it acceptable to copy music from the Internet for personal use?
A: At the time the Sony case was brought in district court, more than 20 years ago, the record showed that most people
merely "time-shifted" the television shows. They recorded shows that were on the air at inconvenient times or when
they were not home. Most importantly, Universal was not able to show that the users were archiving or "librarying" the
tapes. The situation in the Napster case is completely different. First, there is no precedent in Napster's favor for
"space shifting". In Texaco, in-house researchers at Texaco copied and kept articles from scientific journals. The
Second Circuit emphasized that copies of the articles were in the files.
Q: Isn't this really the same as just swapping some CDs or music files with your friends?
A: All of the files are compressed and converted to MP3 or an analogous technology to facilitate the fast copying of the
CDs. During the "marathon," thousands and thousands of CDs are copied. At the end of the marathon, each person
who entered leaves with the CDs he or she arrived with, as well as at least another 100.
Essentially, this is what's going on in the Napster case. It is hard to imagine that this would not be infringement! It would
be difficult to argue that this was "non-commercial copying for personal use."
Q: Will Napster be shut down?
A: The court's injunction does not require Napster to shut down. It does, however, require Napster to filter out the files
that have been identified by the plaintiff record companies. It remains to be seen whether Napster will be able to
comply with the terms of the injunction, and if not, what will happen next.
In the meanwhile, as mentioned above, the record companies are entering into agreements with various companies for
the distribution of music. I would not be surprised if, in the not-too-distant future, we see several "reasonably priced"
subscription based online services providing downloadable music files.
IMPT NOTE: When you raise fair use as a defense, you admit the facts in the complaint.
Therefore:
1.) Plaintiff will no longer have to prove the facts, the trial now centers on whether or not there
was fair use.
2.) It would be an inconsistent defense if you allege fair use and you allege that you were not
the one doing the infringing.
Q. Chris Lim copies substantial portions of a book of a UP professor on IP, then he gives it out to
students and anyone who wants a copy. Infringement?
A. Yes. The fact that it is for free does not necessarily mean it is fair use.
Q. If the IP Code were amended to read, So long as copyrighted material is used in school, it is
fair use. Would this be constitutional?
A. Maybe not. It would be undue deprivation of property. It would also remove all incentive to
create, write law books for instance (YEHEY!!) or develop computer programs for school usage.
Q. When Chris Lim says, I copied large portions of Atty. Xs work, is this a valid defense?
A. No. It may serve to limit liability, but if substantial portions of the work is copied, attribution will
not protect you. Protection only exists when excerpts are used.
Note: Traditional copyright is easier to protect than digital copyright.
SONY CORP. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC.,
464 U.S. 417 (1984)
Petitioners manufacture and sell home video tape recorders. Respondents own the copyrights on some of the
television programs that are broadcast on the public airwaves. Some members of the general public use video
13
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
tape recorders sold by petitioners to record some of these broadcasts, as well as a large number of other
broadcasts. Respondents commenced this copyright infringement action against petitioners in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California in 1976. Respondents alleged that some individuals
had used Betamax video tape recorders (VTR's) to record some of respondents' copyrighted works which had
been exhibited on commercially sponsored television and contended that these individuals had thereby
infringed respondents' copyrights. Respondents further maintained that petitioners were liable for the copyright
infringement allegedly committed by Betamax consumers because of petitioners' marketing of the Betamax
VTR's. Respondents sought no relief against any Betamax consumer. Instead, they sought money damages
and an equitable accounting of profits from petitioners, as well as an injunction against the manufacture and
marketing of Betamax VTR's.
An explanation of our rejection of respondents' unprecedented attempt to impose copyright liability upon the
distributors of copying equipment requires a quite detailed recitation of the findings of the District
Court. In summary, those findings reveal that the average member of the public uses a VTR
principally to record a program he cannot view as it is being televised and then to watch it once at a
later time. This practice, known as "time-shifting," enlarges the television viewing audience. For that
reason, a significant amount of television programming may be used in this manner without objection
from the owners of the copyrights on the programs. For the same reason, even the two respondents
in this case, who do assert objections to time-shifting in this litigation, were unable to prove that the
practice has impaired the commercial value of their copyrights or has created any likelihood of future
harm.
Held: Given these findings, there is no basis in the Copyright Act upon which respondents can hold
petitioners liable for distributing VTR's to the general public. Each of the respondents
owns a large inventory of valuable copyrights, but in the total spectrum of television
programming their combined market share is small. The exact percentage is not specified,
but it is well below 10%. If they were to prevail, the outcome of this litigation would have a
significant impact on both the producers and the viewers of the remaining 90% of the
programming in the Nation. No doubt, many other producers share respondents' concern
about the possible consequences of unrestricted copying. Nevertheless the findings of the
District Court make it clear that time-shifting may enlarge the total viewing audience and
that many producers are willing to allow private time-shifting to continue, at least for an
experimental time period.
Die Another Day

I'm gonna wake up, yes and no
I'm gonna kiss some part of
I'm gonna keep this secret
I'm gonna close my body now
I guess, die another day
I guess I'll die another day
(Another day)
(Another day)
(Another day)
Sigmund Freud
Analyze this
Analyze this
Analyze this
I'm gonna break the cycle
I'm gonna shake up the system
I'm gonna destroy my ego
Uh, uh
I think I'll find another way
There's so much more to know
It's not my time to go
For every sin, I'll have to pay
I've come to work, I've come to play
I'm gonna avoid the cliche
I'm gonna suspend my senses

I'm gonna delay my pleasure
2

There's so much more to know
Uh, uh
Another day [x6]
If there are millions of owners of VTR's who make copies of

televised sports events, religious broadcasts, and educational
programs such as Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, and if the
proprietors of those programs welcome the practice, the
business of supplying the equipment that makes such copying
feasible should not be stifled simply because the equipment is
used by some individuals to make unauthorized reproductions
of respondents' works. The respondents do not represent a
class composed of all copyright holders. Yet a finding of
contributory infringement would inevitably frustrate the
interests of broadcasters in reaching the portion of their
audience that is available only through time-shifting.
14
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
Of course, the fact that other

copyright holders may welcome
the practice of time-shifting does
not mean that respondents should
be deemed to have granted a
license to copy their programs.
Third-party conduct would be
wholly irrelevant in an action for
direct
infringement
of
respondents' copyrights. But in an
action
for
contributory
infringement against the seller of
copying equipment, the copyright
holder may not prevail unless the
relief that he seeks affects only
his programs, or unless he
speaks for virtually all copyright
holders with an interest in the
outcome. In this case, the record
makes it perfectly clear that there are many important

producers of national and local television programs who find
nothing objectionable about the enlargement in the size of the
television audience that results from the practice of timeshifting for private home use. The seller of the equipment that
expands those producers' audiences cannot be a contributory
infringer if, as is true in this case, it has had no direct
involvement with any infringing activity.
Even unauthorized uses of a copyrighted work are not
necessarily infringing. An unlicensed use of the copyright is not
an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific
exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. Moreover,
the definition of exclusive rights in 106 of the present Act is
prefaced by the words "subject to sections 107 through 118."
Those sections describe a variety of uses of copyrighted
material that "are not infringements of copyright"
"notwithstanding the provisions of section 106." The most
pertinent in this case is 107, the legislative endorsement of the
doctrine of "fair use."
That section identifies various factors that enable a court to apply an "equitable rule of reason"
analysis to particular claims of infringement. Although not conclusive, the first factor requires that
"the commercial or nonprofit character of an activity" be weighed in any fair use decision. If the
Betamax were used to make copies for a commercial or profitmaking purpose, such use would
presumptively be unfair. The contrary presumption is appropriate here, however, because the
District Court's findings plainly establish that time-shifting for private home use must be
characterized as a noncommercial, nonprofit activity. Moreover, when one considers the nature of a
televised copyrighted audiovisual work, and that time-shifting merely enables a viewer to see such
a work which he had been invited to witness in its entirety free of charge, the fact that the entire
work is reproduced, see 107(3), does not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of
fair use.
This is not, however, the end of the inquiry because Congress has also directed us to consider "the
effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." 107(4). The
purpose of copyright is to create incentives for creative effort. Even copying for noncommercial
purposes may impair the copyright holder's ability to obtain the rewards that Congress intended
him to have. But a use that has no demonstrable effect upon the potential market for, or the value
of, the copyrighted work need not be prohibited in order to protect the author's incentive to create.
The prohibition of such noncommercial uses would merely inhibit access to ideas without any
countervailing benefit.
Thus, although every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively an unfair exploitation
of the monopoly privilege that belongs to the owner of the copyright, noncommercial uses are a
different matter. A challenge to a noncommercial use of a copyrighted work requires proof either
that the particular use is harmful, or that if it should become widespread, it would adversely affect
the potential market for the copyrighted work. Actual present harm need not be shown; such a
requirement would leave the copyright holder with no defense against predictable damage. Nor is it
necessary to show with certainty that future harm will result. What is necessary is a showing by a
preponderance of the evidence that some meaningful likelihood of future harm exists. If the
intended use is for commercial gain, that likelihood may be presumed. But if it is for a
noncommercial purpose, the likelihood must be demonstrated.
When these factors are all weighed in the "equitable rule of reason" balance, we must conclude
that this record amply supports the District Court's conclusion that home time-shifting is fair use. In
light of the findings of the District Court regarding the state of the empirical data, it is clear that the
Court of Appeals erred in holding that the statute as presently written bars such conduct.
In summary, the record and findings of the District Court lead us to two conclusions. First, Sony
demonstrated a significant likelihood that substantial numbers of copyright holders who license
their works for broadcast on free television would not object to having their broadcasts time-shifted
by private viewers. And second, respondents failed to demonstrate that time-shifting would cause
15
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
any likelihood of nonminimal harm to the potential market for, or the value of, their copyrighted
works. The Betamax is, therefore, capable of substantial noninfringing uses. Sony's sale of such
equipment to the general public does not constitute contributory infringement of respondents'
copyrights.
STEWART v. ABEND, 495 U.S. 207 (1990)
495 U.S. 207
Cornell Woolrich authored the story "It Had to Be Murder," which was first published in February 1942 in Dime
Detective Magazine. The magazine's publisher, Popular Publications, Inc., obtained the rights to magazine
publication of the story and Woolrich retained all other rights. Popular Publications obtained a blanket copyright
for the issue of Dime Detective Magazine in which "It Had to Be Murder" was published.
The Copyright Act of 1909 provided authors a 28-year initial term of copyright protection plus a 28-year renewal
term. In 1945, Woolrich agreed to assign the rights to make motion picture versions of six of his stories,
including "It Had to Be Murder," to B. G. De Sylva Productions for $9,250. He also agreed to renew the
copyrights in the stories at the appropriate time and to assign the same motion picture rights to De Sylva
Productions for the 28-year renewal term. In 1953, actor Jimmy Stewart and director Alfred Hitchcock formed a
production company, Patron, Inc., which obtained the motion picture rights in "It Had to Be Murder" from De
Sylva's successors in interest for $10,000.
In 1954, Patron, Inc., along with Paramount Pictures, produced and distributed "Rear Window," the motion
picture version of Woolrich's story "It Had to Be Murder." Woolrich died in 1968 before he could obtain the rights
in the renewal term for petitioners as promised and without a surviving spouse or child. He left his property to a
trust administered by his executor, Chase Manhattan Bank, for the benefit of Columbia University. On
December 29, 1969, Chase Manhattan Bank renewed the copyright in the "It Had to Be Murder" story. Chase
Manhattan assigned the renewal rights to respondent Abend for $650 plus 10% of all proceeds from exploitation
of the story.
"Rear Window" was broadcast on the ABC television network in 1971. Respondent then notified petitioners
Hitchcock (now represented by cotrustees of his will), Stewart, and MCA Inc., the owners of the "Rear Window"
motion picture and renewal rights in the motion picture, that he owned the renewal rights in the copyright and
that their distribution of the motion picture without his permission infringed his copyright in the story. Hitchcock,
Stewart, and MCA nonetheless entered into a second license with ABC to rebroadcast
Petitioners assert that even if their use of "It Had to Be Murder" is unauthorized, it is a fair use and, therefore,
not infringing. At common law, "the property of the author . . . in his intellectual creation [was] absolute until he
voluntarily part[ed] with the same. The fair use doctrine, which is incorporated into the 1976 Act, evolved in
response to this absolute rule.
Held: The Court of Appeals determined that the use of Woolrich's story in petitioners' motion
picture was not fair use. We agree. The motion picture neither falls into any of the categories
enumerated in 107 nor meets the four criteria set forth in 107. "[E]very [unauthorized] commercial
use of copyrighted material is presumptively an unfair exploitation of the monopoly privilege that
belongs to the owner of the copyright." Petitioners received $12 million from the re-release of the
motion picture during the renewal term. Petitioners asserted before the Court of Appeals that their
use was educational rather than commercial. The Court of Appeals found nothing in the record to
support this assertion, nor do we.
Applying the second factor, the Court of Appeals pointed out that "[a] use is less likely to be
deemed fair when the copyrighted work is a creative product." In general, fair use is more likely to
be found in factual works than in fictional works. The law generally recognizes a greater need to
disseminate factual works than works of fiction or fantasy. A motion picture based on a fictional
short story obviously falls into the latter category.
Examining the third factor, the Court of Appeals determined that the story was a substantial portion
of the motion picture. The motion picture expressly uses the story's unique setting, characters, plot,
and sequence of events. Petitioners argue that the story constituted only 20% of the motion
picture's story line, but that does not mean that a substantial portion of the story was not used in
the motion picture. "[A] taking may not be excused merely because it is insubstantial with respect to
the infringing work."
The fourth factor is the "most important, and indeed, central fair use factor." The record supports
the Court of Appeals' conclusion that re-release of the film impinged on the ability to market new
versions of the story. Common sense would yield the same conclusion. Thus, all four factors point
to unfair use. "This case presents a classic example of an unfair use: a commercial use of a
fictional story that adversely affects the story owner's adaptation rights."
16
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiff, v. George FRENA
George Frena operates a subscription computer bulletin board service, Techs Warehouse BBS ("BBS"), that
distributed unauthorized copies of Plaintiff Playboy Enterprises, Inc.'s copyrighted photographs. BBS is
accessible via telephone modem to customers. For a fee, or to those who purchase certain products from
Defendant Frena, anyone with an appropriately equipped computer can log onto BBS. Once logged on
subscribers may browse through different BBS directories to look at the pictures and customers may also
download the high quality computerized copies of the photographs and then store the copied image from
Frena's computer onto their home computer. Many of the images found on BBS include adult subject matter.
One hundred and seventy of the images that were available on BBS were copies of photographs taken from
PEI's copyrighted materials.
Defendant Frena admits that (1) these materials were displayed on his BBS, (2) that he never obtained
authorization or consent from PEI, and (3) that each of the accused computer graphic files on BBS is
substantially similar to copyrighted PEI photographs and (4) that each of the files in question has been
downloaded by one of his customers.
Subscribers can upload material onto the bulletin board so that any other subscriber, by accessing their
computer, can see that material. Defendant Frena states that he never uploaded any of PEI's photographs onto
BBS and that subscribers to BBS uploaded the photographs. Defendant Frena states that as soon as he was
served with a summons and made aware of this matter, he removed the photographs from BBS and has since
that time monitored BBS to prevent additional photographs of PEI from being uploaded. Defendant Frena
argues that the affirmative defense of fair use precludes a finding of copyright infringement.
Held: The question of fair use constitutes a mixed issue of law and fact. The Copyright Act
mandates four nonexclusive factors which courts shall consider case by case in determining fair
use. Section 107 does not attempt to define "fair use." It merely lists the factors to be considered in
determining whether a use made of a work in a particular case is fair.
FIRST: every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively an unfair exploitation of the
monopoly privilege that belongs to the owner of the copyright ...,"
Defendant Frena's use was clearly commercial. BBS was provided to those paying twenty-five
dollars ($25) per month or to those who purchased products from Defendant Frena. One who
distributes copyrighted material for profit is engaged in a commercial use even if the customers
supplied with such material themselves use it for personal use. Implicit in the presumption that
every commercial use is presumptively unfair is "some meaningful likelihood that future market
harm exists." It is clear that future market harm exists to PEI due to Frena's activities
SECOND: the "nature of the copyrighted work." "Copyright protection is narrower, and the
corresponding application of fair use defense greater, in the case of factual works than in the case
of works of fiction or fantasy." If a work is more appropriately characterized as entertainment, it is
less likely that a claim of fair use will be accepted. The copyrighted works involved in this case are
in the category of fantasy and entertainment. Therefore, the second factor works against Frena's
fair use defense.
THIRD: the amount and substantiality of the portion of the copyrighted work used, the Supreme
Court has directed a qualitative evaluation of the copying of the copyrighted work. That is, "a small
degree of taking is sufficient to transgress fair use if the copying is the essential part of the
copyrighted work." There is no doubt that the photographs in Playboy magazine are an essential
part of the copyrighted work. The Court is not implying that people do not read the articles in PEI's
magazine. However, a major factor to PEI's success is the photographs in its magazine. By pirating
the photographs for which PEI has become famous, Defendant Frena has taken a very important
part of PEI's copyrighted publications.
FOURTH: the "effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work," is
"undoubtedly the single most important element of fair use, since a proper application of fair use
does not impair materially the marketability of the copied work." This factor poses the issue of
"whether unrestricted and widespread conduct of the sort engaged in by the defendant (whether in
fact engaged in by the defendant or others) would result in a substantially adverse impact on the
potential market for or value of the plaintiff's present work. [P]otential market means either an
17
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
immediate or delayed market, and includes harm to derivative works. Obviously, if this type of
conduct became widespread, it would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted
work. Such conduct would deny PEI considerable revenue to which it is entitled for the service it
provides.
There is irrefutable evidence of direct copyright infringement in this case. It does not matter that
Defendant Frena may have been unaware of the copyright infringement. Intent to infringe is not
needed to find copyright infringement. Intent or knowledge is not an element of infringement, and
thus even an innocent infringer is liable for infringement; rather, innocence is significant to a trial
court when it fixes statutory damages, which is a remedy equitable in nature.
SEGA ENTERPRISES LTD. v. MAPHIA
Sega is a major manufacturer and distributor of computer video game systems and computer video games
which are sold under the SEGA trademark. The Sega game system consists of two major components sold by
Sega: the game console and software programs stored on video game cartridges which are inserted into the
base unit. Each cartridge contains a single game program. The base unit contains a microcomputer which,
when connected to a television, permits individuals to play the video game stored on the inserted cartridge. The
computer programs for the Sega video games are stored on a cartridge in a Read-Only Memory ("ROM") chip.
Sega's video games cannot be copied using the game console. However, as noted below, running devices,
called "copiers," are designed to copy the video game programs from a Sega game cartridge onto other
magnetic media such as hard and floppy disks.
An electronic bulletin board consists of electronic storage media, such as computer memories or hard disks,
which is attached to telephone lines via modem devices, and controlled by a computer. Third parties, known as
"users," of electronic bulletin boards can transfer information over the telephone lines from their own computers
to the storage media on the bulletin board by a process known as "uploading." Defendants MAPHIA and Chad
Scherman operate an electronic bulletin board called MAPHIA (hereinafter "the MAPHIA bulletin board"). The
MAPHIA bulletin board is open to the public and, according to Defendant Scherman's Opposition Memorandum,
has approximately 400 users. The evidence establishes that Sega's copyrighted video games are available on
and transferred to and from the MAPHIA bulletin board by users who upload and download games. Once a
game is uploaded to the MAPHIA bulletin board it may be downloaded in its entirety by an unlimited number of
users. It appears that the copies of Sega's video game programs on Defendants' bulletin board are
unauthorized copies of Sega's copyrighted video games, having been uploaded there by users of Defendant's
bulletin board. There is evidence that MAPHIA directly or through an affiliate sometimes charges a direct fee for
downloading privileges, or barters for the privilege of downloading Sega's games. Information on the MAPHIA
bulletin board includes the following passage: Thank you for purchasing a Console Back Up Unit [copier] from
PARSEC TRADING. As a free bonus for ordering from Dark Age, you receive a COMPLEMENTARY Free
Download Ratio on our Customer Support BBS. Defendant thus provides downloading privileges for Sega
games to users in exchange for the uploading of Sega games or other programs or information or in exchange
for payment for other goods, such as copiers, or services, such as the provision of credit card numbers to users.
Held: Sega has established that unauthorized copies of these games are also made when they are
downloaded to make additional copies by users, which copying is facilitated and encouraged by the
MAPHIA bulletin board. "[O]ne who, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or
materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another," may be held liable as a contributory
infringer. Even if Defendants do not know exactly when games will be uploaded to or downloaded
from the MAPHIA bulletin board, their role in the copying, including provision of facilities, direction,
knowledge and encouragement, amounts to contributory copyright infringement.
Defendants raise fair use as a defense to copyright infringement. However, to invoke the fair use
exception, an individual must possess an authorized copy of a literary work." Defendant Scherman
has stated that he does not own any Sega game cartridges. When copying is for the purpose of
making multiple copies of the original, and thereby saving users the expense of purchasing
additional authorized copies, this militates against a finding of fair use under the purpose of the use
factor. Because users of the MAPHIA bulletin board are likely and encouraged to download Sega
games therefrom to avoid having to buy video game cartridges from Sega, by which avoidance
such users and Defendants both profit, the commercial purpose and character of the unauthorized
copying weighs against a finding of fair use.
Because Sega video game programs are for entertainment uses and involve fiction and fantasy,
consideration of the nature of the copyrighted work weighs against a finding of fair use. Because it
appears that the entire game programs are copied when Sega video game programs are
18
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
transferred over the MAPHIA bulletin board, consideration of the amount and substantiality of the
portion copied weighs against a finding of fair use. "The fourth factor, the effect of the use upon the
market for or value of the copyrighted work, 'is undoubtedly the single most important element of
fair use.'" "[T]o negate fair use one need only show that if the challenged use 'should become
widespread, it would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work.' Based on
Defendants' own statement that 45,000 bulletin boards like MAPHIA operate in this country, it is
obvious that should the unauthorized copying of Sega's video games by Defendants and others
become widespread, there would be a substantial and immeasurable adverse effect on the market
for Sega's copyrighted video game programs. Consideration of the effect on the market for Sega's
copyrighted works weighs heavily against a finding of fair use.
Q. You cant play pirated games in Playstation. Someone invents a chip to allow you to use it. Is
this infringement?
A. No. Violates no moral rights. However, WIPO treaty provides that there should be legislatioin
against anti-circumvention devices. This is such a devise. Another example of an ACD is a devise
which disables visitor-counting devices in websites.
Q. Is viewing (such as when you play a program or view a tape) infringement?

A. No. Its private use. If you view it yourself, its okay. Even if you share it with barangay. But if
you sell the chips to video stores which has 100 consoles, it may be considered contributory
infringement.
NOTE: There is a difference between a infringing copy and a non-infringing copy.
NOTE: Software is reproduced when you use it. It is reproduced in your Random Access Memory.
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER v. NETCOM ON-LINE COMMUNICATION SERVICES
Plaintiffs Religious Technology Center ("RTC") and Bridge Publications, Inc. ("BPI") hold copyrights in the
unpublished and published works of L. Ron Hubbard, the late founder of the Church of Scientology ("the
Church"). Defendant Dennis Erlich is a former minister of Scientology turned vocal critic of the Church, whose
pulpit is now the Usenet newsgroup alt.religion.scientology ("a.r.s."), an on-line forum for discussion and
criticism of Scientology. Plaintiffs maintain that Erlich infringed their copyrights when he posted portions of their
works on a.r.s. Erlich gained his access to the Internet through defendant Thomas Klemesrud's ("Klemesrud's")
BBS "support.com." Klemesrud is the operator of the BBS, which is run out of his home and has approximately
500 paying users. Klemesrud's BBS is not directly linked to the Internet, but gains its connection through the
facilities of defendant Netcom On-Line Communications, Inc. ("Netcom"), one of the largest providers of Internet
access in the United States.
After failing to convince Erlich to stop his postings, plaintiffs contacted defendants Klemesrud and Netcom.
Klemesrud responded to plaintiffs' demands that Erlich be kept off his system by asking plaintiffs to prove that
they owned the copyrights to the works posted by Erlich. However, plaintiffs refused Klemesrud's request as
unreasonable. Netcom similarly refused plaintiffs' request that Erlich not be allowed to gain access to the
Internet through its system. Netcom contended that it would be impossible to prescreen Erlich's postings and
that to kick Erlich off the Internet meant kicking off the hundreds of users of Klemesrud's BBS. Consequently,
plaintiffs named Klemesrud and Netcom in their suit against Erlich, although only on the copyright infringement
claims.
Unlike some other large on-line service providers, such as CompuServe, America Online, and Prodigy, Netcom
does not create or control the content of the information available to its subscribers. It also does not monitor
messages as they are posted. It has, however, suspended the accounts of subscribers who violated its terms
and conditions, such as where they had commercial software in their posted files. Netcom admits that, although
not currently configured to do this, it may be possible to reprogram its system to screen postings containing
particular words or coming from particular individuals. Netcom, however, took no action after it was told by
plaintiffs that Erlich had posted messages through Netcom's system that violated plaintiffs' copyrights, instead
claiming that it could not shut out Erlich without shutting out all of the users of Klemesrud's BBS.
Held: FIRST the purpose and character of the defendant's use. Netcom's use of plaintiffs' work is
to carry out its commercial function as an Internet access provider. Such a use, regardless of the
underlying uses made by Netcom's subscribers, is clearly commercial. Netcom's use, though
19
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
commercial, also benefits the public in allowing for the functioning of the Internet and the
dissemination of other creative works, a goal of the Copyright Act. Although Netcom gains
financially from its distribution of messages to the Internet, its financial incentive is unrelated to the
infringing activity and the defendant receives no direct financial benefit from the acts of
infringement. Therefore, the commercial nature of the defendant's activity should not be dispositive.
Moreover, there is no easy way for a defendant like Netcom to secure a license for carrying every
possible type of copyrighted work onto the Internet. Thus, it should not be seen as "profit[ing] from
the exploitation of the copyrighted work without paying the customary prices." Because Netcom's
use of copyrighted materials served a completely different function than that of the plaintiffs, this
factor weighs in Netcom's favor.
SECOND: whether it is published or unpublished and whether it is informational or creative.
Plaintiffs rely on the fact that some of the works transmitted by Netcom were unpublished and
some were arguably highly creative and original. However, because Netcom's use of the works was
merely to facilitate their posting to the Usenet, which is an entirely different purpose than plaintiffs'
use (or, for the matter, Erlich's use), the precise nature of whose works is not important to the fair
use determination.
THIRD concerns both the percentage of the original work that was copied and whether that portion
constitutes the "heart" of the copyrighted work. Generally, no more of a work may be copied than is
necessary for the particular use. The copying of an entire work will ordinarily militate against a
finding of fair use, although this is not a per se rule. Plaintiffs have shown that Erlich's posting
copied substantial amounts of the originals or, in some cases, the entire works. Netcom, of course,
made available to the Usenet exactly what was posted by Erlich. As the court found in Sony, the
mere fact that all of a work is copied is not determinative of the fair use question, where such total
copying is essential given the purpose of the copying. Id. (allowing total copying in context of timeshifting copyrighted television shows by home viewers). Here, Netcom copied no more of plaintiffs'
works than necessary to function as a Usenet server. Accordingly, this factor should not defeat an
otherwise valid defense.
FOURTH "the extent of market harm caused by the particular actions of the alleged infringer" and
"whether unrestricted and widespread conduct of the sort engaged in by the defendant . . . would
result in a substantially adverse impact on the potential market' for the original." Netcom argues
that there is no evidence that making accessible plaintiffs' works, which consist of religious
scriptures and policy letters, will harm the market for these works by preventing someone from
participating in the Scientology religion because they can view the works on the Internet instead.
Further, Netcom notes that the relevant question is whether the posting fulfill the demand of an
individual who seeks to follow the religion's teachings, and not whether they suppress the desire of
an individual who is affected by the criticism posted by Erlich. Netcom argues that the court must
focus on the "normal market" for the copyrighted work, which in this case is through a Scientologybased organization. Plaintiffs respond that the Internet's extremely widespread distribution--where
more than 25 million people worldwide have access--multiplies the effects of market substitution. In
support of its motion for a preliminary injunction against Erlich, plaintiffs submitted declarations
regarding the potential effect of making the Church's secret scriptures available over the Internet.
Plaintiffs pointed out that, although the Church currently faces no competition, groups in the past
have used stolen copies of the Church's scriptures in charging for Scientology-like religious
training. This evidence raises a genuine issue as to the possibility that Erlich's postings, made
available over the Internet by Netcom, could hurt the market for plaintiffs' works.
In balancing the various factors, the court finds that there is a question of fact as to whether there is
a valid fair use defense. Netcom has not justified its copying plaintiffs' works to the extent
necessary to establish entitlement to summary judgment in light of evidence that it knew that
Erlich's use was infringing and had the ability to prevent its further distribution. While copying all or
most of a work will often preclude fair use, courts have recognized the fair use defense where the
purpose of the use is beneficial to society, complete copying is necessary given the type of use, the
purpose of the use is completely different than the purpose of the original, and there is no evidence
that the use will significantly harm the market for the original. This case is distinguishable from
those cases recognizing fair use despite total copying. In Sony, the home viewers' use was not
commercial and the viewers were allowed to watch the entire shows for free. Here, plaintiffs never
gave either Erlich or Netcom permission to view or copy their works. Netcom's use has some
commercial aspects. Further, Netcom's copying is not for the purpose of getting to the unprotected
idea behind plaintiffs' works. Although plaintiffs may ultimately lose on their infringement claims if,
20
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
among other things, they cannot prove that posting their copyrighted works will harm the market for
these works. Fair use presents a factual question on which plaintiffs have at least raised a genuine
issue of fact. Accordingly, the court does not find that Netcom's use was fair as a matter of law.
NOTE: Digital works the moment you post materials on the site (internet site) it is considered
non-copyrightable unless you place the fact of its being copyrighted in a conspicuous place in the
site.
SEC. 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 THE COPYRIGHT RELATES. (N)
SEC. 187. REPRODUCTION OF PUBLISHED WORK. 187.1. NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 177, AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
SUBSECTION 187.2, 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.
187.2. THE PERMISSION GRANTED UNDER SUBSECTION 187.1 SHALL NOT EXTEND TO THE
REPRODUCTION OF:
(A) A WORK OF ARCHITECTURE IN FORM OF BUILDING OR OTHER CONSTRUCTION;
(B) AN ENTIRE BOOK, OR A SUBSTANTIAL PAST THEREOF, OR OF A MUSICAL WORK IN WHICH
GRAPHICS FORM BY REPROGRAPHIC MEANS;
(C) A COMPILATION OF DATA AND OTHER MATERIALS;
(D) A COMPUTER PROGRAM EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 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. (N)
SEC. 188. REPROGRAPHIC REPRODUCTION BY LIBRARIES. 188.1. NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION 177.6, 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:
(A) WHERE THE WORK BY REASON OF ITS FRAGILE CHARACTER OR RARITY CANNOT BE
LENT TO USER IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM;
(B) 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; WHEN THIS IS CONSIDERED EXPEDIENT, TO PERSON REQUESTING THEIR
LOAN FOR PURPOSES OF RESEARCH OR STUDY INSTEAD OF LENDING THE VOLUMES OR
BOOKLETS WHICH CONTAIN THEM; AND
(C) WHERE THE MAKING OF SUCH A COPY 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.
188.2. NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABOVE PROVISIONS, 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;
PROVIDED, THAT EVERY LIBRARY WHICH, BY LAW, IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE COPIES OF A PRINTED
WORK, SHALL BE ENTITLED, WHEN SPECIAL REASONS SO REQUIRE, TO REPRODUCE A COPY OF A
PUBLISHED WORK WHICH IS CONSIDERED NECESSARY FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE LIBRARY BUT
WHICH IS OUT OF STOCK.
SEC. 189. REPRODUCTION OF COMPUTER PROGRAM. 189.1. NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 177, THE REPRODUCTION IN ONE (1) BACKUP COPY OR ADAPTATION OF A COMPUTER PROGRAM SHALL BE PERMITTED, WITHOUT THE
21
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
AUTHORIZATION OF THE AUTHOR OF, OR OTHER OWNER OF COPYRIGHT IN, A COMPUTER PROGRAM,
BY THE LAWFUL OWNER OF THAT COMPUTER PROGRAM: PROVIDED, THAT THE COPY OR ADAPTATION
IS NECESSARY FOR:
(A) THE USE OF THE COMPUTER PROGRAM IN CONJUNCTION WITH A COMPUTER FOR THE
PURPOSE, AND TO THE EXTENT, FOR WHICH THE COMPUTER PROGRAM HAS BEEN
OBTAINED; AND
(B) ARCHIVAL PURPOSES, AND, FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE LAWFULLY OWNED COPY OF
THE COMPUTER PROGRAM IN THE EVENT THAT THE LAWFULLY OBTAINED COPY OF THE
COMPUTER PROGRAM IS LOST, DESTROYED OR RENDERED UNUSABLE.
189.2. NO COPY OR ADAPTATION MENTIONED IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE
OTHER THAN THE ONES DETERMINED IN THIS SECTION, AND ANY SUCH COPY OR ADAPTATION SHALL
BE DESTROYED IN THE EVENT THAT CONTINUED POSSESSION OF THE COPY OF THE COMPUTER
PROGRAM CEASES TO BE LAWFUL.
189.3. THIS PROVISION SHALL BE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 185
WHENEVER APPROPRIATE. (N)
Computer programs also just one copy, for 1. Back-up
2. Archival purposes
SEC. 190. IMPORTATION FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES. 190.1. NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISION OF SUBSECTION 177.6, BUT SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATION
UNDER THE SUBSECTION 185.2, THE IMPORTATION OF A COPY OF A WORK BY AN INDIVIDUAL FOR HIS
PERSONAL PURPOSES SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHOUT THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE AUTHOR OF, OR
OTHER OWNER OF COPYRIGHT IN, THE WORK UNDER THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES:
(A) WHEN COPIES OF THE WORK ARE NOT AVAILABLE IN THE PHILIPPINES AND:
(I) NOT MORE THAN ONE (1) COPY AT ONE TIME IS IMPORTED FOR STRICTLY
INDIVIDUAL USE ONLY; OR (II) THE IMPORTATION IS BY AUTHORITY OF AND FOR
THE
USE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINE
GOVERNMENT;
OR
(III) THE IMPORTATION, CONSISTING OF NOT MORE THAN THREE (3) SUCH COPIES
OR LIKENESSES IN ANY ONE INVOICE, IS NOT FOR SALE BUT FOR THE USE ONLY
OF ANY RELIGIOUS, CHARITABLE, OR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY OR INSTITUTION DULY
INCORPORATED OR REGISTERED, OR IS FOR THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF THE FINE
ARTS, OR FOR ANY STATE SCHOOL, COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY, OR FREE PUBLIC
LIBRARY IN THE PHILIPPINES.
(B) WHEN SUCH COPIES FORM PARTS OF LIBRARIES AND PERSONAL BAGGAGE BELONGING
TO PERSONS OR FAMILIES ARRIVING FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND ARE NOT INTENDED
FOR SALE: PROVIDED, THAT SUCH COPIES DO NOT EXCEED THREE (3).
190.2. COPIES IMPORTED AS ALLOWED BY THIS SECTION MAY NOT LAWFULLY BE USED IN ANY WAY
TO VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF OWNER THE COPYRIGHT OR ANNUL OR LIMIT THE PROTECTION SECURED
BY THIS ACT, AND SUCH UNLAWFUL USE SHALL BE DEEMED AN INFRINGEMENT AND SHALL BE
PUNISHABLE AS SUCH WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROPRIETORS RIGHT OF ACTION.
190.3. SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE, THE COMMISSIONER OF

CUSTOMS IS HEREBY EMPOWERED TO MAKE RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTING THE
IMPORTATION OF ARTICLES THE IMPORTATION OF WHICH IS PROHIBITED UNDER THIS SECTION AND
UNDER TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS TO WHICH THE PHILIPPINES MAY BE A PARTY AND FOR SEIZING
AND CONDEMNING AND DISPOSING OF THE SAME IN CASE THEY ARE DISCOVERED AFTER THEY HAVE
BEEN IMPORTED.
CHAPTER IX
DEPOSIT AND NOTICE
SEC. 191. REGISTRATION AND DEPOSIT WITH NATIONAL LIBRARY AND THE SUPREME COURT LIBRARY.AFTER THE FIRST PUBLIC DISSEMINATION OF PERFORMANCE BY AUTHORITY OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER
OF A WORK FALLING UNDER SUBSECTIONS 172.1, 172.2 AND 172.3 OF THIS ACT, 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
22
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
REGISTERED MAIL, TWO (2) COMPLETE COPIES OR REPRODUCTIONS OF THE WORK IN SUCH FORM AS THE
DIRECTORS OF SAID LIBRARIES MAY PRESCRIBE. A CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR WHICH
THE PRESCRIBED FEE SHALL BE COLLECTED AND THE COPYRIGHT OWNER SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM
MAKING ADDITIONAL DEPOSIT OF THE WORKS WITH THE NATIONAL LIBRARY AND THE SUPREME COURT
LIBRARY UNDER OTHER LAWS. IF, WITHIN THREE (3) WEEKS AFTER RECEIPT BY THE COPYRIGHT OWNER
OF A WRITTEN DEMAND FROM THE DIRECTORS FOR SUCH DEPOSIT, THE REQUIRED COPIES OR
REPRODUCTIONS ARE NOT DELIVERED AND THE FEE IS NOT PAID, THE COPYRIGHT OWNER SHALL BE
LIABLE TO PAY A FINE EQUIVALENT TO THE REQUIRED FEE PER MONTH OF DELAY AND TO PAY TO THE
NATIONAL LIBRARY AND THE SUPREME COURT LIBRARY THE AMOUNT OF THE RETAIL PRICE OF THE BEST
EDITION OF THE WORK. ONLY THE ABOVE MENTIONED CLASSES OF WORK SHALL BE ACCEPTED FOR
DEPOSIT BY THE NATIONAL LIBRARY AND THE SUPREME COURT LIBRARY.
SEC. 192. 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 CREATORS DEATH, THE YEAR OF SUCH DEATH.
Q. Is the existence of a certificate proof of the existence of copyright?
A. No. Thats all it is, a certificate of deposit. It was important before, especially in Santos v.
McCullough Printer Co, 12 SCRA 321 (1964) when registration was needed to obtain a copyright.
Here, Mauro Malang registered his copyright of his painting after his copyright was violated (his
painting was used for greeting cards for two years, only one year was agreed upon). Since he
didnt register before the second printing, he lost his case. Under the IP Code now, You do not
need registration in the National Library to get copyright protection.
Q. Who issues the certificate?
A. National Library and Supreme Court.
Q. What kind of works are deposited?
A. In the drafting of the code, Atty. Chris Lim suggested to the drafters:
1. National Library only the 1st 3 in the list (books, letters, articles, letter) since these
are the only things that can benefit the collection of the Natl Lib.
2. Supreme Court only works related to the law
But the law actually says, all works are to be deposited.
Q. What is the significance of certificate?
A. Just says that you deposited; NO PRESUMPTION ARISES AS TO COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP.
Q. Does the National Library review if work is copyrightable subject matter?
A. No. All it certifies is that you deposited two copies there.
Q. So how do you prove copyright ownership if you file cases?
A. You file an affidavit evidence under Sec. 218.
CHAPTER X
MORAL RIGHTS
SEC. 193. SCOPE OF MORAL RIGHTS. - THE AUTHOR OF A WORK SHALL, INDEPENDENTLY OF THE
ECONOMIC RIGHTS IN SECTION 177 OR THE GRANT OF AN ASSIGNMENT OR LICENSE WITH RESPECT TO
SUCH RIGHT, HAVE THE RIGHT:
193.1. TO REQUIRE THAT THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE WORKS BE ATTRIBUTED TO HIM, IN PARTICULAR,
THE RIGHT THAT HIS NAME, AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE, BE INDICATED IN A PROMINENT WAY ON THE
COPIES, AND IN CONNECTION WITH THE PUBLIC USE OF HIS WORK;
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)
Moral rights can also be denominated as follows:
1. Paternity attributing ownership to someone
23
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
2.
3.
4.
Privacy the right to withhold publication

[Right against] False Attribution
[Right to] Integrity
NOTE: There are certain instances that although the creators moral rights are violated, it
would be better not to enforce them. For instance, Atty. Lim gave the example of the author of
the Cocodile Files (expose of the Coconut Levy Funds which says it belongs to Danding
Cojuanco), who found works authored by another, saying that the funds are public funds
(which virtually means a recantation).
If he were to enforce his rights and file a complaint (civil or criminal) he would be
subjecting himself to criminal prosecution, since he would have to testify that he is the author of the
Cocodile Files!
SEC. 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. 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
195.2. TO USE THE NAME OF THE AUTHOR WITH RESPECT TO A WORK HE DID NOT CREATE.
SEC. 196. CONTRIBUTION TO COLLECTIVE WORK. - W HEN 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. 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. 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)
SEC. 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)
24
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
CHAPTER XI
RIGHTS TO PROCEEDS IN SUBSEQUENT TRANSFERS
SEC. 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)
SEC. 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)
CHAPTER XII
RIGHTS OF PERFORMERS, PRODUCERS OF SOUNDS
RECORDINGS AND BROADCASTING ORGANIZATIONS
Neighboring Rights performers rights are also called neighboring rights. This is because when
a song composed by X, and is performed by Y is produced, it is X, as the composer, who has the
copyright. Y has no copyright. He did not create the song, he just interpreted it. His right is to his
interpretation, a neighboring right to the copyright of the composer.
Berne Convention prescribed the rights of creators
TRIPS Agreement here, performers rights are called related rights
So when you record the rendition of Nick Carter of Baby Faces song Take a Bow, you violate
three rights:
1. composer the copyright
2. performer the neighboring rights
3. broadcaster his neighboring rights
NOTE: ATTY. LIM SAYS, STUDY SCOPE OF PERFORMERS AND PRODUCERS RIGHTS, WILL COME OUT IN
THE EXAM.
SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS. - FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ACT, THE FOLLOWING TERMS SHALL HAVE THE
FOLLOWING MEANINGS:
202.1. "PERFORMERS" ARE ACTORS, SINGERS, MUSICIANS, DANCERS, AND OTHER PERSONS WHO
ACT, SING, DECLAIM, PLAY IN, INTERPRET, OR OTHERWISE PERFORM LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORK;
202.2. "SOUND RECORDING" MEANS THE FIXATION OF THE SOUNDS OF A PERFORMANCE OR OF
OTHER SOUNDS, OR REPRESENTATION OF SOUND, OTHER THAN IN THE FORM OF A FIXATION
INCORPORATED IN A CINEMATOGRAPHIC OR OTHER AUDIOVISUAL WORK;
202.3. AN "AUDIOVISUAL WORK OR FIXATION" IS A WORK THAT CONSISTS OF A SERIES OF RELATED
IMAGES WHICH IMPART THE IMPRESSION OF MOTION, WITH OR WITHOUT ACCOMPANYING SOUNDS,
SUSCEPTIBLE OF BEING MADE VISIBLE AND, WHERE ACCOMPANIED BY SOUNDS, SUSCEPTIBLE OF
BEING MADE AUDIBLE;
202.4. "FIXATION" MEANS THE EMBODIMENT OF SOUNDS, OR OF THE REPRESENTATIONS THEREOF,
FROM WHICH THEY CAN BE PERCEIVED, REPRODUCED OR COMMUNICATED THROUGH A DEVICE;
25
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
202.5. "PRODUCER OF A SOUND RECORDING" MEANS THE PERSON, OR THE LEGAL ENTITY, WHO OR
WHICH TAKES THE INITIATIVE AND HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FIRST FIXATION OF THE SOUNDS
OF A PERFORMANCE OR OTHER SOUNDS, OR THE REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS;
202.6. "PUBLICATION OF A FIXED PERFORMANCE OR A SOUND RECORDING" MEANS THE OFFERING OF

COPIES OF THE FIXED PERFORMANCE OR THE SOUND RECORDING TO THE PUBLIC, WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE RIGHT HOLDER: PROVIDED, THAT COPIES ARE OFFERED TO THE PUBLIC IN
REASONABLE QUALITY;
202.7. "BROADCASTING" MEANS THE TRANSMISSION BY WIRELESS MEANS FOR THE PUBLIC
RECEPTION OF SOUNDS OR OF IMAGES OR OF REPRESENTATIONS THEREOF; SUCH TRANSMISSION BY
SATELLITE IS ALSO "BROADCASTING" WHERE THE MEANS FOR DECRYPTING ARE PROVIDED TO THE
PUBLIC BY THE BROADCASTING ORGANIZATION OR WITH ITS CONSENT;
202.8. "BROADCASTING ORGANIZATION" SHALL INCLUDE A NATURAL PERSON OR A JURIDICAL ENTITY
DULY AUTHORIZED TO ENGAGE IN BROADCASTING; AND
202.9. "COMMUNICATION TO THE PUBLIC OF A PERFORMANCE OR A SOUND RECORDING" MEANS THE
TRANSMISSION TO THE PUBLIC, BY ANY MEDIUM, OTHERWISE THAN BY BROADCASTING, OF SOUNDS
OF A PERFORMANCE OR THE REPRESENTATIONS OF SOUNDS FIXED IN A SOUND RECORDING. FOR
PURPOSES OF SECTION 209, "COMMUNICATION TO THE PUBLIC" INCLUDES MAKING THE SOUNDS OR
REPRESENTATIONS OF SOUNDS FIXED IN A SOUND RECORDING AUDIBLE TO THE PUBLIC.
SEC. 203. SCOPE OF PERFORMERS' RIGHTS. - SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 212,
PERFORMERS SHALL ENJOY THE FOLLOWING EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS:
203.1. AS REGARDS THEIR PERFORMANCES, THE RIGHT OF AUTHORIZING:
(A) THE BROADCASTING AND OTHER COMMUNICATION TO THE PUBLIC OF THEIR
PERFORMANCE; AND
(B) THE FIXATION OF THEIR UNFIXED PERFORMANCE.
203.2. THE RIGHT OF AUTHORIZING THE DIRECT OR INDIRECT REPRODUCTION OF THEIR
PERFORMANCES FIXED IN SOUND RECORDINGS, IN ANY MANNER OR FORM;
203.3. SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 206, THE RIGHT OF AUTHORIZING THE FIRST
PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE ORIGINAL AND COPIES OF THEIR PERFORMANCE FIXED IN THE SOUND
RECORDING THROUGH SALE OR RENTAL OR OTHER FORMS OF TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP;
203.4. THE RIGHT OF AUTHORIZING THE COMMERCIAL RENTAL TO THE PUBLIC OF THE ORIGINAL AND
COPIES OF THEIR PERFORMANCES FIXED IN SOUND RECORDINGS, EVEN AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF
THEM BY, OR PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION BY THE PERFORMER; AND
203.5. THE RIGHT OF AUTHORIZING THE MAKING AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC OF THEIR
PERFORMANCES FIXED IN SOUND RECORDINGS, BY WIRE OR WIRELESS MEANS, IN SUCH A WAY THAT
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY ACCESS THEM FROM A PLACE AND TIME INDIVIDUALLY CHOSEN BY
THEM.
SEC. 204. MORAL RIGHTS OF PERFORMERS. 204.1. INDEPENDENTLY OF A PERFORMER'S ECONOMIC RIGHTS, THE PERFORMER, SHALL, AS
REGARDS HIS LIVE AURAL PERFORMANCES OR PERFORMANCES FIXED IN SOUND RECORDINGS, HAVE
THE RIGHT TO CLAIM TO BE IDENTIFIED AS THE PERFORMER OF HIS PERFORMANCES, EXCEPT WHERE
THE OMISSION IS DICTATED BY THE MANNER OF THE USE OF THE PERFORMANCE, AND TO OBJECT TO
ANY DISTORTION, MUTILATION OR OTHER MODIFICATION OF HIS PERFORMANCES THAT WOULD BE
PREJUDICIAL TO HIS REPUTATION.
204.2. THE RIGHTS GRANTED TO A PERFORMER IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBSECTION 203.1 SHALL BE
MAINTAINED AND EXERCISED FIFTY (50) YEARS AFTER HIS DEATH, BY HIS HEIRS, AND IN DEFAULT OF
HEIRS, THE GOVERNMENT, WHERE PROTECTION IS CLAIMED.
SEC. 205. LIMITATION ON RIGHT. -
26
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
205.1. SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 206, ONCE THE PERFORMER HAS AUTHORIZED
THE BROADCASTING OR FIXATION OF HIS PERFORMANCE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 203 SHALL
HAVE NO FURTHER APPLICATION.
205.2. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 184 AND SECTION 185 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO
PERFORMERS. (N)
SEC. 206. ADDITIONAL REMUNERATION FOR SUBSEQUENT COMMUNICATIONS OR BROADCASTS. - UNLESS
OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE CONTRACT, IN EVERY COMMUNICATION TO THE PUBLIC OR BROADCAST OF A
PERFORMANCE SUBSEQUENT TO THE FIRST COMMUNICATION OR BROADCAST THEREOF BY THE
BROADCASTING ORGANIZATION, THE PERFORMER SHALL BE ENTITLED TO AN ADDITIONAL REMUNERATION
EQUIVALENT TO AT LEAST FIVE PERCENT (5%) OF THE ORIGINAL COMPENSATION HE OR SHE RECEIVED
FOR THE FIRST COMMUNICATION OR BROADCAST. (N)
SEC. 207. CONTRACT TERMS. - NOTHING IN THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO DEPRIVE
PERFORMERS OF THE RIGHT TO AGREE BY CONTRACTS ON TERMS AND CONDITIONS MORE FAVORABLE
FOR THEM IN RESPECT OF ANY USE OF THEIR PERFORMANCE. (N)
CHAPTER XIII
PRODUCERS OF SOUND RECORDINGS
SEC. 208. SCOPE OF RIGHT. - SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 212, PRODUCERS OF SOUND
RECORDINGS SHALL ENJOY THE FOLLOWING EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS:
208.1. THE RIGHT TO AUTHORIZE THE DIRECT OR INDIRECT REPRODUCTION OF THEIR SOUND
RECORDINGS, IN ANY MANNER OR FORM; THE PLACING OF THESE REPRODUCTIONS IN THE MARKET
AND THE RIGHT OF RENTAL OR LENDING;
208.2. THE RIGHT TO AUTHORIZE THE FIRST PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE ORIGINAL AND COPIES OF
THEIR SOUND RECORDINGS THROUGH SALE OR RENTAL OR OTHER FORMS OF TRANSFERRING
OWNERSHIP; AND
208.3. THE RIGHT TO AUTHORIZE THE COMMERCIAL RENTAL TO THE PUBLIC OF THE ORIGINAL AND
COPIES OF THEIR SOUND RECORDINGS, EVEN AFTER DISTRIBUTION BY THEM BY OR PURSUANT TO
AUTHORIZATION BY THE PRODUCER.
SEC. 209. COMMUNICATION TO THE PUBLIC. - IF A SOUND RECORDING PUBLISHED FOR COMMERCIAL
PURPOSES, OR A REPRODUCTION OF SUCH SOUND RECORDING, IS USED DIRECTLY FOR BROADCASTING
OR FOR OTHER COMMUNICATION TO THE PUBLIC, OR IS PUBLICLY PERFORMED WITH THE INTENTION OF
MAKING AND ENHANCING PROFIT, A SINGLE EQUITABLE REMUNERATION FOR THE PERFORMER OR
PERFORMERS, AND THE PRODUCER OF THE SOUND RECORDING SHALL BE PAID BY THE USER TO BOTH THE
PERFORMERS AND THE PRODUCER, WHO, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY AGREEMENT SHALL SHARE EQUALLY.
SEC. 210. LIMITATION OF RIGHT. - SECTIONS 184 AND 185 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THE
PRODUCER OF SOUND RECORDINGS.
CHAPTER XIV
BROADCASTING ORGANIZATIONS
SEC. 211. SCOPE OF RIGHT. - SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 212, BROADCASTING
ORGANIZATIONS SHALL ENJOY THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO CARRY OUT, AUTHORIZE OR PREVENT ANY OF
THE FOLLOWING ACTS:
211.1. THE REBROADCASTING OF THEIR BROADCASTS;
211.2. THE RECORDING IN ANY MANNER, INCLUDING THE MAKING OF FILMS OR THE USE OF VIDEO
TAPE, OF THEIR BROADCASTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMUNICATION TO THE PUBLIC OF TELEVISION
BROADCASTS OF THE SAME; AND
211.3. THE USE OF SUCH RECORDS FOR FRESH TRANSMISSIONS OR FOR FRESH RECORDING.
CHAPTER XV
LIMITATIONS ON PROTECTION
SEC. 212. LIMITATIONS ON RIGHTS. - SECTIONS 203, 208 AND 209 SHALL NOT APPLY WHERE THE ACTS
REFERRED TO IN THOSE SECTIONS ARE RELATED TO:
212.1. THE USE BY A NATURAL PERSON EXCLUSIVELY FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL PURPOSES;
27
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
212.2. USING SHORT EXCERPTS FOR REPORTING CURRENT EVENTS;

212.3. USE SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF TEACHING OR FOR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH; AND
212.4. FAIR USE OF THE BROADCAST SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS UNDER SECTION 185.
CHAPTER XVI
TERM OF PROTECTION
SEC. 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.
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.
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.
213.4. IN CASE OF WORKS OF APPLIED ART THE PROTECTION SHALL BE FOR A PERIOD OF TWENTYFIVE (25) YEARS FROM THE DATE OF MAKING.
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.
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. 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. 215. TERM OF PROTECTION FOR PERFORMERS, PRODUCERS AND BROADCASTING ORGANIZATIONS.
215.1. THE RIGHTS GRANTED TO PERFORMERS AND PRODUCERS OF SOUND RECORDINGS UNDER
THIS LAW SHALL EXPIRE:
(A) FOR PERFORMANCES NOT INCORPORATED IN RECORDINGS, FIFTY (50) YEARS FROM
THE END OF THE YEAR IN WHICH THE PERFORMANCE TOOK PLACE; AND
(B) FOR SOUND OR IMAGE AND SOUND RECORDINGS AND FOR PERFORMANCES
INCORPORATED THEREIN, FIFTY (50) YEARS FROM THE END OF THE YEAR IN WHICH
THE RECORDING TOOK PLACE.
215.2. IN CASE OF BROADCASTS, THE TERM SHALL BE TWENTY (20) YEARS FROM THE DATE THE
BROADCAST TOOK PLACE. THE EXTENDED TERM SHALL BE APPLIED ONLY TO OLD WORKS WITH
SUBSISTING PROTECTION UNDER THE PRIOR LAW.
CHAPTER XVII
INFRINGEMENT
SEC. 216. REMEDIES FOR INFRINGEMENT. 216.1. ANY PERSON INFRINGING A RIGHT PROTECTED UNDER THIS LAW SHALL BE LIABLE:
(A) TO AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING SUCH INFRINGEMENT. THE COURT MAY ALSO ORDER
THE DEFENDANT TO DESIST FROM AN INFRINGEMENT, AMONG OTHERS, TO PREVENT THE
ENTRY INTO THE CHANNELS OF COMMERCE OF IMPORTED GOODS THAT INVOLVE AN
INFRINGEMENT, IMMEDIATELY AFTER CUSTOMS CLEARANCE OF SUCH GOODS.
28
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
(B) PAY TO THE COPYRIGHT PROPRIETOR OR HIS ASSIGNS OR HEIRS SUCH ACTUAL
DAMAGES, INCLUDING LEGAL COSTS AND OTHER EXPENSES, AS HE MAY HAVE INCURRED
DUE TO THE INFRINGEMENT AS WELL AS THE PROFITS THE INFRINGER MAY HAVE MADE DUE
TO SUCH INFRINGEMENT, AND IN PROVING PROFITS THE PLAINTIFF SHALL BE REQUIRED TO
PROVE SALES ONLY AND THE DEFENDANT SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PROVE EVERY ELEMENT
OF COST WHICH HE CLAIMS, OR, IN LIEU OF ACTUAL DAMAGES AND PROFITS, SUCH
DAMAGES WHICH TO THE COURT SHALL APPEAR TO BE JUST AND SHALL NOT BE REGARDED
AS PENALTY.
(C) DELIVER UNDER OATH, FOR IMPOUNDING DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE ACTION, UPON
SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THE COURT MAY PRESCRIBE, SALES INVOICES AND
OTHER DOCUMENTS EVIDENCING SALES, ALL ARTICLES AND THEIR PACKAGING ALLEGED TO
INFRINGE A COPYRIGHT AND IMPLEMENTS FOR MAKING THEM.
(D) DELIVER UNDER OATH FOR DESTRUCTION WITHOUT ANY COMPENSATION ALL INFRINGING
COPIES OR DEVICES, AS WELL AS ALL PLATES, MOLDS, OR OTHER MEANS FOR MAKING SUCH
INFRINGING COPIES AS THE COURT MAY ORDER.
(E) SUCH OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS, INCLUDING THE PAYMENT OF MORAL AND
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, WHICH THE COURT MAY DEEM PROPER, WISE AND EQUITABLE AND
THE DESTRUCTION OF INFRINGING COPIES OF THE WORK EVEN IN THE EVENT OF ACQUITTAL
IN A CRIMINAL CASE.
216. 2. IN AN INFRINGEMENT ACTION, THE COURT SHALL ALSO HAVE THE POWER TO ORDER THE
SEIZURE AND IMPOUNDING OF ANY ARTICLE WHICH MAY SERVE AS EVIDENCE IN THE COURT
PROCEEDINGS. (SEC. 28, P. D. NO. 49A)
Infringement doing an act pertaining to copyrighted works that one is not authorized to do.
Elements/What must be Proven
1. act is unauthorized
2. copyright exists original
3. access (person knows or ought to know that work is copyrighted)
4. copying took place
Q. No injury = no crime?
A. Hmm Seems like it.
Q. Getting a search warrant in criminal cases. What do you want in SW?
A. You want to:
1. Seize goods seize the infringing copies so damage (lost sales) will stop immediately
2. Seize equipment used for reproduction
3. Seize documents to prove sales (to compute actual damages) and to find out his real source.
SEC. 217. CRIMINAL PENALTIES. 217.1. ANY PERSON INFRINGING ANY RIGHT SECURED BY PROVISIONS OF PART IV OF THIS ACT OR
AIDING OR ABETTING SUCH INFRINGEMENT SHALL BE GUILTY OF A CRIME PUNISHABLE BY:
(A) IMPRISONMENT OF ONE (1) YEAR TO THREE (3) YEARS PLUS A FINE RANGING FROM
FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000) TO ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P150,000) FOR THE FIRST OFFENSE.
(B) IMPRISONMENT OF THREE (3) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY TO SIX (6) YEARS PLUS A FINE
RANGING FROM ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P150,000) TO FIVE HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000) FOR THE SECOND OFFENSE.
(C) IMPRISONMENT OF SIX (6) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY TO NINE (9) YEARS PLUS A FINE
RANGING FROM FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000) TO ONE MILLION FIVE
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P1,500,000) FOR THE THIRD AND SUBSEQUENT OFFENSES.
(D) IN ALL CASES, SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT IN CASES OF INSOLVENCY.
217.2. IN DETERMINING THE NUMBER OF YEARS OF IMPRISONMENT AND THE AMOUNT OF FINE, THE
COURT SHALL CONSIDER THE VALUE OF THE INFRINGING MATERIALS THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS
29
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
PRODUCED OR MANUFACTURED AND THE DAMAGE THAT THE COPYRIGHT OWNER HAS SUFFERED BY
REASON OF THE INFRINGEMENT.
217.3. ANY PERSON WHO AT THE TIME WHEN COPYRIGHT SUBSISTS IN A WORK HAS IN HIS
POSSESSION AN ARTICLE WHICH HE KNOWS, OR OUGHT TO KNOW, TO BE AN INFRINGING COPY OF
THE WORK FOR THE PURPOSE OF:
(A) SELLING, LETTING FOR HIRE, OR BY WAY OF TRADE OFFERING OR EXPOSING FOR SALE,
OR HIRE, THE ARTICLE;
(B) DISTRIBUTING THE ARTICLE FOR PURPOSE OF TRADE, OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE TO
AN EXTENT THAT WILL PREJUDICE THE RIGHTS OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER IN THE WORK;
OR
(C) TRADE EXHIBIT OF THE ARTICLE IN PUBLIC, SHALL BE GUILTY OF AN OFFENSE AND
SHALL BE LIABLE ON CONVICTION TO IMPRISONMENT AND FINE AS ABOVE MENTIONED.
Q. Is good faith a valid defense in copyright infringement?

A. The law clearly provides when one does not know or it is impossible to know that the copy is infringed, good
faith is a defense. However, only the act of possession can be protected with good faith. After the sale, there
is no longer possession. Therefore, whether the person knows that the DVDs are counterfeit or not, he can be
punished. It is true that the RPC provides that good faith (or mistake of fact) does not apply since the IP Code
is a special law. Mistake of fact is a defense only in crimes mala in se. Violations of the IP Code are mala
prohibitum. However, the IP code provides an exception. N. B. It is thus very important to do
controlled buys, in order to do away with the good faith defense.

SEC. 218. AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE. 218.1. IN AN ACTION UNDER THIS CHAPTER, AN AFFIDAVIT MADE BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC BY OR
ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHT IN ANY WORK OR OTHER SUBJECT MATTER AND
STATING THAT:
(A) AT THE TIME SPECIFIED THEREIN, COPYRIGHT SUBSISTED IN THE WORK OR OTHER
SUBJECT MATTER;
(B) HE OR THE PERSON NAMED THEREIN IS THE OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHT; AND
(C) THE COPY OF THE WORK OR OTHER SUBJECT MATTER ANNEXED THERETO IS A TRUE
COPY THEREOF, SHALL BE ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE IN ANY PROCEEDINGS FOR AN OFFENSE
UNDER THIS CHAPTER AND SHALL BE PRIMA FACIE PROOF OF THE MATTERS THEREIN
STATED UNTIL THE CONTRARY IS PROVED, AND THE COURT BEFORE WHICH SUCH AFFIDAVIT
IS PRODUCED SHALL ASSUME THAT THE AFFIDAVIT WAS MADE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE
OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHT.
218.2. IN AN ACTION UNDER THIS CHAPTER.

(A) 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; AND
(B) 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.
(C) WHERE THE DEFENDANT, WITHOUT GOOD FAITH, PUTS IN ISSUE THE QUESTIONS OF
WHETHER COPYRIGHT SUBSISTS IN A WORK OR OTHER SUBJECT MATTER TO WHICH THE
ACTION RELATES, OR THE OWNERSHIP OF COPYRIGHT IN SUCH WORK OR SUBJECT MATTER,
THEREBY OCCASIONING UNNECESSARY COSTS OR DELAY IN THE PROCEEDINGS, THE COURT
MAY DIRECT THAT ANY COSTS TO THE DEFENDANT IN RESPECT OF THE ACTION SHALL NOT
BE ALLOWED BY HIM AND THAT ANY COSTS OCCASIONED BY THE DEFENDANT TO OTHER
PARTIES SHALL BE PAID BY HIM TO SUCH OTHER PARTIES. (N)
SEC. 219. PRESUMPTION OF AUTHORSHIP. 219.1. 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.
30
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
219.2. THE PERSON OR BODY, CORPORATE WHOSE NAME APPEARS ON AN AUDIO-VISUAL WORK IN
THE USUAL MANNER SHALL, IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF TO THE CONTRARY, BE PRESUMED TO BE THE
MAKER OF SAID WORK. (N)
SEC. 220. INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION OF WORKS. - A STATEMENT CONCERNING A WORK, RECORDED
IN AN INTERNATIONAL REGISTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY TO WHICH THE
PHILIPPINES IS OR MAY BECOME A PARTY, SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS TRUE UNTIL THE CONTRARY IS
PROVED EXCEPT:
220.1. WHERE THE STATEMENT CANNOT BE VALID UNDER THIS ACT OR ANY OTHER LAW
CONCERNING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
220.2. WHERE THE STATEMENT IS CONTRADICTED BY ANOTHER STATEMENT RECORDED IN THE

INTERNATIONAL REGISTER.
JOAQUIN V. DRILON
Petitioner BJ Productions, Inc. was the holder/grantee of a Certificate of Copyright of Rhoda and Me, a dating
game show aired from 1970 to 1977. On 1973, BJ Productions, Inc. submitted to the National Library an
addendum to its Certificate of Copyright specifying the show's format and style of presentation. Sometime in
1991, BJ Productions, Inc. discovered that another television show, It's a Date, with a similar format to Rhoda
and Me was being aired on RPN Channel 9. It's a Date was produced by IXL Productions, Inc. BJ Productions,
Inc. then wrote a letter to the president of IXL Productions, Inc. Informing them that BJ Productions, Inc. had a
copyright to Rhoda and Me and demanding that IXL Productions, Inc. discontinue airing It's a Date. IXL
Productions, Inc. sought a meeting with BJ Productions, but nevertheless continued airing It's a Date.
Meanwhile, IXL Productions, Inc. 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 14 August 1991.
Upon complaint of BJ Productions, Inc., an information for violation of P.D. No.49 was filed against the officers
of IXL Productions, Inc. and RPN Channel 9. However, upon the petition of IXL Productions, Inc., the complaint
was eventually dismissed Secretary of Justice Franklin Drilon. BJ Productions, Inc. then filed a petition with the
Supreme Court questioning this decision of Secretary Drilon. Respondents dismissed the case on the ground
that petitioners had failed to establish probable cause because of their failure to present the copyrighted master
tapes of Rhoda and Me. Petitioners, on the other hand, claim that the presentation of the master tapes was not
necessary, since written descriptions of the formats of the two television shows were presented during the
preliminary investigation. It was also from these descriptions that the investigating prosecutor found substantial
similarities and ruled that there was indeed infringement of copyright, as the two shows were practically exact
copies of the other. Respondents in this case also contend that BJ Production, Inc.'s copyright covers only a
specific episode of Rhoda and Me and that the formats or concepts of dating game shows are not covered by
copyright protection under P .D. No.49. Petitioners, on the other hand, asserted that the format of Rhoda and
Me is a product of ingenuity and skill and is thus entitled to copyright protection.
Held: The format of a show is not copyrightable. Section 2 of P.D. No.49 enumerates the classes of
work entitled to copyright protection. Notably, the format or mechanics of a television show is not
included in this list of protected works. Copyright, being a statutory right, the right is 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. For this reason, the protection
afforded by the law cannot be extended to cover them.
Section 2 of P.D. No.49, in enumerating what are subject to copyright, refers to finished works and
not to concepts. The copyright does not extend to an idea, procedure, process, system, method of
operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described,
explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work48. No protection shall extend 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 work49. It is therefore clear that under
law, the format of a dating game show falls under what is referred to as "unprotected subject
matter".
31
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
BJ Production, Inc.'s copyright covers only the audio-visual recordings of each episode of Rhoda
and Me, as falling within the class of works mentioned in Section 2 of P.D. No.49, to wit:
cinematographic works and works produced by a process analogous to cinematography or any
process for making audio-visual recordings. This being th8' case, the Court ruled that the master
tape should have been presented to provide the investigating prosecutor the opportunity to
compare the videotapes of the two shows. The Court held that
Mere description by words of the general format of the two dating game shows is insufficient; the
presentation of the master videotape in evidence was indispensable to the determination of the
existence of probable cause. As aptly observed by respondent Secretary of Justice: 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.
Joaquin v. Drilon It is very difficult to prove reproduction of plays and shows unless there is
EXACT copying.
HABANA V. ROBLES
This case involves the question of plagiarism and the possible infringement of copyrighted materials in a
textbook. Petitioners Pacita Habana, Alicia Cinco and Jovita Fernando are the authors and copyright owner.s of
duly issued certificates of copyright registration covering their published works, College English for Today,
Books 1 and 2, and Workbook for College Freshman English, Series 1. Respondents Felicidad Robles and
Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. are the author/publisher and distributor/seller of another published work entitled
"Developing English Proficiency", Books 1 and 2, which book was covered by copyrights issued to them.
In the course of revising their published works, petitioners discovered that respondent's books were strikingly to
the contents, scheme or presentation, illustrations and illustrative examples in their own book. 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. After their demand that respondent pay damages and cease and
desist from selling the infringing copies of respondent's book went unheeded, petitioners filed a compliant for
infringement and unfair competition against the respondent.
Held: 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
petitioner's copyright. As to substantial reproduction of a book, it does not necessarily require that
the entire copyrighted work, or even a large portion of it, be copied. If so much is taken that the
value of the original work is substantially diminished, there is an infringement of copyright and to an
injurious extent, the work is appropriated.
In determining the question of infringement, the amount of matter copied from the copyrighted work, is an
important consideration. To constitute infringement, it is not necessary that the whole or even a large portion of
the work shall have been copied. If so much is taken that the value of the original is sensibly diminished, or the
labours of the original author are substantially and to an injurious extent appropriated by another, that is
sufficient in point of law to constitute piracy.
The essence of intellectual piracy should be essayed in conceptual terms in order to underscore its gravity by
an appropriate understanding thereof. Infringement of a copyright is a trespass on a private domain owned and
occupied by the owner of the copyright, and, therefore, protected by law, and infringement of copyright, or
piracy, which is a synonymous term in this connection, consists in the doing by any person, without the consent
of the owner of the copyright, of anything the sole right to do [is conferred by statute on the owner of the
copyright On the respondent's claim that the copied portions of the book do not constitute copyright
infringement since these are also found in foreign books and other grammar books and that the similarity
between their styles can not be avoided since they come from the same background and orientation, the
Supreme Court held that this would be true had the respondent mentioned the source and the name of the
author in her book.
32
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
Thus, a copy of a piracy is an infringement of the original, and it is no defense that the pirate, in
such cases, did not know whether or not he was infringing any copyright; he at least knew that what
he was copying was not his, and he copied at his peril52. Nevertheless, one who copies or quotes
from a published work will not be held to be guilty of copyright infringement where he mentions the
source and the name of the author of the published work.
To what extent can copying be injurious to the author of the book being copied? In this case, the
Court held that the fact that the numerous pages that the petitioners presented showing similarity in
the style and the manner the books were presented and the identical examples is a mark of
copying and cannot pass as similarities. Also, even if the petitioners and the respondent were of the
same background in terms of teaching and orientation, the Court held that it was not an excuse for
them to be identical even in the examples contained in their books.
Lastly, the Court found indicia of guilt on the part of the respondent. In this case, the Court found
that the respondent had pulled out from Goodwill bookstores her book upon learning of petitioners'
complaint while denying petitioners' demand. The Court further noted that when the respondent's
book was re-issued as a revised version, all the pages cited by petitioners to contain portion of their
book were conspicuously eliminated.
In cases of infringement, copying alone is not what is prohibited. The copying must produce an "injurious effect".
Here the injury consists in that 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 did not acknowledge petitioners as her source.
Hence, there is a clear case of appropriation of copyrighted work for her benefit that respondent Robles
committed. Petitioner's 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. This is precisely what the law on copyright protected.
Q. HABANA civil case; Joaquin criminal case; Why?

A. In computer CD crimes you need immediate relief, that is, seizure of products so you can stop
sales and your loss of profits. In TV shows, civil case maybe because its harder to prove anyway
and no immediate relief can be obtained. Injunction is all that you can get.
Q. A provincial cable company without license to broadcast Star Channels picked out the signal and
broadcasted. What action would you recommend?
A. Criminal, so you can seize broadcast equipment. If you file civil case and get an injunction, by
the time you get it, equipment would have been moved and they would be broadcasting from a
different office. You need to get the equipment fast.
Administrative cases
Filed against manufacturers AND retailers.
Q. Jurisdiction?
A.
200K above Intellectual Property Office
200K below DTIs Bureau of Trade Regulation and Consumer Protection.
Q. Could you give me the basic provisions governing administrative cases?
A. (In the immortal words of Johnbee Sison) Certainly.
RULES AND REGULATIONS ON ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS FOR VIOLATION OF LAWS

INVOLVING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
Rule 1
33
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
DEFINITIONS, INTERPRETATION, RULES OF COURT

Sec. 2. Interpretation. These Regulations shall be liberally construed to carry out the objectives
of the IP Code and IP Laws and to assist the parties in obtaining just and expeditious settlement or
disposition of administrative cases filed before the Office.
Rule 2
COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION
Section 1. Complaint, When and to Whom Filed. All administrative complaints for violation of the
IP Code or IP Laws shall be commenced by filing a verified complaint with the Bureau within four
(4) years from the date of commission of the violation, or if the date be unknown, from the date of
discovery of the violation.
The complaint shall include a certification that the party commencing the action has not filed any
other action or proceeding involving the same issue or issues before any tribunal or agency nor
such action or proceeding is pending in other quasi-judicial bodies: Provided, however, that if any
such action is pending, the status of the same must be stated, and should knowledge thereof be
acquired after the filing of the complaint. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall
not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause
for dismissal of the case without prejudice.
Sec. 2. Original Jurisdiction. (a) The Bureau shall have original jurisdiction in administrative
actions for violations of laws involving intellectual property rights where the total damages claimed
are not less than two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00); Provided however, that availment of
the provisional remedies may be granted in accordance with these Regulations and the provisions
of the Rules of Court; The Director shall coordinate with local enforcement agencies for the strict
and effective implementation and enforcement of these Regulations.
The commencement of the action under these Rules and Regulations is independent and without
prejudice to the filing of any action with the regular courts.
Rule 3
POWERS OF HEARING OFFICERS
Section 1. Powers of Hearing Officers. (a) A Hearing Officer conducting the hearing and
investigating shall be empowered to administer oaths and affirmations; issue subpoena and
subpoena duces tecum to compel attendance of parties and witnesses and the production of any
book, paper, document, correspondence and other records which are material to the case; grant
provisional remedies in accordance with these Regulations and the Rules of Court; and make
preliminary rulings on questions raised at the hearings, with the ultimate decision on the merits of
all the issues involved being left to the Director.
Rule 4
PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT
Rule 5
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Rule 6
CONTEMPT
Rule 7
CALENDAR AND ADJOURNMENTS
Rule 8
DEPOSITIONS AND DISCOVERIES
Rule 9
34
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
HEARING
Rule 10
EVIDENCE
Section 1. Evidence Required. Substantial evidence shall be sufficient to support decision or
order. A fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence. It means such
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support or justify a
conclusion.
Rule 11
DECISIONS AND ORDERS
Section 1. Rendition of Decision. (a) The case is deemed submitted for resolution upon
termination of the period for reception of evidence provided in Section 1 of Rule 9 and the evidence
formally offered. Whether or not the parties submit a final pleading such as memorandum, the case
shall be decided by the Bureau within thirty (30) calendar days from submission as provided herein.
All decisions determining the merits of cases shall be in writing, stating clearly and distinctly the
facts and law on which they are based and signed by the Director.
(b) Decisions and final orders shall be saved by mail, personal service or publication as the case
may require.
Rule 12
ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES AND SANCTIONS
Section 1. Administrative Penalties Imposable. After formal investigation, the Director, may
impose one (1) or more of the following administrative penalties:
(a) Issuance of a cease and desist order which shall specify the acts that the respondent
shall cease and desist from and shall require him to submit a compliance report.
(b) The acceptance of a voluntary assurance of compliance or discontinuance as may be
imposed.
(c) The condemnation or seizure of products which are subject of the offense.
(d) The forfeiture of paraphernalia and all real and personal properties which have been
used in the commission of the offense.
(e) The imposition of administrative fines in such amount as deemed reasonable by the
Director, which shall in no case be less than P5,000.00
(f) The cancellation of any permit, license, authority, or registration which may have been
granted by the Office, or the suspension of the validity thereof not exceeding one (1) year.
(g) The withholding of any permit, license, authority or registration which is being secured
by the respondent from the Office;
(h) The assessment and award of damages;
(i) Censure
Rule 13
JUDGMENTS, FINAL ORDERS AND ENTRY THEREOF
Section 1. Rendition of Judgment and Final Orders. A judgment or final order determining the
merits of the case shall be in writing, stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it
is based, signed by the Director, and filed with the appropriate Register of the Office.
35
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
Sec. 2. Entry of judgments and Final Orders. If no appeal is filed within the time provided in
these Regulations, the Director shall forthwith cause the entry of the judgment or final order in the
appropriate Register of the Office. The date of finality of the judgment or final order shall be
deemed to be the date of its entry. The record shall contain the dispositive part of the judgment or
final order and shall be signed by the Director, with a certificate that such judgment or final order
has become final and executory.
Rule 14
APPEAL
Section 1. Finality of Decision and Order. (a) The decision and order of the Director shall
become final and executory fifteen (15) days after the receipt of a copy thereof by the party affected
unless within the said period an appeal to the Director General has been perfected.
(b) Decisions of the Director-General shall be final and executory unless an appeal to the Court of
Appeals or Supreme Court is perfected in accordance with the Rules of Court applicable to appeals
from decision of Regional Trial Courts.
(d) No motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Director General shall be allowed.
Sec. 2. Appeal, How Perfected. Appeal may be perfected by filing a Notice of Appeal with the
Director General and the Director and a copy thereof served upon the adverse party within fifteen
(15) days from receipt of the order or Decision and upon payment of the corresponding docket fee.
Q. Can administrative agencies impose damages?
A. Yes. There is no limit as to the amount of damages it may award. But it may not impose
imprisonment.
Q. What kind of determination does the agency make, does it determine guilt?
A. Yes! Without a determination of guilt (or at least, violation), it cant impose penalties.
Q. Describe the appeals process.
A. Administrative Agency CA SC
Q. Is there any disadvantage in filing the case with an administrative agency?
A. Yes. Administrative agencies are hesitant to award large amounts of damages, since this is the
courts job, and also because the losing party can file an administrative case against him in the
Sandiganbayan for malfeasance. In this case, the government does not defend him. So he is
hesitant even to grant temporary relief like injunctions.
Q. Why would you file a case with an administrative agency rather than regular courts?
A. to make sure that the IP issues are appreciated. But if case is clear cut, go to RTC. Decisions
of the RTC have more weight because administrative cases are summary and is not bound by the
technical rules on evidence. There is more chance that the IPO case will be reversed on appeal.
Q. What kind of cases does the IPO hear?
A. IP code cases. But RTC hears all sorts of cases, so they have lesser competence as to IP laws.
Note that in major cities though, there are some courts assigned to hear only IP cases.
Criminal
Summary of Crim/Civ/Admi Pros and Cons

Civil
Administrative
36
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
Hardest to prove requires

proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Note
that
in
software
piracy,
this
is
easier
because there is
an actual 100%
reproduction
Immediate relief is needed by
seizure of means of production.
So even if case goes on for 20
years, he cant manufacture fakes
Most expensive for the client
because you pay trademark
investigators to do the test
purchases, so police will file for
SW. At the Prelim Inves stage,
accused will quash SW to claim
that
evidence
obtained
is
inadmissible. Will also question
finding of probable cause by fiscal
to DOJ
Important to pay for storage so
evidence seized will not be lost.
File this when you have to prove

substantial copying (case is not
100% copying) and when there is
possibility that fair use will be raised
as a defense
It takes VERY long to get an
injunction so if you need immediate
relief, dont file this.
Not as expensive for the client.
The entire battle is fought at the
getting of the injunction. Bulk of the
evidence is presented here. If no
injunction is obtained, it will be simple
matter for the other party to keep
extending the case (and keep selling
pirated stuff while case is pending)
File this only when your case

is against retailers and you dont
expect to obtain substantial
damages.
Delivery under oath can be done even in civil cases, so no need to get seizure in civil case
- to get documents evidencing
a) sourcing of goods (to get the big cat)
b) sales (to prove amount of actual damages)
Civil ex parte searches and seizures provided for in the TRIPS Agreement
did not specify if for civil, criminal, or administrative suits
purposes
1) to prevent evidence from disappearing
2) to prevent infringed goods from entering the commerce of man
Developing Countries criminal cases already allow ex parte searches
should be available in civil cases also
called the Anton Pillar order allows goods to be searched and seized which are
subject of criminal action without need of filing criminal case
apply for it in customs and go there (port) and seize
Q. Is possession of copyrighted goods punishable?
A. No. But it is criminally punished when it falls under Sec. 217.3 and possessor knows or ought to
know that such is copyrighted. Note thought that it is hard to overcome presumption of this
knowledge that work is copyrighted.
Q. Does the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative relief apply? Do you have to file administrative
case before you file civil/criminal case?
A. No. You can file any case, civil, administrative or criminal.
CHAPTER XVIII
SCOPE OF APPLICATION
SEC. 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
37
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
(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)
Q. Should the author be the one to cause the publication of the work for his work to obtain
protection?
A. No. The law does not make a distinction.
Q. A book is published in China by a Chinese. Is it possible for him to obtain protection in RP?
A. Yes. He should publish in RP within 30 days. He does not need to be a Filipino or a resident of
RP to obtain the protection.
Q. What if you are not able to publish within the 30 day window, can you ever obtain protection?
A. Yes. If you are a national of a country which ratified the TRIPS or the Berne Convention, the
treaty provisions require that protection be extended to all citizens of signatory countries.
Therefore, if you publish in Japan, you are automatically given protection in RP.
Q. What if you publish in a non-member country like China, and you miss the 30 day window in the
Philippines? How can you obtain copyright protection in TRIPS or Berne Convention signatory
countries?
A. Simply publish in a country which ratified the TRIPS but allows for longer period for publication
than 30 days.
SEC. 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
(B) ARE INCORPORATED IN SOUND RECORDINGS THAT ARE PROTECTED UNDER THIS ACT;
OR
(C) WHICH HAS NOT BEEN FIXED IN SOUND RECORDING BUT ARE CARRIED BY BROADCAST
QUALIFYING FOR PROTECTION UNDER THIS ACT. (N)
SEC. 223. POINTS OF ATTACHMENT FOR SOUND RECORDINGS. - THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT ON THE
PROTECTION OF SOUND RECORDINGS SHALL APPLY TO:
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)
SEC. 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 FROM TRANSMITTERS SITUATED IN THE PHILIPPINES.
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)
N. B.
United States is a first to register jurisdiction. You obtain copyright by registration.

RP is a first to create jurisdiction. You obtain copyright by virtue of creation.
The Berne Convention reinforces the first to create doctrine. US is not a signatory of the
Berne.
CHAPTER XIX
INSTITUTION OF ACTIONS
38
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
SEC. 225. JURISDICTION. - W ITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION 7.1(C), ACTIONS
UNDER THIS ACT SHALL BE COGNIZABLE BY THE COURTS WITH APPROPRIATE JURISDICTION UNDER
EXISTING LAW.
SEC. 226. DAMAGES. - NO DAMAGES MAY BE RECOVERED UNDER THIS ACT AFTER FOUR (4) YEARS FROM
THE TIME THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE.
Prescriptive periods:
Civil case 4 years
Criminal case follow the RPC based on penalty (i.e., length of imprisonment, amount of fine)
CHAPTER XX
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 227. OWNERSHIP OF DEPOSIT AND INSTRUMENTS. - ALL COPIES DEPOSITED AND INSTRUMENTS IN
WRITING FILED WITH THE NATIONAL LIBRARY AND THE SUPREME COURT LIBRARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE GOVERNMENT.
SEC. 228. PUBLIC RECORDS. - THE SECTION OR DIVISION OF THE NATIONAL LIBRARY AND THE SUPREME
COURT LIBRARY CHARGED WITH RECEIVING COPIES AND INSTRUMENTS DEPOSITED AND WITH KEEPING
RECORDS REQUIRED UNDER THIS ACT AND EVERYTHING IN IT SHALL BE OPENED TO PUBLIC INSPECTION.
THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL LIBRARY IS EMPOWERED TO ISSUE SUCH SAFEGUARDS AND
REGULATIONS AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THIS SECTION AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT.
Sec. 229. Copyright Division Fees. - The Copyright Section of the National Library shall be
classified as a Division upon the effectivity of this Act. The National Library shall have the power to
collect, for the discharge of its services under this Act, such fees as may be promulgated by it from
time to time subject to the approval of the Department Head.
Q. What is SB 1704 by Ople?
A. It is on proposed amendments on the copyright portion of the IP Code. Since the Senate has
already ratified the WiPO, SB 1704 may be passed. Some relevant provisions of the SB 1704 are:
1. Anti-circumvention measures to beimplemented
- Sony and the chip
- would penalize the sale, manufacture and use of the anti-circumvention devices
2. Broader reproduction rights
- broader reproduction rights, temporary and permanent reproduction; internet; right
to
make work available
3. Terms of Protection extended (from 50 years to 75 years)
4. Enforcement making the IP Code easier to enforce with stiffer penalties
Q. What are some issues on fair use in the internet?
A. Internet gives (or requires) a new way of looking at copyright. It makes it more difficult to
enforce the right to control access, disclosure and to prevent alteration (it is easier to make
alterations over the internet). Also, there may be several copyright owners in the internet setting.
Content maybe owned by the author, the website control the access, etc.
Q. What is the significance of the E-Commerce Act on copyright infringement?
A. The ISP is made liable under the ECA during instances where it allows for the hosting of
websites which carries or is the source of infringing materials. So you can go after the website
owner and the ISP and the source of their liability would be the violation of the ECA.
Q. When is it possible to use digital works (found over the internet) without infringement?
A.
1. Implied license when the website where the material is found contains no restrictions
on copying
2. Fair use
3. Information posted is part of public domain or is not copyrightable
Q. What is contributory infringement?
39
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
A. It is when you allow others to make copies. There is no specific provision for contributory
infringement in the IP Code. But you can still bring a case for this under a criminal action, making
the person who allowed the making of copies an accessory or accomplice. It may not be possible
to file a civil case. Note however that SB 1740 provides for contributory infringement.
MAI SYSTEMS CORP. v. PEAK COMPUTER, INC., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993)
MAI Systems Corp., until recently, manufactured computers and designed software to run those computers. The
company continues to service its computers and the software necessary to operate the computers. MAI
software includes operating system software, which is necessary to run any other program on the computer.
Peak Computer, Inc. is a company organized in 1990 that maintains computer systems for its clients. Peak
maintains MAI computers for more than one hundred clients in Southern California. This accounts for between
fifty and seventy percent of Peak's business. Peak's service of MAI computers includes routine maintenance
and emergency repairs. Malfunctions often are related to the failure of circuit boards inside the computers, and
it may be necessary for a Peak technician to operate the computer and its operating system software in order to
service the machine.
In August, 1991, Eric Francis left his job as customer service manager at MAI and joined Peak. Three other MAI
employees joined Peak a short time later. Some businesses that had been using MAI to service their computers
switched to Peak after learning of Francis's move. On March 17, 1992, MAI filed suit in the district court against
Peak, Peak's president Vincent Chiechi, and Francis. The complaint includes counts alleging copyright
infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, trademark infringement, false advertising, and unfair
competition. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of MAI on its claims of copyright
infringement and issued a permanent injunction against Peak on these claims. The alleged copyright violations
include: (1) Peak's running of MAI software licensed to Peak customers; (2) Peak's use of unlicensed software
at its headquarters; and, (3) Peak's loaning of MAI computers and software to its customers. Each of these
alleged violations must be considered separately.
Held: To prevail on a claim of copyright infringement, a plaintiff must prove ownership of a

copyright and a "`copying' of protectable expression" beyond the scope of a license. MAI software
licenses allow MAI customers to use the software for their own internal information processing.[n3]
This allowed use necessarily includes the loading of the software into the computer's random
access memory ("RAM") by a MAI customer. However, MAI software licenses do not allow for the use or
copying of MAI software by third parties such as Peak. Therefore, any "copying" done by Peak is "beyond the
scope" of the license.
It is not disputed that MAI owns the copyright to the software at issue here, however, Peak vigorously disputes
the district court's conclusion that a "copying" occurred under the Copyright Act. The Copyright Act then
explains, A work is "fixed" in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord,
by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived,
reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration.
The district court's grant of summary judgment on MAI's claims of copyright infringement reflects its conclusion
that a "copying" for purposes of copyright law occurs when a computer program is transferred from a permanent
storage device to a computer's RAM. This conclusion is consistent with its finding, in granting the preliminary
injunction, that: "the loading of copyrighted computer software from a storage medium (hard disk, floppy disk, or
read only memory) into the memory of a central processing unit ("CPU") causes a copy to be made. In the
absence of ownership of the copyright or express permission by license, such acts constitute copyright
infringement." We find that this conclusion is supported by the record and by the law.
Peak concedes that in maintaining its customer's computers, it uses MAI operating software "to the extent that
the repair and maintenance process necessarily involves turning on the computer to make sure it is functional
and thereby running the operating system." It is also uncontroverted that when the computer is turned on the
operating system is loaded into the computer's RAM. As part of diagnosing a computer problem at the customer
site, the Peak technician runs the computer's operating system software, allowing the technician to view the
systems error log, which is part of the operating system, thereby enabling the technician to diagnose the
problem. Peak argues that this loading of copyrighted software does not constitute a copyright violation
because the "copy" created in RAM is not "fixed." However, by showing that Peak loads the software into the
RAM and is then able to view the system error log and diagnose the problem with the computer.
MAI has adequately shown that the representation created in the RAM is "sufficiently permanent or
stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more
than transitory duration.
The law also supports the conclusion that Peak's loading of copyrighted software into RAM creates
a "copy" of that software in violation of the Copyright Act.
Q. What is the Berne Convention?
40
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
A. The Berne Convention for the protection of literary and artistic works is the Paris Act of July 24,
1971.
Q. What are the pertinent provisions on 1) national treatment, 2) principle of automatic protection
and 3) principle of independence of protection?
A.
1. National Treatment
(1)
2.
Authors shall enjoy, in respect of works for which they are protected under this
convention, in countries of the Union other than the country of origin, the rights which
their respective laws do now or may hereafter grant to their nationals, as well as the
rights specially granted by this Convention.
Principle of automatic protection

(2)
The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality;
such enjoyment and such exercise shall be independent of the existence of protection
in the country of origin of the work. Consequently, apart from the provisions of this
convention, the extent of protection, as well as the means of redress afforded to the
author to protect his rights, shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the country
where protection is claimed.
3. Principle of Independence of Protection.

(3)
Protection in the country of origin is governed by domestic law. However, when the
author is not a national of the country of origin of the work for which is protected under
this Convention, he shall enjoy in that country the same rights as national authors.
Q. What is the TRIPS Agreement?

A. The TRIPS is the agreement on the trade related aspects of rights, including trade in counterfeit
goods.
Q. What are the pertinent provisions of the TRIPS concerning 1) National Treatment, and 2) Most
Favored Nation Principle?
A. They are:
1.
National Treatment:
1.
Each Member shall accord to the nationals of other Members treatment no less
favourable than that it accords to its own nationals with regard to the protection (3) of
intellectual property, subject to the exceptions already provided in, respectively, the
Paris Convention (1967), the Berne Convention (1971), the Rome Convention or the
Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits. In respect of
performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasting organizations, this obligation
only applies in respect of the rights provided under this Agreement. Any Member
availing itself of the possibilities provided in Article 6 of the Berne Convention (1971)
or paragraph 1(b) of Article 16 of the Rome Convention shall make a notification as
foreseen in those provisions to the Council for TRIPS.
2.
Members may avail themselves of the exceptions permitted under paragraph 1 in

relation to judicial and administrative procedures, including the designation of an
address for service or the appointment of an agent within the jurisdiction of a Member,
only where such exceptions are necessary to secure compliance with laws and
regulations which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement and where
such practices are not applied in a manner which would constitute a disguised
restriction on trade.
2. Most Favored Nation Treatment

With regard to the protection of intellectual property, any advantage, favour, privilege
or immunity granted by a Member to the nationals of any other country shall be
accorded immediately and unconditionally to the nationals of all other Members.
Exempted from this obligation are any advantage, favour, privilege or immunity
accorded by a Member:
41
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
(a) deriving from international agreements on judicial assistance or law enforcement of

a general nature and not particularly confined to the protection of intellectual property;
(b) granted in accordance with the provisions of the Berne Convention (1971) or the
Rome Convention authorizing that the treatment accorded be a function not of
national treatment but of the treatment accorded in another country;
(c) in respect of the rights of performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasting
organizations not provided under this Agreement;
(d) deriving from international agreements related to the protection of intellectual
property which entered into force prior to the entry into force of the WTO Agreement,
provided that such agreements are notified to the Council for TRIPS and do not
constitute an arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination against nationals of other
Members.
Bar review note copyright, plagiarism, fair use

Plagiarism is wholly intolerable in the practice of law. Matthew Mirow at Lexis-Nexis.
Mirows point seems to be that its because its dishonest. I believe this to be a bit simplistic. It
must be because without authority or source, you end up confusing the court or the parties.
What is copyright?
As defined in the Philippine constitution, it is the exclusive right of an author to his work.
42
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
Conventionally, it is a property right in an original work fixed in any tangible medium of

expression, giving the holder the exclusive right to reproduce, adapt, distribute, perform, and
display the work. Blacks.
WIPO defines it as a system of legal protection enjoyed by an author of the form of

expression of ideas.
Copyright is a negative right because it is a right to stop others from doing something.
It is not explicitly defined in RA 8293, the special law that governs copyright in the
Philippines.
What is a work?
It is an original intellectual creation in the literary and artistic domain. It is protected from
the moment of creation. Examples: books, periodicals, speeches, letters, plays, musical
compositions, paintings, sculptures, photographic works, computer programs, etc. It includes
characters in books and comic strips.
What is creation?
It is verifiable expression of the intellectual product in a tangible medium of expression. Based
on interpretation of Art. 9, par. 2 of the TRIPS of GATT 94.
What is meant by original?
It means that the work is original to the author, i.e., he does not copy it from another. It means that
the creation involves intellectual effort.
What are not subject to copyright?
The following are not protected by copyright: DN.IPP.GP
Mere data or facts
News of the day
Ideas and concepts (textbook knowledge is not subject to copyright; but the manner of
presenting textbook knowledge is copyrightable)
Principles
Procedure and methods of operation
Work of government
Works read or rendered in courts, and before deliberative assemblies and in meetings
of public character
Works already in the public domain (either by nature, such as works of government; or
because copyright protection has lapsed)
Trade marks, because marks are not a work, and there is a wrong called trade mark
infringement
When does work enter the public domain?
Work becomes public domain when the term or duration of copyright ends.
What is the term or duration of copyright?
In the Philippines,
generally, lifetime of the author + 50 years
for joint creation, 50 years from the death of the last surviving co-creator
for anonymous or pseudonymous work, 50 years from first publication
for applied art, 25 years from creation
for photography and audio-visual work, 50 years from publication or creation

The rules may differ in other jurisdictions.
What is copyright infringement?
It is the violation of the economic or moral rights of the copyright owner.
What are the economic rights of the copyright owner?
The economic rights of the copyright owner: ( 177) RDD.RDP.CA
to reproduce the whole or a substantial portion of the work
to make derivative works such as: dramatization, translation, adaptation, abridgement,

arrangement, or other transformation of the work
public distribution of the original and each copy of the work by sale or other forms of transfer
of ownership
43
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
rental of the original copy of a copy of an a-v or cinematographic work, work in a sound
recording, computer program, compilation of data, musical work in graphic form, irrespective of the
ownership of the original or the copy which is the subject of the rental
public display of the original or a copy of the work
public performance of the work
other communication to the public of the work
in the case of works of architecture, 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 ( 186).
What are the moral rights of the copyright owner?
The moral rights of the copyright owner are: 193. [APDU]
right to attribution of authorship
to alter prior to, or withhold, publication
to object to any distortion of the work that would prejudice his reputation
to restrain use of ones name with a work not his own or with a distortion of his work
Distinguish between economic and moral rights?
Economic rights are assignable, whereas moral rights are not, though they are waivable. (A
ghost-writer waives his right to attribution, but he assigns for consideration the copyright to his work
in favor of the purported author.)
Economic rights generally refer to the creators exclusive right to reproduce, adapt, perform,
or display; moral rights generally refer to the creators claim to authorship, such as his right to be
attributed as the author or his right to prevent any distortion of his work that is prejudicial to his
reputation.
Economic rights are covered in 177; moral rights, 193.

What are the rights of a ghost-writer? See the answer to the preceding question.
What is plagiarism? Is it copyright infringement?

Plagiarism is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his
writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of ones own
mind. To be liable for plagiarism it is not necessary to exactly duplicate anothers work, it being
sufficient if unfair use of such work is made by lifting of substantial portion thereof (Blacks; see
discussion of fair use below).
Plagiarism is in short the passing off of anothers work as ones own. Since it is a violation of the
moral right of a copyright owner to attribution (of authorship), plagiarism is copyright infringement.
If the plagiarist exercises the economic rights of the copyright owner, the former is likewise guilty of
infringement. However, the true author may assign his copyright or waive his right to attribution.
What are the remedies in a copyright infringement case? PECPA
preventive, such as injunction or impoundment of the offending material
evidentiary, when court orders the delivery of documents
compensatory, as in damages
punitive, as in a criminal action or when infringing copies are destroyed w/o compensation
administrative action, for damages of P200,000 or higher, under the jurisdiction of the
Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) of the IPO. 10. Administrative action requires substantial evidence
(lower than preponderance of evidence in civil actions).
criminal penalties are based on whether there is single or repeat offenses (example: first
offense is punishable by 1-3 years of imprisonment and P50-150K of fine)
Is mens rea (evil intent) required for civil action for damages? For criminal liability?
RA 8293 is silent on this question. In civil action, the settled rule is that mens rea is not required.
In criminal actions, the balance of authoritative opinion is that criminal liability requires intent to gain
44
Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]
commercial advantage (Rosenberg, Aquino). In other words, in criminal action, the offense of
infringement should be treated as malum in se.
What is the FAIR USE doctrine?
How does it apply to material used in class?

Certain activities are called fair use, and do not constitute copyright infringement. These are:
criticism, commentary, and news reports
use for instructional purposes ( 185.1)

But determination of fair use is subject to the following criteria: PNSA
purpose and character of the use (non-profit, non-commercial, or for public commentary is
generally fair use)
nature of the copyrighted work (where nature is informational, fair use is more likely to be
found)
amount and substantiality of the portions used relative to the work of plaintiff, and also to
that of defendant (if the portions used are not substantial, it is fair use)
adverse effect on the potential market of the copyrighted work (this is the main criterion;
even if an act is not fair use under the first criteria, it can become fair use if there is no significant
adverse effect on the aggrieved party)
Thus, limited copying of portions of a book for classroom use would be fair use, but wholesale
copying of the entire book would not be fair use.
45

IPL Reviewer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IPL Reviewer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intellectual Property Law: Cram Another Day

Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]

Intellectual Property Law

Allan Verman Ong

Intellectual Property Law: Cram Another Day

- what is protected is unique expression of an idea. So Einsteins e=mc2

Technology Transfer Agreements e.g. licensing.

TRIPS Agreement Trade Related Aspects of IP Rights, a sub-agreement of the GATT,

Q. When can you not invoke copyright?

Allan Verman Ong

Intellectual Property Law: Cram Another Day

a negative right since it prevents you from enjoying, deriving benefit

property protected is intellectual

use consists of derivative rights, e.g. reproduction, translation, dramatization

171.4. A "COMPUTER" IS AN ELECTRONIC OR SIMILAR DEVICE HAVING INFORMATION-PROCESSING

Allan Verman Ong

Intellectual Property Law: Cram Another Day

Allan Verman Ong

Intellectual Property Law: Cram Another Day

Allan Verman Ong

Intellectual Property Law: Cram Another Day

176.3. NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS, THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT PRECLUDED

reproduction must be commercial, public and substantial

177.2 DRAMATIZATION, TRANSLATION, ADAPTATION, ABRIDGMENT, ARRANGEMENT OR OTHER

right to determined 1) whether or not to sell, and 2) when to sell

Allan Verman Ong

Intellectual Property Law: Cram Another Day

Allan Verman Ong

Intellectual Property Law: Cram Another Day

General rule: Creator has copyright. It can be co-owned.

Allan Verman Ong

Intellectual Property Law: Cram Another Day

Q. If you want to produce DVD, who do you talk to?

1.) you acquired copyright already

Intellectual Property Law: Cram Another Day

Allan Verman Ong

SY 2002-2003 [Atty. Lim]

can be free or for a fee

Yes. Here, you own copyright,

Joint ownership of copyright

Allan Verman Ong

Intellectual Property Law: Cram Another Day

(B) THE NATURE OF THE COPYRIGHTED WORK;

Allan Verman Ong

Intellectual Property Law: Cram Another Day

test is both the present and future market

Allan Verman Ong

Intellectual Property Law: Cram Another Day

Allan Verman Ong

Intellectual Property Law: Cram Another Day

Die Another Day

I'm gonna suspend my senses

I think I'll find another way

If there are millions of owners of VTR's who make copies of

Allan Verman Ong

Intellectual Property Law: Cram Another Day

Of course, the fact that other

makes it perfectly clear that there are many important

Allan Verman Ong

Intellectual Property Law: Cram Another Day

Allan Verman Ong

Intellectual Property Law: Cram Another Day