Copyright law of the Philippines

According to Section 172 of the Intellectual Property Code,[4] literary and artistic works refer to the original and intellectual creations protected from the moment of their creation.

The list of literary and artistic works includes the following:

• Books, pamphlets, articles and other writings.
• Periodicals and newspapers
• Lectures, sermons, addresses, dissertations prepared for oral delivery, whether or not reduced in writing or other material form
• Letters
• Dramatic or dramatico-musical compositions; choreographic works or entertainment in dumb shows
• Musical compositions, with or without words
• Works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving, lithography or other works of art; models or designs for works of art.
• Original ornamental designs or models for articles of manufacture, whether or not registrable as an industrial design, and other works of applied art
• Illustrations, maps, plans, sketches, charts and three-dimensional works relative to geography, topography, architecture or science
• Drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical character
• Photographic works including works produced by a process analogous to photography; lantern slides
• Audiovisual works and cinematographic works and works produced by a process analogous to cinematography or any process for making audio-visual recordings
• Pictorial illustrations and advertisements
• Computer programs
• Other literary, scholarly, scientific and artistic works

According to Section 173.2 of the Intellectual Property Code,[4] derivative works are defined as new work provided that they do not violate any subsisting copyright upon the original work employed or any part thereof, or to imply any right to such use of the original works, or to secure or extend copyright in such original works.

The list of derivative works includes the following:

• Dramatizations, translations, adaptations, abridgements, arrangements, and other alterations of literary or artistic works
• 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.

According to Section 174[4] which refers to the case of a published edition of work, the publisher has the copyright consisting merely of the right of reproduction of the typographical arrangement of the published edition of the work.

The list of unprotected subject matter include the following:

• Any idea, procedure, system, method or operation, concept, principle, discovery or mere data as such, even if they are expressed, explained, illustrated or embodied in a work
• News of the day and other miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of press information
• Any official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, as well as any official translation thereof

According to Section 176 of Republic Act 8293,[4] no copyright shall be applied in any work of the Government of the Philippines. To exploit such works for profit, prior approval from the government agency or office should be made. Such agency or office may impose payment of royalties. It is not required to seek prior approval or conditions for the use for 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.

This allows a creator to ask for or obtain payment for the use of their work by third parties.[6] According to Section 177 of the Law of Copyright, these rights consist of the right to allow, impede, or carry out the following by the author:

• Replication of the work, or a portion of the work
• Transformation or dramatization of the original work
• The first public distribution of the original work and each copy of the work
• Rental of the original work, or copy of the work embodied in any form, including audiovisuals, cinematography, sound recordings, computer programming, or graphic work, regardless of ownership of the original work
• Public display of the original or copy of the work
• Public performance of the work
• Other communication of the work to the public

These rights allow the author of the work to maintain their personal connection to the work, and to undertake measures in order to protect this connection.[4] The author of the work, independent of the economic rights, also have the right to:

• Require the authorship of the work be attributed to him or her, meaning that the author may require that their name be displayed in a prominent fashion on a copy or public distribution or use of the work
• To make any transformation or adjustment to the work, or withhold it from publication
• To oppose any and all mutilation or any other derogatory action to the work which could potentially be detrimental to the author's honor and reputation
• To refuse to the use of the author's name on any mutilated or distorted version of his work, or any work not of his own creation

• Under Section 195 of the Law on Copyright, an author may waive his moral rights through a written contract. However, this contract is deemed invalid if it allows third parties to do the following:
  • Make use of the author's name, the title of the work, or the author's reputation, in any version or adaptation of the work which could harm or be detrimental to the artistic reputation of another author
  • Make use of an author's name for a piece of work not of his own creation
• The right of an author to have his contribution to a collective work credited to his name is deemed waived. A collective work here is defined as work created by two or more persons and under the understanding that the work will be attributed to the person whose direction said work is under. It is also understood that contributing natural persons will not be identified.[7]
• If an author licenses or permits a third party to make use of their work, any necessary transformation, such as arranging, editing, or adaptations of work for use in publications, broadcast, or motion pictures, in accordance with the standards of the medium in which the work is to be used, shall not be found in contrary to the author's rights. In addition, the destruction of work unconditionally and completely transferred by an author shall likewise not be found in violation of the author's rights.

The author and their heirs have the inalienable right to partake of 5% of the proceeds of the sale or lease of their original work (painting, sculpture, manuscript, composition). This inalienable right is in effect during the lifetime of the author, and for fifty years after their death.[4]

Related rights are the rights of those whose help the author avails of in order to assist him in producing his work, and distributing this work to the public. These rights are also referred to as "neighboring rights" and include the following:[1]

• Rights of performers
• Rights of producers of sound recordings
• Rights of broadcasting organizations

Section 216 of Republic Act No. 10372 states that a person infringes a right protected under this Act when one:[8][9]

• Directly commits an infringement against copyright;
• Benefits from the infringing activity of another person who commits an infringement if the person benefiting has been given notice of the infringing activity and has the right and ability to control the activities of the other person;
• With knowledge of infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another.

Any person found infringing rights protected under RA 10372 shall be liable:[10]

• To pay the copyright owner actual damages, legal costs, and other expenses, that may have been incurred due to infringement as well as profits earned by the infringement.

Instead of recovering actual damages and profits, the copyright owner may file instead for an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved for not less than Fifty thousand pesos (Php 50,000.00). The court may consider the following factors in awarding statutory damages:

• The nature and purpose of the infringing act;
• The flagrancy of the infringement;
• Whether the defendant acted in bad faith;
• The need for deterrence;
• Any loss that the plaintiff has suffered or is likely to suffer by reason of the infringement; and
• Any benefit shown to have accrued to the defendant by reason of the infringement.

A fair use, in its most general sense, is the act of copying of copyrighted materials done for purposes such as commenting, criticizing, or parodying a copyrighted work without the permission from the copyright owner. It is used as a defense under copyright infringement.[15]

Under fair use, the use of a copyrighted work for purposes of criticizing, commenting, news reporting, teaching, creating researches, and other similar purposes is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made is under fair use, the following factors should be considered:

• The purpose of the use, including it is of a commercial nature or for non-profit purposes
• The nature of the copyrighted work
• The amount and sustainability of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
• The effect of the use to the value of the copyrighted work

Given the mentioned rules and regulations above about copyright, reproduction of different materials, without the permission of the author, are still allowed given that they are done for reasons allowed by the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines. Provided here are the reproductions and purposes allowed by the law.

Under Subsection 187.1 of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines,[4] the reproduction of a published work shall be permitted without the owner's authorization given that the reproduction was made for research purposes. The permission granted here shall not extend to:

• A work of architecture in the form of building or other construction
• An entire or a substantial part of a book or of a musical work
• A compilation of data and other materials
• A computed program except those stated in Section 189
• Any reproduction that would exploit the work

Any library or archive with non-profit purposes may make a single copy of the work without the authorization of the author given that:

• The work cannot be lent to user in its original form
• The works are isolated articles contained in composite works or portions of other published works and the reproduction can supply them
• The making of a copy is for the purposes of preserving or replacing the original in situations that it is destroyed or lost

The reproduction of one back-up copy of a computer program shall be allowed without the permission of the copyright owner given that the reproduction is for the following uses:

• The use of the computer program in a computer for which it will be run
• To create a copy of the original computer program so that replacement is available if the original copy is lost or destroyed

Author and publisher Raymund Sta. Maria Catabijan was issued 608,450.00 pesos in damages from La Concepcion College, who he claimed directly copied his work books in order to sell to students.[19] La Concepcion College was found guilty of copyright infringement by the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL).[19] The non-sectarian school was hence banned from publishing, selling and distributing copies of Mr. Catabijan's works.[19]

The Makati Regional Trial Court ruled on November 17, 2020, that EdCrisch International Inc. (EdCrisch) copied a substantial part of Panahon Kasaysayan at Lipunan: Kasaysayan ng Pilipinas textbook, published by the University Press of First Asia (UPFA), for their textbook Pilipinas: Isang Sulyap at Pagyakap. EdCrisch and its Singaporean partner Alkem Company were both mandated by the court to cease production and distributions of the infringing textbook. The court also awarded UPFA ₱9.3 million in damages to be paid by both EdCrisch and Alkem, bringing the 11-year copyright dispute to an end.[20]

Fujian New Technology Color Making and Printing Co. Ltd., based in China, and its local partners M.Y. Intercontinental Trading Corporation (MITC) and Allianz Marketing and Publishing Corporation, were ordered to pay ₱24,695,830 worth of damages to St. Mary's Publishing Corporation (SMPC). This stemmed from Fujian's failure to abide by their contract with SMPC to deliver promised textbooks that they printed. The Chinese printing firm instead gave the marketing contract to MITC, with Allianz as the importer. The erring parties were also ordered to stop publications, importations, and distributions of textbooks, inclusive of revised versions. This landmark decision was ruled by Manila City Regional Trial Court Branch 24 on December 8, 2017; the Court of Appeals of the Philippines upheld the decision on April 11, 2019.[21][22] The latter court said that while Fujian is a foreign company, "its act constitute copyright infringement pursuant to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works," of which the Philippines and China are signatories.[23]

The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled, on August 11, 2022, that Anrey, Inc. must pay ₱10,000 worth of temperate damages to the Filipino Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, Inc. (FILSCAP) and ₱50,000.00 worth of attorney's fees, all subject to varying interest rates: 12% per year "from September 8, 2009 until June 30, 2013," 6% per year "from July 1, 2013 until finality of the Court's judgment," and 6% per year from the judgment finality "until fully satisfied." The case was in response to the unlicensed use of copyrighted songs from FILSCAP's repertoire in two restaurants in Baguio owned by Anrey, Inc. in 2008. Anrey, Inc. responded to FILSCAP's letters of request to secure proper licensing by claiming their restaurants were playing "whatever was being broadcasted on the radio they were tuned in." Granting FILSCAP's petition for review on certiorari, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling of Branch 6 of Baguio Regional Trial Court dismissing FILSCAP's complaint as well as the Court of Appeals ruling that upheld the regional trial court's decision.[24]

According to the high court, "the act of playing radio broadcasts containing copyrighted music through the use of loudspeakers (radio-over-loudspeakers) is, in itself, a performance." It added, it does not fall under fair use as the restaurants' manner of use of loudspeakers in transmitting musical content from radio is commercial. The Supreme Court stated that this decision "will also affect other uses in similar establishments like malls, department stores, retail stores, lounges and the like";[24] an opinion piece by Inquirer.net adds other establishments like hotels, cinemas, office spaces, salons, gymnasiums, and dance clubs, as well as concerts and events.[25] However, the high court stressed that denying FILSCAP's petition would cause great harm to the economic rights of the copyright holders in which the users "use free radio reception" instead of paying royalties. By setting up a precedence for the proper use of copyrighted music, the Court said that this will create "a huge economic impact on the music industry in general."[24]

ABS-CBN demanded 127 million pesos from their former reality show star, Willie Revillame, citing copyright infringement due to stark similarities in Revillame's show, Willing Willie, and ABS CBN's Wowowee.[26] ABS-CBN listed 5 acts of plagiarism allegedly committed by Willing Willie in their complaint as follows:[26]

1. Willing Willie's opening song and dance number was similar to that of Wowowee's[26]
2. “BIGA-Ten” and “Big Time Ka,” both segments from the shows involved, bear similar names.[26]
3. “Willie of Fortune” and “Willtime Bigtime” are segments from both shows which resemble each other.[26] ABS-CBN claimed that Willtime Bigtime resembled its show as it also showcases contestants relaying their personal stories before proceeding to play a singing/trivia game.[26]
4. April “Congratulations” Gustilo is one of several backup dancers from Wowowee who also appear in Willing Willie.[26]
5. Other striking similarities ABS-CBN claimed are found in Willing Willie's set design, stage, studio viewers' seats lay-out, lighting angles and camera angles.[26]

A 25-page ruling later on dated May 22, 2015, junked the case against Revillame, declaring it moot.[26] After the Quezon City RTC demanded a 400 million peso bond from Revillame to answer any further damage the network might sustain, it was later discharged.[26] Revillame signed a contract with GMA network two days prior to the ruling, to work on a new show entitled, “Wowowin."[26]

BJ Productions, Inc, produced a dating game show Rhoda and Me which aired from 1970 to 1977. On July 14, 1991, Francisco Joaquin, Jr., president of BJPI, saw on RPN Channel 9 an episode of It's a Date, produced by IXL Productions, Inc. (IXL) with similar format of his dating show. Joaquin filed a case against IXL Productions, headed by Gabriel Zosa and RPN 9 before Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Meanwhile, Zosa sought a review of the resolution of the Assistant City Prosecutor before the Secretary of Justice Franklin Drilon. On August 12, 1992, Drilon reversed the Assistant City Prosecutor's findings and directed him to move for the dismissal of the case against private respondents. Joaquin filed a motion for reconsideration, but his motion denied by Drilon on December 3, 1992.[27]

The Supreme Court ruled on January 28, 1999, that the format or mechanics of a television show is not included in the list of the protected work provided by Presidential Decree no. 49 and Republic Act No. 8293. It further state that copyright, in the strict sense of the term, is purely a statutory right and does not extend to an idea, procedure, process, system, method or operation, concept, principles or discovery regardless of the form to which it is described, explained, and illustrated or embodied in the work.[27]

Pearl & Dean Philippines is an out-of-home advertising company. In 1985, Pearl and Dean negotiated with Shoemart, Inc. (now SM Prime Holdings) for the lease and installation of lightboxes (two-sided structures lit by fluorescent lighting often used for advertising and store/mall directories) in SM Makati and SM Cubao. Only SM Makati was signed but later rescinded by Pearl & Dean due to non-performance of their terms. Years later, Pearl & Dean found out that exact copies of its light boxes were installed at different SM stores. It was further discovered that SM's sister company North Edsa Marketing Inc. (NEMI), sold advertising space in lighted display units located in SM's different branches.[28]

Pearl & Dean filed this instant case for infringement of trademark and copyright, unfair competition and damages. SM on its part maintained that it independently developed its poster panels using commonly known techniques and available technology, without notice of or reference to Pearl and Dean's copyright.[28] Makati Regional Trial Court decided in favor of Pearl & Dean, finding SM and NEMI jointly and severally liable for infringement of copyright and infringement of trademark. On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court. On August 15, 2003, Supreme Court strengthened the Court of Appeals' decision by stating Pearl & Dean never secured a patent for the light boxes and the copyright patent is on its technical drawings within the category of "pictorial illustrations."[28] It applied the similar ruling of G.R. No. 108946 (Joaquin, Jr. v. Drilon).[27]

On G.R. No. 195835, penned March 14, 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that For a claim of copyright infringement to prevail, the evidence on record must demonstrate: (1) ownership of a validly copyrighted material by the complainant; and (2) infringement of the copyright by the respondent. It further stated that probable cause is not imputable against the respondent.[29]

The ruling stemmed from a dispute between LEC Steel Manufacturing Corporation and Metrotech Steel Industries where the former accused the latter infringing its intellectual property rights.[29] The LEC failed to substantiate the alleged reproduction of the drawings/sketches of hatch doors it copyrighted had had no proof that the Metrotech reprinted the copyrighted sketches/drawings of LEC's hatch doors. The raid conducted by the NBI on Metrotech's premises yielded no copies or reproduction of LEC's copyrighted sketches/drawings of hatch doors. What were discovered instead were finished and unfinished hatch doors.[29]