A copyright is the legal protection extended to the owner of the rights in an original work.[1] Original work refers to every production in the literary, scientific, and artistic domains.[1] The Intellectual Property Office (IPOPHL) is the leading agency responsible for handling the registration and conflict resolution of intellectual property rights and to enforce the copyright laws.[2] IPOPHL was created by virtue of Republic Act No. 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines which took effect on January 1, 1998, under the presidency of Fidel V. Ramos.[3]
In the Intellectual Property (IP) Code of the Philippines, literary and artistic works include books, writings, musical works, films, paintings, and other works including computer programs.[1]
Works are created on the sole fact of their very creation - regardless of their mode or form of expression as well as their content, the quality of said content, and purpose.[1]
Works covered by the copyright law are (1) literary and artistic works and (2) derivative works. On the other hand, works not protected by the copyright law are (1) unprotected subject matter and (2) works of the government.
According to Section 172 of the Intellectual Property Code, 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:
According to Section 173.2 of the Intellectual Property Code, 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:
According to Section 174 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:
According to Section 176 of Republic Act 8293, 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.
According to Section 178 and 179 of Republic Act 8293, the copyright ownership is under the following rules:
These are the rights that authors are entitled to according to the law of copyright, under Part IV of R.A. 8293, or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines.
This allows a creator to ask for or obtain payment for the use of their work by third parties.[4] 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:
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.[5] The author of the work, independent of the economic rights, also have the right to:
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.
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:
Section 216 of Republic Act No. 10372 states that a person infringes a right protected under this Act when one:[6] [7]
Any person found infringing rights protected under RA 10372 shall be liable:[7]
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 following acts shall not constitute infringement of copyright:
The provisions under this shall not be interpreted in a way that exploit the works and does not harm the interest of the right holder.
The Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines does not have a freedom of panorama provision, concerning the right to photograph artistic works in public spaces and use the resulting images for any purposes without the need to secure permission from the authors of the said works.[9]
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.[10]
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:
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, 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:
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 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 Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines does not define a threshold of originality that is used to assess whether a particular work can be copyrighted.
The first known intellectual property law in the Philippines was the Spanish Law on Intellectual Property, which became effective in 1880. The Treaty of Paris which gave the Philippines to the United States has a mention on intellectual property rights: "The rights of property secured by copyrights and patents acquired by Spaniards in the Island of Cuba and in Porto Rico, the Philippines and other ceded territories, at the time of the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty, shall continue to be respected...." In 1924, Act No. 3134 (or An Act to Protect Intellectual Property), based on the Copyright Act of 1909 of the United States, came into force. This was superseded by Presidential Decree No. 49 during the regime of President Ferdinand Marcos. The current copyright law, Republic Act No. 8293 (Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines), was passed in 1998.[11]
The Philippine Senate Committee on Trade, Commerce and Entrepreneurship's Senate Bill Nos. 2150 and 2385 aim amend the 27-year old IP Code by enabling online site blocking to protect intellectual property rights against online piracy.[12]
The Philippines was removed from Special 301 Report of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in 2014, citing "significant legislative and regulatory reforms" in the area of intellectual property. The country began to be listed in 1989 and from 1994 was annually included in the piracy watchlist. The removal was seen as an important factor in boosting investor confidence.[13] the Philippines remains off the watchlist.[14] Copyright registrations reached an all-time high of 6,522 in 2023, according to the Intellectual Property Office, eclipsing the registration figures that were seen before the COVID-19 pandemic, with the agency citing increased public awareness of the intellectual property.[15]
In May 2023, the Joey Salceda authored House Bill No. 7600, approved on final reading by the 19th Congress of the Philippines, aims to strengthen the powers and functions of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines. In July 2024, Ipophl Director General Rowel Barba and Secretary Alfredo E. Pascual submitted proposed amendments to modernize the IP Code, Republic Act 8293. The revisions include measures to combat online piracy, the authority for a site-blocking order, increase in penalties, copyright infringement enforcements and changes to trademark regulations.[16] [17]
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.[18] La Concepcion College was found guilty of copyright infringement by the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL).[18] The non-sectarian school was hence banned from publishing, selling and distributing copies of Mr. Catabijan's works.[18]
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.[19]
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.[20] [21] 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.[22]
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.[23]
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";[23] 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.[24] 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."[23]
The Supreme Court once again ruled in favor of FILSCAP in another copyright case, in a February 28, 2023 decision. COSAC, Inc., operator of Off the Grill Bar and Restaurant in Quezon City and the erring user, was to pay ₱300,000 worth of unpaid licensing and royalty fees to FILSCAP, inclusive of "12 percent interest per year from February 13, 2006 until June 30, 2013, and at the rate of 6 percent per year from July 1, 2013 until the date of finality of the judgment on the amount." This was a result of the restaurant found by FILSCAP representatives to have played copyrighted music between February 3, 2005 and January 13, 2006, which according to the Court "was not done privately, and the establishment is not a charitable or religious institution or society." The restaurant's distribution of music was also commercial, giving harm to the legitimate interests of the copyright holders, and therefore no longer protected by fair use doctrine.[25] [26]
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.[27] ABS-CBN listed 5 acts of plagiarism allegedly committed by Willing Willie in their complaint as follows:
A 25-page ruling later on dated May 22, 2015, junked the case against Revillame, declaring it moot. 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. Revillame signed a contract with GMA network two days prior to the ruling, to work on a new show entitled, “Wowowin."
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.[28]
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.
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.[29]
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. 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." It applied the similar ruling of G.R. No. 108946 (Joaquin, Jr. v. Drilon).
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.[30]
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. 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.