REVIEWER IN IPL PREPARED BY FERRER-LIM, CHARMAGNE

FINAL EXAM

Intellectual Property Law
INTELLECTUAL PROPERY -those property rights which results from the physical manifestation of an original thought. RA 8293

A. Maybe not. It does not cause/create confusion. Creative Rights – protect unique expression of an idea 1.  2.  copyright – moral right what is protected is unique expression of an idea. So Einstein’s e=mc2 is not protected, but the dissertation where he explained the idea is protected. neighboring rights – performer’s 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, it’s 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.

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 1. 2. 3.

Core Principles: national treatment – nationals from different states should have protection of their own works principle of automatic protection – no need to register copyrights principle of independence of protection – treat foreigners the way you protect nationals

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

2. TRIPS Agreement – Trade Related Aspects of IP Rights, a sub-agreement of the GATT, Principles: 1. 2. 3. Establishment of minimum standards of protection as to enforcement of IPR transnationally National treatment – of the IP owner Most favored nation principle – treat all signatories similarly, no special treatment should be given to any nation

-

Trademarks – don’t 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. 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: public domain (since copyright lasts until 50 years after the death of creator) so there are moves to extend the term protection – 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 1. 2.   new technologies include internet and digital works now, temporary copies are protected (temporary – something you download from internet) new rights are created: right to distribution rental right – right of author to rent out cinematic works, phonograms, computer programs you can’t rent out your copy of Windows 2002 CD. But if your Palm Pilot breaks down and you rent a Palm with Windows, it’s okay, since computer program isn’t the ―thing of rent‖ right of communication to public – wire/wireless means

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. McDo’s 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?

1

REVIEWER IN IPL PREPARED BY FERRER-LIM, CHARMAGNE
Principles: 1. 2.  3. circumvention of technology measures – e.g. DVD contents handling system 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 protection is granted from the time of creation

FINAL EXAM

property rights, including licensing of computer software except computer software developed for mass market. 4.3. The term "Office" refers to the Intellectual Property Office created by this Act. 4.4. The term "IPO Gazette" refers to the gazette published by the Office under this Act. (n) Section 5. Functions of the Intellectual Property Office (IPO). - 5.1. To administer and implement the State policies declared in this Act, there is hereby created the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) which shall have the following functions: a) Examine applications for grant of letters patent for inventions and register utility models and industrial designs; b) Examine applications for the registration of marks, geographic indication, integrated circuits; c) Register technology transfer arrangements and settle disputes involving technology transfer payments covered by the provisions of Part II, Chapter IX on Voluntary Licensing and develop and implement strategies to promote and facilitate technology transfer; d) Promote the use of patent information as a tool for technology development; e) Publish regularly in its own publication the patents, marks, utility models and industrial designs, issued and approved, and the technology transfer arrangements registered; f) Administratively adjudicate contested proceedings affecting intellectual property rights; and g) Coordinate with other government agencies and the private sector efforts to formulate and implement plans and policies to strengthen the protection of intellectual property rights in the country. 5.2. The Office shall have custody of all records, books, drawings, specifications, documents, and other papers and things relating to intellectual property rights applications filed with the Office. (n) Section 6. The Organizational Structure of the IPO. – 6.1. The Office shall be headed by a Director General who shall be assisted by two (2) Deputies Director General. 6.2. The Office shall be divided into six (6) Bureaus, each of which shall be headed by a Director and assisted by an Assistant Director. These Bureaus are: a) The Bureau of Patents; b) The Bureau of Trademarks; c) The Bureau of Legal Affairs; d) The Documentation, Information and Technology Transfer Bureau; e) The Management Information System and EDP Bureau; and f) The Administrative, Financial and Personnel Services Bureau. 6.3. The Director General, Deputies Director General, Directors and Assistant Directors shall be appointed by the President, and the other officers and employees of the Office by the Secretary of Trade and Industry, conformably with and under the Civil Service Law. (n) Section 8. The Bureau of Patents. - The Bureau of Patents shall have the following functions: 8.1. Search and examination of patent applications and the grant of patents; 8.2. Registration of utility models, industrial designs, and integrated circuits; and 8.3. Conduct studies and researches in the field of patents in order to assist the Director General in formulating policies on the administration and examination of patents. (n) Section 9. The Bureau of Trademarks. - The Bureau of Trademarks shall have the following functions: 9.1. Search and examination of the applications for the registration of marks, geographic indications and other marks of ownership and the issuance of the certificates of registration; and 9.2. Conduct studies and researches in the field of trademarks in order to assist the Director General in formulating policies on the administration and examination of trademarks. (n)

NOTE: WIPO treaty is already ratified but still need enabling legislation, either in the form of new law of amendment of the IP Code STATE POLICY IN RESPECT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (IPR) -There is a declaration of State Policy that, among others, the State recognizes that an effective intellectual and industrial property system is vital to the development of domestic and creative activity, facilitates transfer of technology, attracts foreign investments and ensures market access for our products, hence it shall protect and secure exclusive rights of scientists, inventors, artists, and other gifted citizens to their intellectual property and creations. (Sec. 2) INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION AND RECIPROTICY · Any person who is a national or who is domiciled or has a real and effective industrial establishment in a country which 1) is a party to any convention, treaty, or agreement relating to intellectual property rights or the repression of unfair competition to which the Philippines is also a party, or 2) extends reciprocal rights to nationals of the Philippines by law, shall be entitled to benefits to the extent necessary to give effect to any provision of such convention, treaty, or reciprocal law, in addition to the rights to which any owner of an intellectual property rights is otherwise provided by law. (Sec. 3) REVERSE RECIPROCITY OF FOREIGN LAWS Section 231 – making enforceable on nationals of a foreign state all conditions, restrictions, limitations, diminutions, requirements or penalties that may be imposed by such foreign state on a Filipino national seeking intellectual property protection. v Reciprocal application is not automatic Rather, the Phils. may apply to the foreign national those restrictions that his country imposes on Filipino applicants What are “TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ARRANGEMENTS”? -contracts or agreements involving the transfer of systematic knowledge for the manufacture of a product, the application of a process, or rendering of a service including management contracts; and the transfer, assignment or licensing of all forms of intellectual property rights, including licensing of computer software except computer software developed for mass market. (Sec. 4) COVERAGE Section 4. Definitions. - 4.1. The term "intellectual property rights" consists of: a) Copyright and Related Rights;- this one is not in the jurisdiction of IPO, this is retained by the national office/national Library b) Trademarks and Service Marks; c) Geographic Indications;--names the place d) Industrial Designs; Sec. 112.1 An Industrial Design is any composition of lines or colors or any three-dimensional form, whether or not associated with lines or colors: Provided, That such composition or form gives a special appearance to and can serve as pattern for an industrial product or handicraft; - also called as PATTERNS e) Patents; f) Layout-Designs (Topographies) of Integrated Circuits; and g) Protection of Undisclosed Information (n, TRIPS). - formula of Coca-Cola softdrinks 4.2. The term "technology transfer arrangements" refers to contracts or agreements involving the transfer of systematic knowledge for the manufacture of a product, the application of a process, or rendering of a service including management contracts; and the transfer, assignment or licensing of all forms of intellectual

2

11. 8. That availment of the provisional remedies may be granted in accordance with the Rules of Court. Information and Technology Transfer Bureau. 11. (n) Section 13. Conduct automation planning. Hear and decide opposition to the application for registration of marks.3. authority. and Hold in custody all the applications filed with the office.2. payment of salaries and other Office's obligations.2. and industrial designs. cancellation of patents. The Financial Service shall formulate and manage a financial program to ensure availability and proper utilization of funds. and comply with government regulatory requirements in the areas of performance appraisal. geographic indication. provide for an effective monitoring system of the financial operations of the Office. (b) (1) (2) (3) (4) 11.000): Provided further. Such voluntary assurance may include one or more of the following: An assurance to comply with the provisions of the intellectual property law violated.4. Support the search and examination activities of the Office through the following activities: a) b) c) d) Maintain and upkeep classification systems whether they be national or international such as the International Patent Classification (IPC) system. Perform state-of-the-art searches. FINAL EXAM Section 11. The Administrative Service shall: a) Provide services relative to procurement and allocation of supplies and equipment.6.3. . Register technology transfer arrangements. and the like. licenses. such as by sale.4. and other services relating to the licensing and promotion of technology. (a) Exercise original jurisdiction in administrative complaints for violations of laws involving intellectual property rights: Provided. (iii) The condemnation or seizure of products which are subject of the offense. and 11. research and development. employment records and reports. replace. or the suspension of the validity thereof for such period of time as the Director of Legal Affairs may deem reasonable which shall not exceed one (1) year. issue certified copies of documents in its custody and perform similar other activities. under such guidelines as he may provide.3. Collect maintenance fees. transportation. and other utility services.The Bureau of Legal Affairs shall have the following functions: 10. license.5. authority. CHARMAGNE Section 10. industrial designs. The imposition of administrative fines in such amount as deemed reasonable by the Director of Legal Affairs. (n) Section 12. – 13. or refund the money value of defective goods distributed in commerce. The goods seized hereunder shall be disposed of in such manner as may be deemed appropriate by the Director of Legal Affairs. license.000) nor more than One hundred fifty thousand pesos (P150. 913 [1983]a) (iv) (v) b) c) 13.000) shall be imposed for each day of continuing violation. which shall in no case be less than Five thousand pesos (P5. The Director General may by Regulations establish the procedure to govern the implementation of this Section. (ii) The acceptance of a voluntary assurance of compliance or discontinuance as may be imposed. An assurance to refrain from engaging in unlawful and unfair acts and practices subject of the formal investigation. Financial and Human Resource Development Service Bureau. subject to the provisions of Section 64. and 12.The Documentation. In addition. compensation and benefits. purchase and maintenance of equipment. trademark applications. 10. 7.000). . The Director of Legal Affairs shall have the power to hold and punish for contempt all those who disregard orders or writs issued in the course of the proceedings. mergings. an additional fine of not more than One thousand pesos (P1. advisory. donation to distressed local governments or to charitable or relief institutions. Educate the public and build awareness on intellectual property through the conduct of seminars and lectures.REVIEWER IN IPL PREPARED BY FERRER-LIM.The Management Information Services and EDP Bureau shall: 12. cancellation of trademarks. or registration which may have been granted by the Office. and petitions for compulsory licensing of patents. repair. testing of systems. Receive all applications filed with the Office and collect fees therefor. and settle disputes involving technology transfer payments. The Administrative. or registration which is being secured by the respondent from the Office. The cancellation of any permit. An assurance to recall. Censure. contracting. cashiering. office maintenance. the Director for Legal Affairs may impose one (1) or more of the following administrative penalties: (i) The 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 within a reasonable time which shall be fixed in the order. 11. and Other analogous penalties or sanctions.2. and 9.1. certificate of registrations issued by the office. utility models. and other similar activities. Provide advisory services for the determination of search patterns. and carry out an efficient and effective program for technology transfer. (n) After formal investigation. 11. .1. The Patent and Trademark Administration Services shall perform the following functions among others: a) b) c) Maintain registers of assignments.8. exportation. Provide technical. Provide management information support and service to the Office. and Adapt and package industrial property information. and An assurance to reimburse the complainant the expenses and costs incurred in prosecuting the case in the Bureau of Legal Affairs. 11. That its jurisdiction is limited to complaints where the total damages claimed are not less than Two hundred thousand pesos (P200. Establish working relations with research and development institutions as well as with local and international intellectual property professional groups and the like. Executive Order No. messengerial work. The Bureau of Legal Affairs. and 13. (n) 13. Establish networks or intermediaries or regional representatives. and lay-out-designs of integrated circuits registrations. design and maintenance of systems. The withholding of any permit.1. recycling into other goods. 6.1. or any combination thereof. The Human Resource Development Service shall design and implement human resource development plans and programs for 3 . contracts with firms. (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) 10. Maintain search files and search rooms and reference libraries.2. and Publish patent applications and grants. utility models. (Secs. and registration of marks. and bibliographic on patents and trademarks. The Management Information Services and EDP Bureau. and all patent grants. The Documentation. and the like. user consultation.7. proper safety and security. The Director of Legal Affairs may also require the respondent to submit periodic compliance reports and file a bond to guarantee compliance of his undertaking. The assessment of damages. Promote the use of patent information as an effective tool to facilitate the development of technology in the country. The forfeiture of paraphernalia and all real and personal properties which have been used in the commission of the offense. Information and Technology Transfer Bureau shall have the following functions: 11.

utility models and industrial designs. RP is a first to file jurisdiction Q. f) Cancellation of permit. Lacoste filed trademark infringement suit. of Trademarks · Dir. 2) Bureau of Legal Affairs -has jurisdiction over the ff: i. So Einstein’s e=mc2 is not protected. industrial property must be registered. 1. employee contracts - Trademarks – don’t protect innovation. Since RP is first to use jurisdiction. only copyright. license. Original Jurisdiction 1) Director General (IPO) -has original jurisdiction to resolve disputes relating to the terms of a license involving the author’s right to public performance or other communication of his work. You have carinderia. but governed by contracts e.‖ Trademark infringement? A. copyright – moral right . In 1980s. but the dissertation where he explained the idea is protected. of Trademarks 3) Secretary of Trade and Industry -over decisions of the Director General on the exercise of his appellate jurisdiction of the Director of Documentation. trade names. Cancellation of trademarks. Maybe not. it’s yours. RP used first to use system (whoever uses first has the trademark) with an exception to internationally known marks (e. h) Assessment of damages. Before Jan. It was proven that the brand was already known in RP by people who had travelled to Europe. It was proven here that Big Mack was already established in RP before McDo became known because of the mktg campaign. 1. Neighbor sets up ―Cooking ng Ina Mo Rin. Falls under internationally known marks exception Q. e. list of customers of marketing company not protected under the IP Code. It was first to use. and 3) has an inventive step. of Legal Affairs · Dir. 1998. ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES IMPOSED FOR VIOLATIONS OF LAWS INVOLVING IPR -The Director for Legal Affairs may impose the ff: a) Issuance of a cease and desist order (CDO). 1951. of Legal Affairs · Dir. trade dress even if not registered. provide for present and future manpower needs of the organization. certification marks. servicemarks. RP company has trademark? A. you can sue a ―business identification system‖ before Jan. McDo filed trademark infringement case. It does not cause/create confusion. Berne Convention – for protection of literary works.g. Big Mack wins. of the Documentation. Information and Technology Transfer.g. established in Aug. A. ii. national treatment – nationals from different states should have protection of their own works 4 . International Treaties Protecting Copyrights 1. licensing. v. as long as there is goodwill. Appellate Jurisdiction 1) Director General -over all decisions rendered by the ff: · Dir. Opposition to applications for registration of marks. iii. 2. neighboring rights – performer’s rights what is protected is not idea but distinct/unique expression Technology Transfer Agreements – e. No need to register in creative rights – the moment you create it. Do intangibles have to be registered to enjoy protection? A. license. It was proven that some people actually think Big Mack is affiliated with McDo and was creating confusion. j) Analogous penalties or sanctions (Sec. b) Acceptance of voluntary assurance compliance (VAC) or voluntary assurance of discontinuance (VAD). Administrative Complaints for violations of laws involving IPR where the total damages claimed is not less than P200.what is protected is unique expression of an idea.. an RP company registered Lacoste trademark. McDo came to RP in 1970. d) Forfeiture of properties used in the commission of the offense. Petition for compulsory licensing of patents.2 [b]) - FINAL EXAM 2) useful. Information and Technology Transfer Bureau -has jurisdiction to settle disputes involving technology transfer payments B. protects goodwill specific mark on goods – trademarks. 1998. Big Mack was a large hamburger chain in the provinces. 4. i) Censure. No. iv.00 3) Documentation. McDo’s goodwill was established in 1980. ―Cooking Ina Mo‖. Q. Creative Rights – protect unique expression of an idea 1. 10. AND -over decisions of the Director General in the exercise of his original jurisdiction relating to the terms of license involving the author’s right. 226) JURISDICTION OVER DISPUTES UNDER IPC A. Information and Technology Transfer 2) Court of Appeals -over decisions of the Director General in the exercise of his appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of the: · Dir. (n) (FORGET ABOUT THE LAST 3. they had huge marketing campaign so they became known in RP. used it. g) Withholding of permit. c) Condemnation or seizure of products subject of the offense. there are other means of protecting property in other nations Q. authority or registration.000. e) Imposition of administrative fines.g. Generally. authority or registration.REVIEWER IN IPL PREPARED BY FERRER-LIM. In 1980. geographic indicators. 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.g. Trademark protects goodwill.hehe) PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD OF ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES UNDER THE IPC -No damages may be recovered after four (4) years from the time the cause of action arose (Sec. maintain high morale and favorable employee attitudes towards the organization through the continuing design and implementation of employee development programs. Registration of books in the National Library is only proof of copyright US – computer programs are protected by patents. CHARMAGNE the personnel of the Office. of Patents · Dir. Aside from patents. copyrights. Lacoste case) now. In RP. of Patents · Dir. Core Principles: 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. 1. Cancellation of patents.

OR AT DIFFERENT PLACES AND/OR AT DIFFERENT TIMES. When can you not invoke copyright? A. EITHER DIRECTLY OR BY MEANS OF ANY DEVICE OR PROCESS.g. THE FOLLOWING TERMS HAVE THE FOLLOWING MEANING: 171. MAKING THE RECORDED SOUNDS AUDIBLE AT A PLACE OR AT PLACES WHERE PERSONS OUTSIDE THE NORMAL CIRCLE OF A FAMILY AND THAT FAMILY’S CLOSEST SOCIAL ACQUAINTANCES ARE OR CAN BE PRESENT." IN THE CASE OF A WORK OTHER THAN AN AUDIOVISUAL WORK. 171. WIPO Copyright Treaty . it’s okay.REVIEWER IN IPL PREPARED BY FERRER-LIM. 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.6. 2. DEFINITIONS. 6. A "COMPUTER" IS AN ELECTRONIC OR SIMILAR DEVICE HAVING INFORMATION-PROCESSING CAPABILITIES. WITH THE CONSENT OF THE AUTHORS. a sub-agreement of the GATT. THE SHOWING OF ITS IMAGES IN SEQUENCE AND THE MAKING OF THE SOUNDS ACCOMPANYING IT AUDIBLE. although in both. SCHEMES OR IN ANY OTHER FORM. But if your Palm Pilot breaks down and you rent a Palm with Windows.FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ACT. either in the form of new law of amendment of the IP Code THE LAW ON COPYRIGHT Copyright – is a bundle of rights e.2. you come up with a new idea if you develop it without outside influence. IN THE CASE OF AN AUDIOVISUAL WORK. 171. since civil case. "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. SUCH AS PUBLIC LIBRARY OR ARCHIVE. 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. WHICH. 2. "PUBLIC PERFORMANCE. List of Ateneo Grads – public domain List of Ateneo Grades who worked in Judiciary – protected alphabetical order – you can sue coordinated. phonograms. Q. JKR can sell various rights like right to publish (Scholastic). 2002. No. no special treatment should be given to any nation Q. 3. DANCING. private party can file for search warrant and get injunction protection is granted from the time of creation NOTE: WIPO treaty is already ratified but still need enabling legislation. is this protected? A.1. since computer program isn’t the ―thing of rent‖ right of communication to public – wire/wireless means Principles: 1. state files for search warrant. computer programs you can’t rent out your copy of Windows 2002 CD. protecting rights of authors in new technologies 1. Conflict with normal exploitation of work 2. it is protected.4. "PUBLIC LENDING" IS THE TRANSFER OF POSSESSION OF THE ORIGINAL OR A COPY OF A WORK OR SOUND RECORDING FOR A LIMITED PERIOD. . e. 171. AND. TRIPS Agreement – Trade Related Aspects of IP Rights. But if you do some arrangement on the information. 171.5. "AUTHOR" IS THE NATURAL PERSON WHO HAS CREATED THE WORK. PLAYING.3. reproduction. right to make a movie from her story (Warner). dramatization 5 . BY AN INSTITUTION THE SERVICES OF WHICH ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. When it prejudices the right of legitimate owner of right of work Issues: public domain (since copyright lasts until 50 years after the death of creator) so there are moves to extend the term protection – so is extending term a good thing? US passed the Sonny Bono copyright extension act 3. When there is: 1. translation. circumvention of technology measures – e. now. 171. arranged and presented. ARE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC BY WIRE OR WIRELESS MEANS IN SUCH A WAY THAT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY ACCESS THESE 2. "PUBLISHED WORKS" MEANS WORKS. deriving benefit – property protected is ―intellectual‖ – use consists of derivative rights. copyrightable Novelty – an essential element in patentability means that no one else in the world has come up with the same invention anywhere. Principles: 1. 171. 2.3. Mattel) – a ―negative right‖ since it prevents you from enjoying.ratified Feb. what is important is originality. In copyright. that is protected. DVD contents handling system concealment of infringement – search and seizure is given in civil cases before.g.g.g. FOR NON-PROFIT PURPOSES. Facts alone are not protected (same for multimedia). temporary copies are protected (temporary – something you download from internet) new rights are created: right to distribution rental right – right of author to rent out cinematic works. IN THE CASE OF A SOUND RECORDING.    new technologies include internet and digital works now. CODES. right to make toys from characters (e.  3. 171. AND A "COMPUTER PROGRAM" IS A SET OF INSTRUCTIONS EXPRESSED IN WORDS. principle of automatic protection – no need to register copyrights principle of independence of protection – treat foreigners the way you protect nationals FINAL EXAM Q. CHARMAGNE 5.. AND WHERE THE PERFORMANCE CAN BE PERCEIVED WITHOUT THE NEED FOR COMMUNICATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SUBSECTION 171. As long as it is yours. IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THEY ARE OR CAN BE PRESENT AT THE SAME PLACE AND AT THE SAME TIME. Several people can own the copyright but only one person can hold the patent SEC. Database. Establishment of minimum standards of protection as to enforcement of IPR transnationally National treatment – of the IP owner Most favored nation principle – treat all signatories similarly. anytime not the same with originality. you can copyright. IS THE RECITATION. Creativity = Originality? A.7. ACTING OR OTHERWISE PERFORMING THE WORK.

CONCEPT. then copyrightable.) . If there is no access. "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. • Licensing also includes rights like coming up with the movie in DVD format.1 LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS. PAMPHLETS. THAT AVAILABILITY OF SUCH COPIES HAS BEEN SUCH. e. 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. she retains right to the movie. TO: (1) ANY IDEA. LANTERN SLIDES. 173.9. CHARMAGNE WORKS FROM A PLACE AND TIME INDIVIDUALLY CHOSEN BY THEM: PROVIDED. AND OTHER WORKS OF APPLIED ART. (J) DRAWINGS OR PLASTIC WORKS OF A SCIENTIFIC OR TECHNICAL CHARACTER. SKETCHES. NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 172 AND 173. The thing should be ―tangible‖ for it to come under copyright protection. Q. This is an exception to the rule that only designs are copyrightable since architectural plans are nothing without execution. 173. (H) ORIGINAL ORNAMENTAL DESIGNS OR MODELS FOR ARTICLES OF MANUFACTURE. (C) LECTURES. WORKS ARE PROTECTED BY THE SOLE FACT OF THEIR CREATION. (N) COMPUTER PROGRAMS. OR TO SECURE OR EXTEND COPYRIGHT IN SUCH ORIGINAL WORKS. In licensing.2. ADDRESSES. THE FOLLOWING DERIVATIVE WORKS SHALL ALSO BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT: (A) DRAMATIZATIONS. LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS. are architectural plans copyrightable? A. there is no infringement. There is no need to test the gray line since there is another source of protection. IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR MODE OR FORM OF EXPRESSION. AND COMPILATIONS OF DATA AND OTHER MATERIALS WHICH ARE ORIGINAL BY REASON OF THE SELECTION OR COORDINATION OR ARRANGEMENT OF THEIR CONTENTS. (K) PHOTOGRAPHIC WORKS INCLUDING WORKS PRODUCED BY A PROCESS ANALOGOUS TO PHOTOGRAPHY. NOTE: One of the defenses to copyright infringement is absence of access. mere idea like e=mc2 is not copyrightable.1. CHOREOGRAPHIC WORKS OR ENTERTAINMENT IN DUMB SHOWS. SCHOLARLY OR ARTISTIC WORKS. 173. 172. AS TO SATISFY THE REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PUBLIC. INCLUDING GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS AS PART OF HIS REGULARLY PRESCRIBED OFFICIAL DUTIES. 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) CHAPTER IV WORKS NOT PROTECTED SEC. Q. THAT SUCH NEW WORK SHALL NOT AFFECT THE FORCE OF ANY SUBSISTING COPYRIGHT UPON THE ORIGINAL WORKS EMPLOYED OR ANY PART THEREOF.10. But Magwheels would not be copyrightable because it is more functional.g. If not recorded. UNDER THIS LAW. AND (O) OTHER LITERARY. 175. PUBLISHED EDITION OF WORK. Only plan of chip is protected so reverse engineered chip is not an infringement of copyright. (B) PERIODICALS AND NEWSPAPERS. ARTICLES AND OTHER WRITINGS. (D) LETTERS. Here. HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE WORK. if recorded. UNPROTECTED SUBJECT MATTER. WITH OR WITHOUT WORDS. what kind of action will you bring – criminal. ARCHITECTURE. Since only tangible things are protected. SCHOLARLY. THE WORKS REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPHS (A) AND (B) OF SUBSECTION 173. ABRIDGMENTS. ARCHITECTURE OR SCIENCE. 171. administrative? A. Agreement should be clear: you pay for the right to make the movie. there is no protection because it is not in a tangible form.if written. (L) AUDIOVISUAL WORKS AND CINEMATOGRAPHIC WORKS AND WORKS PRODUCED BY A PROCESS ANALOGOUS TO CINEMATOGRAPHY OR ANY PROCESS FOR MAKING AUDIOVISUAL RECORDINGS. JKR allows you to make movie. DISCOVERY OR MERE 6 . SERMONS. 171.11. ARE ORIGINAL INTELLECTUAL CREATIONS IN THE LITERARY AND ARTISTIC DOMAIN PROTECTED FROM THE MOMENT OF THEIR CREATION AND SHALL INCLUDE IN PARTICULAR: (A) BOOKS. (M) PICTORIAL ILLUSTRATIONS AND ADVERTISEMENTS. CHARTS AND THREE-DIMENSIONAL WORKS RELATIVE TO GEOGRAPHY. 171. A "WORK OF APPLIED ART" IS AN ARTISTIC CREATION WITH UTILITARIAN FUNCTIONS OR INCORPORATED IN A USEFUL ARTICLE. MODELS OR DESIGNS FOR WORKS OF ART. WHETHER OR NOT REGISTRABLE AS AN INDUSTRIAL DESIGN. If there is copyright violation. Figurine Lamps FINAL EXAM A. figurine lamp is more artistic so it is copyrightable. DERIVATIVE WORKS. SYSTEM METHOD OR OPERATION.REVIEWER IN IPL PREPARED BY FERRER-LIM. 172. TOPOGRAPHY. FOR PROFITMAKING PURPOSES. 171. (G) WORKS OF DRAWING. . ADAPTATIONS.2. WHETHER MADE BY HAND OR PRODUCED ON AN INDUSTRIAL SCALE. PAINTING. Criminal. Yes. DISSERTATIONS PREPARED FOR ORAL DELIVERY. 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. (Hence. (F) MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS. 174.1 SHALL BE PROTECTED AS A NEW WORKS: PROVIDED HOWEVER. (I) ILLUSTRATIONS. if design is obtained from reverse engineering. MAPS. LITHOGRAPHY OR OTHER WORKS OF ART. PROCEDURE.g.IN ADDITION TO THE RIGHT TO PUBLISH GRANTED BY THE AUTHOR. CHAPTER III DERIVATIVE WORKS SEC. Are functional objects copyrightable? E.8. AND OTHER ALTERATIONS OF LITERARY OR ARTISTIC WORKS. ENGRAVING. TRANSLATIONS. OR BE CONSTRUED TO IMPLY ANY RIGHT TO SUCH USE OF THE ORIGINAL WORKS. • Licensing is the means to protect derivative works. SEC. . and that is all you have if you do not stipulate on who retains copyright to the movie. NOTE: There is a different rule with regard to design of chips. SCULPTURE. "REPRODUCTION" IS THE MAKING OF ONE (1) OR MORE COPIES OF A WORK OR A SOUND RECORDING IN ANY MANNER OR FORM. HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "WORKS". AS WELL AS OF THEIR CONTENT. QUALITY AND PURPOSE. Test is if thing is more artistic than functional. Q.172. AND (B) COLLECTIONS OF LITERARY. SCIENTIFIC AND ARTISTIC WORKS. PRINCIPLE. PLANS. Cause of action is violation of a design patent. civil. (E) DRAMATIC OR DRAMATICO-MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS. WHETHER OR NOT REDUCED IN WRITING OR OTHER MATERIAL FORM. NO PROTECTION SHALL EXTEND. CHAPTER II ORIGINAL WORKS SEC. Default rule is. ARRANGEMENTS. HIS HEIRS OR ASSIGNS.

ADDRESSES. the right to limit importation is clearly given.6. TV – point to multipoint point to point (since only subscriber can receive) Q.3. A WORK EMBODIED IN A SOUND RECORDING.5. 177. OTHER COMMUNICATION TO THE PUBLIC OF THE WORK Q. BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES. same rule for broadcast. 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. public and substantial ―substantial‖ is vague. 176." in the case of a work other than an audiovisual work. But it is not clear in copyright law. A COMPILATION OF DATA AND OTHER MATERIALS OR A MUSICAL WORK IN GRAPHIC FORM. you buy TV. EXPLAINED. 176. AUTHORIZE OR PREVENT THE FOLLOWING ACTS: 177. ADMINISTRATIVE OR LEGAL NATURE.REVIEWER IN IPL PREPARED BY FERRER-LIM. AND DISSERTATIONS MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS SHALL HAVE THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF MAKING A COLLECTION OF HIS WORKS. Parallel import – in patent.7. EVEN IF THEY ARE EXPRESSED. AMONG OTHER THINGS. TRANSLATION. the showing of its images in sequence and the making of the sounds accompanying it audible. in the case of a sound recording. Is there broadcast? A. IMPOSE AS A CONDITION THE PAYMENT OF ROYALTIES. THE AUTHOR OF SPEECHES. RULES AND REGULATIONS. NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS. in the case of an audiovisual work. IN DELIBERATIVE ASSEMBLIES AND IN MEETINGS OF PUBLIC CHARACTER. ABRIDGMENT. or (iii) The importation. is not for sale but for the use only of any religious. either directly or by means of any device or process. So you can sell your book. . making the recorded sounds audible at a place or at places where persons outside the normal circle of a family and that family’s closest social acquaintances are or can be present. acting or otherwise performing the work. No. copyright protection as to public distribution is over. LECTURES. There is no distinction as to TV or cable. WORKS OF THE GOVERNMENT. BEQUEST OR OTHERWISE. (2) NEWS OF THE DAY AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS FACTS HAVING THE CHARACTER OF MERE ITEMS OF PRESS INFORMATION. there is broadcast.2.SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER VIII. irrespective of whether they are or can be present at the same place and at the same time. ADDRESSES. SUCH AGENCY OR OFFICE MAY.3. is the recitation. The moment it is sold. 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. PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE GOVERNMENT AGENCY OR OFFICE WHEREIN THE WORK IS CREATED SHALL BE NECESSARY FOR EXPLOITATION OF SUCH WORK FOR PROFIT.1. SERMONS. consisting of not more than three (3) such copies or likenesses in any one invoice. First sale doctrine assumes there is a tangible thing. No TV in barrio. to sell right to determined 1) whether or not to sell.4. THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT PRECLUDED FROM RECEIVING AND HOLDING COPYRIGHTS TRANSFERRED TO IT BY ASSIGNMENT. COPY OR ECONOMIC RIGHTS. • Website with copyrighted material – point to point. AND DISSERTATIONS. or is for the Q. ARRANGEMENT OR OTHER TRANSFORMATION OF THE WORK. COPYRIGHT OR ECONOMIC RIGHTS SHALL CONSIST OF THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO CARRY OUT. SERMONS. HOWEVER. NOTE: There is a difference between copyrighted work and the medium where it is contained. charitable. or at different places and/or at different times. 177. dancing. 7 . or other owner of copyright in. Is copyright owner given right to prevent importation of the article? A. reproduction must be commercial. 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. 177. 176. ADAPTATION. and. LECTURES. playing. Yes. AS WELL AS ANY OFFICIAL TRANSLATION THEREOF. Yes. READ OR RENDERED IN COURTS OF JUSTICE.2 DRAMATIZATION. Factors to be considered are length copied and importance of a portion copied. AND SPEECHES. PUBLIC PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK. NO PRIOR APPROVAL OR CONDITIONS SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR THE USE OF ANY PURPOSE OF STATUTES. Q. you sell it to another. A COMPUTER PROGRAM. or educational society or institution duly incorporated or registered. unless it is provided in the copyright agreement Quaerendum: Does this apply to digital works? Because under the first sale doctrine. IRRESPECTIVE OF THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ORIGINAL OR THE COPY WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE RENTAL. 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. The ―paper‖ suggests that the doctrine should not apply to internet.3. (3) OR ANY OFFICIAL TEXT OF A LEGISLATIVE. there is also a criminal violation on his part. 176. You may copy only one paragraph but it could be the essence of the entire thing 177.1. infringement? A. 177. It falls under public performance. ILLUSTRATED OR EMBODIED IN A WORK. subscribe from Home and charge people to watch it. If you buy a book then after reading it. two causes of action against you: 1) breach of contract and 2) copyright infringement 177. CHAPTER V COPYRIGHT OR ECONOMIC RIGHTS SEC. PRONOUNCED. "Public performance. AND NOTE: Public Performance was defined earlier as: 171. and 2) when FINAL EXAM 177. RENTAL OF THE ORIGINAL OR A COPY OF AN AUDIOVISUAL OR CINEMATOGRAPHIC WORK.6. or (ii) The importation is by authority of and for the use of the Philippine Government. and where the performance can be perceived without the need for communication within the meaning of Subsection 171. PUBLIC DISPLAY OF THE ORIGINAL OR A COPY OF THE WORK.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. NO COPYRIGHT SHALL SUBSIST IN ANY WORK OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES. REPRODUCTION OF THE WORK OR SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE WORK. 190. CHARMAGNE DATA AS SUCH. (N) SEC. you can sell your copy. . IP Code provides in Sec. THE FIRST PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE ORIGINAL AND EACH COPY OF THE WORK BY SALE OR OTHER FORMS OF TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP. Violation? A. it should be a case to case basis. Public performance and communication to the public is included.

THE FILM DIRECTOR. COPYRIGHT SHALL BELONG TO THE AUTHOR OF THE WORK. this is made a condition for getting the job from day one. 180. NOTICE OF THE RECORD SHALL BE PUBLISHED IN THE IPO GAZETTE. IN THE CASE OF ORIGINAL LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS. If there are two authors. Contract has to be IN WRITING. THE ASSIGNEE IS ENTITLED TO ALL THE RIGHTS AND REMEDIES WHICH THE ASSIGNOR HAD WITH RESPECT TO THE COPYRIGHT. the court may authorize their publication or dissemination if the public good or the interest of justice so requires. 178. . RETURNED TO THE SENDER WITH A NOTATION OF THE FACT OF RECORD. The producer. 182. AND 2. WHICH ARE INCORPORATED INTO THE WORK. If it is not in writing.FOR PURPOSES OF THIS ACT. Software programmer working in a company has access to information to create accounting computer programs. PHOTOGRAPHIC OR ARTISTIC WORK TO A NEWSPAPER. THE COPYRIGHT MAY BE ASSIGNED IN WHOLE OR IN PART. SEC. Q. However.4. SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION.3. A WORK OF JOINT AUTHORSHIP CONSISTS OF PARTS THAT CAN BE USED SEPARATELY AND THE AUTHOR OF EACH PART CAN BE IDENTIFIED. THE SUBMISSION OF A LITERARY. THE COPYRIGHT IS NOT DEEMED ASSIGNED INTER VIVOS IN WHOLE OR IN PART UNLESS THERE IS A WRITTEN INDICATION OF SUCH INTENTION. IN THE CASE OF AUDIOVISUAL WORK. THE COPYRIGHT SHALL BELONG TO THE WRITER SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 723 OF THE CIVIL CODE. college. SEC. 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. TO THE CONTRARY. FACILITIES AND MATERIALS OF THE EMPLOYER. IN THE CASE OF WORK CREATED BY AN AUTHOR DURING AND IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT. . IF THE CREATION OF THE OBJECT OF COPYRIGHT IS NOT A PART OF HIS REGULAR DUTIES EVEN IF THE EMPLOYEE USES THE TIME. By requiring the assignment of the copyright. 178. Copyright protection lasts until 50 years after death of author. AND THE AUTHOR OF THE WORK SO ADAPTED. 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. IF. BUT THE COPYRIGHT THERETO SHALL REMAIN WITH THE CREATOR. 180. but they cannot be published or disseminated without the consent of the writer or his heirs. EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. IF TWO (2) OR MORE PERSONS JOINTLY OWN A COPYRIGHT OR ANY PART THEREOF. Is there copyright infringement? A. COPYRIGHT AND MATERIAL OBJECT. IF THE WORK IS THE RESULT OF THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS REGULARLY-ASSIGNED DUTIES. or for any state school. If employee violates the contract. OR IF THE AUTHOR OF THE ANONYMOUS WORKS DISCLOSES HIS IDENTITY. THE COPYRIGHT SHALL BELONG TO: (A) THE EMPLOYEE. A COPY OF THE INSTRUMENT SHALL BE. who has cause of action? 178. ASSIGNMENT AND LICENSE Possible defenses to infringement are: copyright already – copyright was assigned to do the stuff you did – you have a license ASSIGNMENT 1. SEC. THE COPYRIGHT SHALL BELONG TO THE PRODUCER.2.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. (B) THE EMPLOYER. THE AUTHOR OF THE SCENARIO.3. Employee has the copyright. or free public library in the Philippines. university. THE PERSON WHO SO COMMISSIONED THE WORK SHALL HAVE OWNERSHIP OF WORK. If commissioned work is photographed and published.COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE FOLLOWING RULES: 178. artist/creator retains copyright. CONSEQUENTLY. 178. THE AUTHOR OF EACH PART SHALL BE THE ORIGINAL OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHT IN THE PART THAT HE HAS CREATED. RIGHTS OF ASSIGNEE. EXCEPT FOR THE RIGHT TO COLLECT PERFORMING LICENSE FEES FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS. NEITHER OF THE OWNERS SHALL BE ENTITLED TO GRANT LICENSES WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE OTHER OWNER OR OWNERS.1. UNLESS THERE IS AN AGREEMENT. the employee can be sued for 2 causes of action – breach of contract and infringement. CHARMAGNE encouragement of the fine arts. But the ee-er contract may stipulate that employee may assign copyright. HOWEVER. UPON RECORDING. CHAPTER VII TRANSFER OR ASSIGNMENT OF COPYRIGHT SEC. WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ASSIGNMENT. General rule: copyright remains with author.1. infringement of right of painter. HOWEVER. RULES ON COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP. FINAL EXAM Q. MAGAZINE OR PERIODICAL FOR PUBLICATION SHALL CONSTITUTE ONLY A LICENSE TO MAKE A SINGLE PUBLICATION UNLESS A GREATER RIGHT IS EXPRESSLY GRANTED. 178. 178. Outright ownership is not allowed as to objects created outside the scope. .) you acquired CHAPTER VI OWNERSHIP OF COPYRIGHT SEC. But for infringement case. THE CO-AUTHORS SHALL BE THE ORIGINAL OWNERS OF THE COPYRIGHT AND IN THE ABSENCE OF AGREEMENT.2. Not yet sent – copyright belongs to writer Sent – belongs to person to whom it is addressed If not received. 179. THEIR RIGHTS SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE RULES ON COOWNERSHIP. 723 – Letters and other private communications in writing are owned by the person to whom they are addressed and delivered. it is after the second death.6.REVIEWER IN IPL PREPARED BY FERRER-LIM. THE TRANSFER OR ASSIGNMENT OF THE COPYRIGHT SHALL NOT ITSELF CONSTITUTE A TRANSFER OF THE MATERIAL OBJECT. WITH OR WITHOUT WORDS.5. UNLESS THE CONTRARY APPEARS. General rule: Creator has copyright. UNLESS THERE IS A WRITTEN STIPULATION TO THE CONTRARY. FILING OF ASSIGNMENT OF LICENSE. THE COMPOSER OF THE MUSIC. Art. 180. No. So include your son for the extra 30-40 years of protection. If you want to produce DVD. ANONYMOUS AND PSEUDONYMOUS WORKS.) you were allowed 8 . It can be co-owned. who do you talk to? A. THE PUBLISHERS SHALL BE DEEMED TO REPRESENT THE AUTHORS OF ARTICLES AND OTHER WRITINGS PUBLISHED WITHOUT THE NAMES OF THE AUTHORS OR UNDER PSEUDONYMS. . copyright isn’t transferred. THE PRODUCERS SHALL EXERCISE THE COPYRIGHT TO AN EXTENT REQUIRED FOR THE EXHIBITION OF THE WORK IN ANY MANNER. IN THE CASE OF WORKS OF JOINT AUTHORSHIP. During his lunch break. 180. IN RESPECT OF LETTERS. OR THE PSEUDONYMS OR ADOPTED NAME LEAVES NO DOUBTS AS TO THE AUTHOR’S IDENTITY. 181. he uses the equipment to create computer games. SUBJECT TO CONTRARY OR OTHER STIPULATIONS AMONG THE CREATORS.THE COPYRIGHT IS DISTINCT FROM THE PROPERTY IN THE MATERIAL OBJECT SUBJECT TO IT.

Even to bring criminal actions? Yes. LIMITATIONS ON COPYRIGHT. • Second reprints are not allowed. FINAL EXAM (E) THE INCLUSION OF A WORK IN A PUBLICATION. FAIR USE OF A COPYRIGHTED WORK. you own copyright. published/unpublished factual/fictional . THAT THE SOURCE AND OF THE NAME OF THE AUTHOR. guess who will come with a lawsuit faster than you can say ―Wingardium Levio SEC. (I) THE PUBLIC PERFORMANCE OR THE COMMUNICATION TO THE PUBLIC OF A WORK. IF APPEARING IN THE WORK. ONCE IT HAS BEEN LAWFULLY MADE ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC. THAT SUCH RECORDING MUST BE DELETED WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD AFTER THEY WERE FIRST BROADCAST: PROVIDED. when there is no agreement between the parties. 184. 183. 184. only Economic Rights are assignable. DESIGNATION OF SOCIETY. THAT ORIGINAL OR THE COPY DISPLAYED HAS BEEN SOLD. Here. OR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS OF A WORK INCLUDED IN A BROADCAST FOR THE USE OF SUCH SCHOOLS. FURTHER. 184. WHICH IS UNDERSTOOD HERE TO BE THE REPRODUCTION OF THE CODE AND TRANSLATION OF THE FORMS OF THE COMPUTER PROGRAM TO ACHIEVE THE INTEROPERABILITY OF AN INDEPENDENTLY CREATED COMPUTER PROGRAM WITH OTHER PROGRAMS MAY ALSO CONSTITUTE FAIR USE.THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS OR THEIR HEIRS MAY DESIGNATE A SOCIETY OF ARTISTS.2. TELEVISION IMAGE OR OTHERWISE ON SCREEN OR BY MEANS OF ANY OTHER DEVICE OR PROCESS: PROVIDED. (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. License can be free or for a fee Trivia: A portion of costs of CD are paid to the artist as royalty. BY A CLUB OR INSTITUTION FOR CHARITABLE OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE ONLY. IF DONE PRIVATELY AND FREE OF CHARGE OR IF MADE STRICTLY FOR A CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION OR SOCIETY. Moral Rights are not assignable/alienable. (B) THE NATURE OF THE COPYRIGHTED WORK. SLIDE. so you can sue. SCHOLARSHIP. (D) THE REPRODUCTION AND COMMUNICATION TO THE PUBLIC OF LITERARY.Defense of fair use has more chance in unpublished work than a published work.1. COPYRIGHT LICENSE Transfer of Ownership? Yes No. OR OTHER COMMUNICATION TO THE PUBLIC. This involves only permission from the author/creator.) • Non-Exclusive – if JKR licenses Viva Films to make Harry Potter. 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.1. SOCIAL. DECOMPILATION. (G) THE MAKING OF EPHEMERAL RECORDINGS BY A BROADCASTING ORGANIZATION BY MEANS OF ITS OWN FACILITIES AND FOR USE IN ITS OWN BROADCAST. INCLUDING QUOTATIONS FROM NEWSPAPER ARTICLES AND PERIODICALS IN THE FORM OF PRESS SUMMARIES: PROVIDED. WHICH ARE DELIVERED IN PUBLIC IF SUCH USE IS FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES AND HAS NOT BEEN EXPRESSLY RESERVED: PROVIDED. But usually. without permission. CHARMAGNE Copyright – a body of rights so you can assign some of these rights to other people (note. . UNIVERSITIES OR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS: PROVIDED. IF SUCH INCLUSION IS MADE BY WAY OF ILLUSTRATION FOR TEACHING PURPOSES AND IS COMPATIBLE WITH FAIR USE: PROVIDED. Miramax. THE FAIR USE OF A COPYRIGHTED WORK FOR CRITICISM. only licensor can sue because it is his property and he wants to control it. RESEARCH. However. 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. WRITERS OR COMPOSERS TO ENFORCE THEIR ECONOMIC RIGHTS AND MORAL RIGHTS ON THEIR BEHALF. BROADCAST. OR. This does away with the need of collecting royalty fees everytime a BSB song is played. But the producer represents them • Exclusive – you can license the same right to somebody else and not be in breach (for instance. THE FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED SHALL INCLUDE: (A) THE PURPOSE AND CHARACTER OF THE USE. 185. TEACHING INCLUDING MULTIPLE COPIES FOR CLASSROOM USE. THAT EITHER THE WORK HAS BEEN PUBLISHED. This is also known as collective administration of copyright. there is more creative input than factual work 9 . 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. UNIVERSITIES. ARE MENTIONED. COMMENT. WHOSE AIM IS NOT PROFIT MAKING. (C) THE REPRODUCTION OR COMMUNICATION TO THE PUBLIC BY MASS MEDIA OF ARTICLES ON CURRENT POLITICAL. two authors) – ask permission from both • Film – all (writer/producer/song writer) own the copyright. (F) THE RECORDING MADE IN SCHOOLS. No. SEC. He retains ownership of the copyright. Gotta collect on your own. 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.REVIEWER IN IPL PREPARED BY FERRER-LIM. LECTURES. ADDRESSES AND OTHER WORKS OF THE SAME NATURE. NEWS REPORTING. IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE USE MADE OF A WORK IN ANY PARTICULAR CASE IS FAIR USE. ARE MENTIONED. then you split it among all the artists. NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER V. there is little chance for the defense of an unpublished creative work to hold since in fictional work. SCIENTIFIC OR PROFESSIONAL INSTITUTIONS WHERE SUCH USE IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND IS COMPATIBLE WITH FAIR USE. THAT THE SOURCE IS CLEARLY INDICATED. (N) (J) PUBLIC DISPLAY OF THE ORIGINAL OR A COPY OF THE WORK NOT MADE BY MEANS OF A FILM. SUBJECT TO SUCH OTHER LIMITATIONS AS MAY BE PROVIDED IN THE REGULATIONS. However. you can stipulate on this. NOTE: When I give a copy to a publication for publication. You can’t sue because only the copyright owner can do that. (H) THE USE MADE OF A WORK BY OR UNDER THE DIRECTION OR CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT.) Assignment has to be in writing. 185. ECONOMIC. SOUND RECORDING OR FILM. etc. THAT THE SOURCE AND THE NAME OF THE AUTHOR. you can’t avail of their collection services. 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. BY THE NATIONAL LIBRARY OR BY EDUCATIONAL. THE FOLLOWING ACTS SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT: (A) THE RECITATION OR PERFORMANCE OF A WORK. INCLUDING WHETHER SUCH USE IS OF A COMMERCIAL NATURE OR IS FOR NON-PROFIT EDUCATION PURPOSES. I retain the copyright and it extends only to one publication. Neil Gaiman licensed movie rights of ―Neverwhere‖ to BBC. IN A PLACE WHERE NO ADMISSION FEE IS CHARGED IN RESPECT OF SUCH PUBLIC PERFORMANCE OR COMMUNICATION. Standing to sue for infringement? Yes. SCIENTIFIC OR RELIGIOUS TOPIC. GIVEN AWAY OR OTHERWISE TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER PERSON BY THE AUTHOR OR HIS SUCCESSOR IN TITLE.g. IF APPEARING ON THE WORK. Kinds/Additional Info • Joint ownership of copyright (e. CHAPTER VIII LIMITATIONS ON COPYRIGHT SEC. But if you’re not a member. AND SIMILAR PURPOSES IS NOT AN INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT.

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. Q: Isn't this like the Universal City Studios v. too. • The copyright owner has the right to exploit his work. there is no precedent in Napster's favor for "space shifting". test is both the present and future market The most FINAL EXAM (3) The Amount And Substantiality Of The Portion Used In Relation To The Copyrighted Work As A Whole In the Napster case. Essentially. At this point. the record companies initiated the action against the company. and if not. Here is a Q&A. in-house researchers at Texaco copied and kept articles from scientific journals. The taking was therefore both quantitatively and qualitatively substantial. The creative nature of the musical compositions and sound recordings "cut against" a finding of fair use. if not millions. Atty. NOTE: Each Fair Use case is treated differently. 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. we see several "reasonably priced" subscription based online services providing downloadable music files. or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another." was initially judicially created to allow the use of portions of a work for purposes of criticism and comment. teaching. 2. the less latitude for the unauthorized user. For several reasons.REVIEWER IN IPL PREPARED BY FERRER-LIM. this is what's going on in the Napster case. The Ninth Circuit again agreed with the lower court's determination. causes. etc. however. Infringement? A.) Plaintiff will no longer have to prove the facts. this factor also favored the plaintiff record companies. the definition of "financial gain" also includes "the receipt of other copyrighted works. Yes. 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. So. • The public has the right to information and the right to share this information. news reporting. Such lost sales were taken to be sufficient to support the finding of "irreparable harm" needed for an injunction. require Napster to filter out the files that have been identified by the plaintiff record companies. in the not-toodistant future. which in their eyes facilitated the infringement. assumes that the end-users have a sense of not being in any danger whatsoever for doing the uploading and downloading. In Texaco. If it is easy to get the music files for free. the court found the use to be commercial. you admit the facts in the complaint. the determination was easy. 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. as well as at least another 100. First. such as the problem of end-users being judgment-proof. what will happen next. then he gives it out to students and anyone who wants a copy. The Second Circuit emphasized that copies of the articles were in the files. In the Napster case." (2) The Nature of the Copyrighted Work In the Napster case." The court also noted that for purposes of criminal law. (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. Most importantly. "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 continued. scholarship. The court did not accept that argument. why would one go to the authorized site and pay for them? This. 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. The more commercial the use. 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. It does. or the need to bring thousands. The fact that it is for free does not necessarily mean it is fair use.was not transformative. They recorded shows that were on the air at inconvenient times or when they were not home. Universal was not able to show that the users were archiving or "librarying" the tapes. more than 20 years ago. the plaintiffs alleged that Napster's facilitation of the identifying and downloading of files constituted contributory infringement. by allowing or filtering out the music files. Lim discussed the Napster case (unassigned). 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. Sony case? If it was OK to videotape television shows for personal use in Sony. Because Napster could get advertising revenue based upon the number of "hits. the court paid particular attention to the expert's report showing that on college campuses. the works being copied are creative works -music. sometimes called "an equitable rule of reason. It remains to be seen whether Napster will be able to comply with the terms of the injunction." thousands and thousands of CDs are copied. CHARMAGNE (C) THE AMOUNT AND SUBSTANTIALITY OF THE PORTION USED IN RELATION TO THE COPYRIGHTED WORK AS A WHOLE. each person who entered leaves with the CDs he or she arrived with. Therefore: 1. important test in each case differs. During the "marathon. Q. Therefore. the trial now centers on whether or not there was fair use.) It would be an inconsistent defense if you allege fair use and you allege that you were not the one doing the infringing. Chris Lim copies substantial portions of a book of a UP professor on IP. The fair use doctrine is now part of the current Copyright Act. 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. Q: Isn't this a "fair use"? A: The fair use doctrine. IMPT NOTE: When you raise fair use as a defense.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. (1) The Purpose And Character Of The Use Merely uploading and downloading copies of the music files -. 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. induces. The situation in the Napster case is completely different." it." In the Napster case. of course. The end-users who were doing the downloading were taking copies of the entire song. the plaintiffs claimed that Napster had the ability to control the activity. the record showed that most people merely "time-shifted" the television shows." In reaching its decision. At the end of the marathon. there was evidence of lost retail sales of CDs on college campuses. the record companies are entering into agreements with various companies for the distribution of music. was alleged that Napster had a financial interest in the infringement. Q: Napster itself does not copy or distribute music files." Q: Will Napster be shut down? A: The court's injunction does not require Napster to shut down. of lawsuits to stop the infringement. In the Napster case. The court then proceeded to look to the commercial or non-commercial nature of the work. Fair Use – always involves a balancing of interests of the copyright owner and the public. I would not be surprised if. Although there was no exchange of money or sale of the files. 185. as mentioned above. In the meanwhile. 10 .

die another day I guess. and educational programs such as Mister Rogers' Neighborhood. Each of the respondents owns a large inventory of valuable copyrights. 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.S. Die Another Day I'm gonna wake up." enlarges the television viewing audience. For the same reason. yes and no I'm gonna kiss some part of 11 . die another day I guess I'll die another day I guess. It may serve to limit liability. Respondents sought no relief against any Betamax consumer. write law books for instance (YEHEY!!) or develop computer programs for school usage. But in an action for contributory infringement against the seller of copying equipment. it is fair use. Thirdparty conduct would be wholly irrelevant in an action for direct infringement of respondents' copyrights. 464 U. X’s work. INC. CHARMAGNE Q. they sought money damages and an equitable accounting of profits from petitioners. Note: Traditional copyright is easier to protect than digital copyright. die another day I guess I'll die another day 2 I think I'll find another way There's so much more to know I guess I'll die another day It's not my time to go Uh. die another day I guess. Held: Given these findings. Of course. If they were to prevail. religious broadcasts. The respondents do not represent a class composed of all copyright holders. many other producers share respondents' concern about the possible consequences of unrestricted copying. v. Respondents commenced this copyright infringement action against petitioners in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in 1976. 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. ―I copied large portions of Atty. but if substantial portions of the work is copied. 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. This practice. Some members of the general public use video tape recorders sold by petitioners to record some of these broadcasts. die another day I guess. as well as a large number of other broadcasts. uh I think I'll find another way There's so much more to know I guess I'll die another day It's not my time to go For every sin. a significant amount of television programming may be used in this manner without objection from the owners of the copyrights on the programs. If the IP Code were amended to read. The exact percentage is not specified. No doubt. were unable to prove that the practice has impaired the commercial value of their copyrights or has created any likelihood of future harm. at least for an experimental time period. 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. die another day I guess I'll die another day Another day [x6] FINAL EXAM If there are millions of owners of VTR's who make copies of televised sports events. ―So long as copyright ed material is used in school. known as "timeshifting. but it is well below 10%. For that reason.‖ is this a valid defense? A. No. I've come to play I think I'll find another way It's not my time to go I'm gonna avoid the cliche I'm gonna suspend my senses I'm gonna delay my pleasure I'm gonna close my body now I guess.REVIEWER IN IPL PREPARED BY FERRER-LIM. who do assert objections to time-shifting in this litigation. 417 (1984) Petitioners manufacture and sell home video tape recorders. 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. I'm gonna keep this secret I'm gonna close my body now I guess. uh I guess. 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. as well as an injunction against the manufacture and marketing of Betamax VTR's. Protection only exists when excerpts are used. It would also remove all incentive to create. die another day I guess I'll die another day I guess. die another day I guess I'll die another day (Another day) I guess I'll die another day (Another day) I guess I'll die another day (Another day) I guess I'll die 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 I'm gonna close my body now Uh. but in the total spectrum of television programming their combined market share is small.‖ Would this be constitutional? A. Instead. attribution will not protect you. In summary. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS. 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. 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. Q. even the two respondents in this case. there is no basis in the Copyright Act upon which respondents can hold petitioners liable for distributing VTR's to the general public. It would be undue deprivation of property.. When Chris Lim says. SONY CORP. I'll have to pay I've come to work. 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. Respondents own the copyrights on some of the television programs that are broadcast on the public airwaves. Maybe not. and if the proprietors of those programs welcome the practice.

Patron. Hitchcock. produced and distributed "Rear Window. does not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use. the Court of Appeals determined that the story was a substantial portion of the motion picture. Examining the third factor.250. plot. The motion picture expressly uses the story's unique setting. in his intellectual creation [was] absolute until he voluntarily part[ed] with the same.. Moreover. not infringing. 1969. it has had no direct involvement with any infringing activity. Petitioners asserted before the Court of Appeals that their use was educational rather than commercial. . the legislative endorsement of the doctrine of "fair use. The seller of the equipment that expands those producers' audiences cannot be a contributory infringer if. and sequence of events.S. 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. At common law. "[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. actor Jimmy Stewart and director Alfred Hitchcock formed a production company. however. the owners of the "Rear Window" motion picture and renewal rights in the motion picture. Inc. If the Betamax were used to make copies for a commercial or profitmaking purpose." In general. In 1945." Petitioners received $12 million from the re-release of the motion picture during the renewal term. Woolrich agreed to assign the rights to make motion picture versions of six of his stories. G. We agree. The purpose of copyright is to create incentives for creative effort. Respondent then notified petitioners Hitchcock (now represented by cotrustees of his will)." The most pertinent in this case is 107. But a use that has no demonstrable effect upon the potential market for.. The fair use doctrine. the first factor requires that "the commercial or nonprofit character of an activity" be weighed in any fair use decision. Chase Manhattan Bank renewed the copyright in the "It Had to Be Murder" story. for the benefit of Columbia University. characters. which obtained the motion picture rights in "It Had to Be Murder" from De Sylva's successors in interest for $10. Stewart. In summary. "the property of the author . when one considers the nature of a televised copyrighted audiovisual work. The contrary presumption is appropriate here." That section identifies various factors that enable a court to apply an "equitable rule of reason" analysis to particular claims of infringement. He left his property to a trust administered by his executor. 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 time-shifting for private home use. 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. such use would presumptively be unfair. Even copying for noncommercial purposes may impair the copyright holder's ability to obtain the rewards that Congress intended him to have. The Copyright Act of 1909 provided authors a 28-year initial term of copyright protection plus a 28-year renewal term. In light of the findings of the District Court regarding the state of the empirical data. In this case. obtained the rights to magazine publication of the story and Woolrich retained all other rights." to B." Those sections describe a variety of uses of copyrighted material that "are not infringements of copyright" "notwithstanding the provisions of section 106. Although not conclusive. Held: The Court of Appeals determined that the use of Woolrich's story in petitioners' motion picture was not fair use. CHARMAGNE the copyright holder may not prevail unless the relief that he seeks affects only his programs. including "It Had to Be Murder. 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. When these factors are all weighed in the "equitable rule of reason" balance. Petitioners argue that the story constituted only 20% of the motion picture's story line. Popular Publications obtained a blanket copyright for the issue of Dime Detective Magazine in which "It Had to Be Murder" was published. On December 29. Inc. Thus. nor do we. and MCA Inc. ABEND. although every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively an unfair exploitation of the monopoly privilege that belongs to the owner of the copyright. STEWART v.. it would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work. A motion picture based on a fictional short story obviously falls into the latter category. De Sylva Productions for $9. The law generally recognizes a greater need to disseminate factual works than works of fiction or fantasy. The Court of Appeals found nothing in the record to support this assertion. therefore. Chase Manhattan Bank. or that if it should become widespread. the record and findings of the District Court lead us to two conclusions. or the value of. nonprofit activity. which is incorporated into the 1976 Act." 107(4). capable of substantial noninfringing uses. as is true in this case. respondents failed to demonstrate that time-shifting FINAL EXAM would cause any likelihood of nonminimal harm to the potential market for. In 1954. Stewart. 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. 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. evolved in response to this absolute rule. such a requirement would leave the copyright holder with no defense against predictable damage. 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. the fact that the entire work is reproduced. The magazine's publisher. we must conclude that this record amply supports the District Court's conclusion that home time-shifting is fair use. 207 (1990) 495 U. Even unauthorized uses of a copyrighted work are not necessarily infringing. Nor is it necessary to show with certainty that future harm will result. Applying the second factor. Actual present harm need not be shown. the likelihood must be demonstrated." which was first published in February 1942 in Dime Detective Magazine. This is not. it is clear that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the statute as presently written bars such conduct. 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.REVIEWER IN IPL PREPARED BY FERRER-LIM. along with Paramount Pictures. Chase Manhattan assigned the renewal rights to respondent Abend for $650 plus 10% of all proceeds from exploitation of the story. Inc. the definition of exclusive rights in 106 of the present Act is prefaced by the words "subject to sections 107 through 118. Sony's sale of such equipment to the general public does not constitute contributory infringement of respondents' copyrights. but 12 . First. The motion picture neither falls into any of the categories enumerated in 107 nor meets the four criteria set forth in 107. Moreover. noncommercial uses are a different matter. "Rear Window" was broadcast on the ABC television network in 1971. A challenge to a noncommercial use of a copyrighted work requires proof either that the particular use is harmful. because the District Court's findings plainly establish that time-shifting for private home use must be characterized as a noncommercial. And second." the motion picture version of Woolrich's story "It Had to Be Murder. If the intended use is for commercial gain.000. What is necessary is a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that some meaningful likelihood of future harm exists. The Betamax is. . But if it is for a noncommercial purpose." 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. it is a fair use and.S. Popular Publications. see 107(3). the copyrighted work need not be prohibited in order to protect the author's incentive to create. therefore. The prohibition of such noncommercial uses would merely inhibit access to ideas without any countervailing benefit. fair use is more likely to be found in factual works than in fictional works. Patron. 207 Cornell Woolrich authored the story "It Had to Be Murder. the Court of Appeals pointed out that "[a] use is less likely to be deemed fair when the copyrighted work is a creative product. their copyrighted works. 495 U.. however. or unless he speaks for virtually all copyright holders with an interest in the outcome. that likelihood may be presumed. In 1953. or the value of.

It does not matter that Defendant Frena may have been unaware of the copyright infringement. The computer programs for the Sega video games are stored on a cartridge in a Read-Only Memory ("ROM") chip. THIRD: the amount and substantiality of the portion of the copyrighted work used." 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. Plaintiff. 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. Subscribers can upload material onto the bulletin board so that any other subscriber. However. since a proper application of fair use does not impair materially the marketability of the copied work. having been uploaded there by users of Defendant's bulletin board. or barters for the privilege of downloading Sega's games. Such conduct would deny PEI considerable revenue to which it is entitled for the service it provides. Held: The question of fair use constitutes a mixed issue of law and fact. and the corresponding application of fair use defense greater. anyone with an appropriately equipped computer can log onto BBS. The Copyright Act mandates four nonexclusive factors which courts shall consider case by case in determining fair use." 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.'s copyrighted photographs. For a fee. FOURTH: the "effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. according to Defendant Scherman's Opposition Memorandum. central fair use factor. "[O]ne who. which is a remedy equitable in nature. and indeed. innocence is significant to a trial court when it fixes statutory damages. There is irrefutable evidence of direct copyright infringement in this case. such as computer memories or hard disks. or services. running devices. a major factor to PEI's success is the photographs in its magazine. Section 107 does not attempt to define "fair use. However." 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." There is no FINAL EXAM doubt that the photographs in Playboy magazine are an essential part of the copyrighted work. Intent to infringe is not needed to find copyright infringement." The fourth factor is the "most important. has approximately 400 users. called "copiers. 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. Therefore." are designed to copy the video game programs from a Sega game cartridge onto other magnetic media such as hard and floppy disks. it would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work." "Copyright protection is narrower. known as "users. when connected to a television. The Court is not implying that people do not read the articles in PEI's magazine. you receive a COMPLEMENTARY Free Download Ratio on our Customer Support BBS." Defendant Frena's use was clearly commercial. and controlled by a computer. and thus even an innocent infringer is liable for infringement.. CHARMAGNE that does not mean that a substantial portion of the story was not used in the motion picture. such as copiers. 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." It merely lists the factors to be considered in determining whether a use made of a work in a particular case is fair." is "undoubtedly the single most important element of fair use. BBS is accessible via telephone modem to customers. By pirating the photographs for which PEI has become famous. Information on the MAPHIA bulletin board includes the following passage: Thank you for purchasing a Console Back Up Unit [copier] from PARSEC TRADING. v. One hundred and seventy of the images that were available on BBS were copies of photographs taken from PEI's copyrighted materials. by accessing their computer. 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. it is less likely that a claim of fair use will be accepted. as noted below. the second factor works against Frena's fair use defense. which is attached to telephone lines via modem devices.REVIEWER IN IPL PREPARED BY FERRER-LIM. or to those who purchase certain products from Defendant Frena.. FIRST: every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively an unfair exploitation of the monopoly privilege that belongs to the owner of the copyright . Once a game is uploaded to the MAPHIA bulletin board it may be downloaded in its entirety by an unlimited number of users. that distributed unauthorized copies of Plaintiff Playboy Enterprises. Techs Warehouse BBS ("BBS"). MAPHIA Sega is a major manufacturer and distributor of computer video game systems and computer video games which are sold under the SEGA trademark. Sega's video games cannot be copied using the game console. An electronic bulletin board consists of electronic storage media." If a work is more appropriately characterized as entertainment. Common sense would yield the same conclusion. BBS was provided to those paying twenty-five dollars ($25) per month or to those who purchased products from Defendant Frena. he removed the photographs from BBS and has since that time monitored BBS to prevent additional photographs of PEI from being uploaded. Defendant Frena admits that (1) these materials were displayed on his BBS. Defendant Frena argues that the affirmative defense of fair use precludes a finding of copyright infringement. The MAPHIA bulletin board is open to the public and. "[A] taking may not be excused merely because it is insubstantial with respect to the infringing work. The base unit contains a microcomputer which. (2) that he never obtained authorization or consent from PEI. Defendant Frena has taken a very important part of PEI's copyrighted publications. rather. As a free bonus for ordering from Dark Age. Defendant Frena states that he never uploaded any of PEI's photographs onto BBS and that subscribers to BBS uploaded the photographs.." PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES. INC. in the case of factual works than in the case of works of fiction or fantasy. Many of the images found on BBS include adult subject matter." It is clear that future market harm exists to PEI due to Frena's activities SECOND: the "nature of the copyrighted work." Defendants MAPHIA and Chad Scherman operate an electronic bulletin board called MAPHIA (hereinafter "the MAPHIA bulletin board").‖ [P]otential market means either an immediate or delayed market. Obviously. Third parties. 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. Implicit in the presumption that every commercial use is presumptively unfair is "some meaningful likelihood that future market harm exists. Intent or knowledge is not an element of infringement. There is evidence that MAPHIA directly or through an affiliate sometimes charges a direct fee for downloading privileges. The copyrighted works involved in this case are in the category of fantasy and entertainment. v. with knowledge of the 13 . if this type of conduct became widespread. and includes harm to derivative works. Inc. Held: Sega has established that unauthorized copies of these games are also made when they are downloaded to make additional copies by 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. SEGA ENTERPRISES LTD. George FRENA George Frena operates a subscription computer bulletin board service. It appears that the copies of Sega's video game programs on Defendants' bulletin board are unauthorized copies of Sega's copyrighted video games.. such as the provision of credit card numbers to users. That is. 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. Each cartridge contains a single game program. which copying is facilitated and encouraged by the MAPHIA bulletin board. permits individuals to play the video game stored on the inserted cartridge. Defendant Frena states that as soon as he was served with a summons and made aware of this matter. "a small degree of taking is sufficient to transgress fair use if the copying is the essential part of the copyrighted work. can see that material. the Supreme Court has directed a qualitative evaluation of the copying of the copyrighted work. Thus.

religion.s. 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. Unlike some other large on-line service providers. This is such a devise. and Prodigy. Although Netcom gains financially from its distribution of messages to the Internet. plaintiffs contacted defendants Klemesrud and Netcom. Therefore. Erlich gained his access to the Internet through defendant Thomas Klemesrud's ("Klemesrud's") BBS "support.r. When copying is for the purpose of making multiple copies of the original. the mere fact that all of a work is copied is not determinative of the fair use question. Defendant Dennis Erlich is a former minister of Scientology turned vocal critic of the Church. Moreover.REVIEWER IN IPL PREPARED BY FERRER-LIM. is clearly commercial. Consequently. the effect of the use upon the market for or value of the copyrighted work. by which avoidance such users and Defendants both profit. Netcom's use. It also does not monitor messages as they are posted. Is viewing (such as when you play a program or view a tape) infringement? A. Inc. their role in the copying. plaintiffs refused Klemesrud's request as unreasonable. it may be possible to reprogram its system to screen postings containing particular words or coming from particular individuals. THIRD concerns both the percentage of the original work that was copied and whether that portion constitutes the "heart" of the copyrighted work. whose pulpit is now the Usenet newsgroup alt. although this is not a per se rule.scientology ("a." Defendant Scherman has stated that he does not own any Sega game cartridges. Is this infringement? A. Here. Because it appears that the entire game programs are copied when Sega video game programs are transferred over the MAPHIA bulletin board. there would be a substantial and immeasurable adverse effect on the market for Sega's copyrighted video game programs. 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. 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. Such a use. it would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work. induces. You can’t play pirated games in Playstation. If you view it yourself. (allowing total copying in context of time-shifting copyrighted television shows by home viewers). plaintiffs named Klemesrud and Netcom in their suit against Erlich. Netcom does not create or control the content of the information available to its subscribers. It’s private use. After failing to convince Erlich to stop his postings. Even if Defendants do not know exactly when games will be uploaded to or downloaded from the MAPHIA bulletin board. It is reproduced in your Random Access Memory. It has. knowledge and encouragement. Erlich's use). suspended the accounts of subscribers who violated its terms and conditions. took no action after it was told by plaintiffs that Erlich had posted messages through Netcom's system that violated plaintiffs' copyrights. consideration of the amount and substantiality of the portion copied weighs against a finding of fair use. an on-line forum for discussion and criticism of Scientology. a goal of the Copyright Act. America Online. regardless of the underlying uses made by Netcom's subscribers. Another example of an ACD is a devise which disables visitor-counting devices in websites. including provision of facilities. Netcom's use of plaintiffs' work is to carry out its commercial function as an Internet access provider. FINAL EXAM ("Netcom"). no more of a work may be copied than is necessary for the particular use. Violates no moral rights. such as CompuServe. Plaintiffs have shown that Erlich's posting copied substantial amounts of the originals or. ("BPI") hold copyrights in the unpublished and published works of L. in some cases. 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 . Id. Netcom. CHARMAGNE infringing activity. ."). Netcom copied no more of plaintiffs' works than necessary to function as a Usenet server. NETCOM ON-LINE COMMUNICATION SERVICES Plaintiffs Religious Technology Center ("RTC") and Bridge Publications. But if you sell the chips to video stores which has 100 consoles." may be held liable as a contributory infringer. However. for the matter. such as where they had commercial software in their posted files. Defendants raise fair use as a defense to copyright infringement. However. consideration of the nature of the copyrighted work weighs against a finding of fair use. the precise nature of whose works is not important to the fair use determination. The copying of an entire work will ordinarily militate against a finding of fair use. NOTE: There is a difference between a infringing copy and a noninfringing copy. ." Because Netcom's use of copyrighted materials served a completely different function than that of the plaintiffs. it may be considered contributory infringement. made available to the Usenet exactly what was posted by Erlich. which is an entirely different purpose than plaintiffs' use (or. the entire works. Ron Hubbard. 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. its financial incentive is unrelated to the infringing activity and the defendant receives no direct financial benefit from the acts of infringement. but gains its connection through the facilities of defendant Netcom On-Line Communications.s. it’s okay. because Netcom's use of the works was merely to facilitate their posting to the Usenet. Plaintiffs rely on the fact that some of the works transmitted by Netcom were unpublished and some were arguably highly creative and original. Klemesrud's BBS is not directly linked to the Internet. it should not be seen as "profit[ing] from the exploitation of the copyrighted work without paying the customary prices. Q. Because Sega video game programs are for entertainment uses and involve fiction and fantasy. Netcom similarly refused plaintiffs' request that Erlich not be allowed to gain access to the Internet through its system. Inc. the commercial nature of the defendant's activity should not be dispositive. Generally.r. the commercial purpose and character of the unauthorized copying weighs against a finding of fair use. Held: FIRST the purpose and character of the defendant's use. Netcom admits that. where such total copying is essential given the purpose of the copying. the late founder of the Church of Scientology ("the Church"). As the court found in Sony. 14 ." Klemesrud is the operator of the BBS. 'is undoubtedly the single most important element of fair use. and thereby saving users the expense of purchasing additional authorized copies.'" "[T]o negate fair use one need only show that if the challenged use 'should become widespread. although only on the copyright infringement claims. of course. this factor should not defeat an otherwise valid defense. to invoke the fair use exception.com. this militates against a finding of fair use under the purpose of the use factor. However. causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another. though commercial. However. however. an individual must possess an authorized copy of a literary work. SECOND: whether it is published or unpublished and whether it is informational or creative. also benefits the public in allowing for the functioning of the Internet and the dissemination of other creative works. it is obvious that should the unauthorized copying of Sega's video games by Defendants and others become widespread. direction. No. which is run out of his home and has approximately 500 paying users.000 bulletin boards like MAPHIA operate in this country. "The fourth factor. instead claiming that it could not shut out Erlich without shutting out all of the users of Klemesrud's BBS.' Based on Defendants' own statement that 45. Accordingly. WIPO treaty provides that there should be legislatioin against anti-circumvention devices. one of the largest providers of Internet access in the United States. amounts to contributory copyright infringement. Netcom. this factor weighs in Netcom's favor. Q. Even if you share it with barangay. Consideration of the effect on the market for Sega's copyrighted works weighs heavily against a finding of fair use. Thus. although not currently configured to do this. RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER v. Someone invents a chip to allow you to use it. however. Plaintiffs maintain that Erlich infringed their copyrights when he posted portions of their works on a. No. NOTE: Software is reproduced when you use it.

Netcom's use has some commercial aspects. REPRODUCTION OF PUBLISHED WORK. REPRODUCTION OF COMPUTER PROGRAM. This evidence raises a genuine issue as to the possibility that Erlich's postings. 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. WITHOUT THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE AUTHOR OF. Netcom argues that the court must focus on the "normal market" for the copyrighted work. TO REPRODUCE A COPY OF A PUBLISHED WORK WHICH IS CONSIDERED NECESSARY FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE LIBRARY BUT WHICH IS OUT OF STOCK. TO PERSON REQUESTING THEIR LOAN FOR PURPOSES OF RESEARCH OR STUDY INSTEAD OF LENDING THE VOLUMES OR BOOKLETS WHICH CONTAIN THEM.REVIEWER IN IPL PREPARED BY FERRER-LIM. AND TO THE EXTENT. DESTROYED OR RENDERED UNUSABLE AND COPIES ARE NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE PUBLISHER. OR TO REPLACE. 189.2. WHEN SPECIAL REASONS SO REQUIRE.1." Netcom argues that there is no evidence that making accessible plaintiffs' works. Back-up 15 . WHERE THE REPRODUCTION IS MADE BY A NATURAL PERSON EXCLUSIVELY FOR RESEARCH AND PRIVATE STUDY. DESTROYED OR RENDERED UNUSABLE. SHALL BE ENTITLED. (N) SEC. 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. SHALL BE PERMITTED. groups in the past have used stolen copies of the Church's scriptures in charging for Scientology-like religious training. 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. CHARMAGNE would result in a substantially adverse impact on the potential market' for the original. SEC. THAT EVERY LIBRARY WHICH. In support of its motion for a preliminary injunction against Erlich. 187. Here. This case is distinguishable from those cases recognizing fair use despite total copying. the purpose of the use is completely different than the purpose of the original. PROVIDED.1. (N) Computer programs – also just one copy. AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION 187. THIS PROVISION SHALL BE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 185 WHENEVER APPROPRIATE. . although the Church currently faces no competition. NO COPY OR ADAPTATION MENTIONED IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THE ONES DETERMINED IN THIS SECTION. BY THE LAWFUL OWNER OF THAT COMPUTER PROGRAM: PROVIDED. 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.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. Fair use presents a factual question on which plaintiffs have at least raised a genuine issue of fact. OR OF A MUSICAL WORK IN WHICH GRAPHICS FORM BY REPROGRAPHIC MEANS. 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.1. 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.3. DESTROYED OR RENDERED UNUSABLE. and there is no evidence that the use will significantly harm the market for the original. While copying all or most of a work will often preclude fair use. In Sony. 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. could hurt the market for plaintiffs' works. Plaintiffs pointed out that. UNLESS THE VOLUME. BY LAW. IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE COPIES OF A PRINTED WORK. which in this case is through a Scientologybased organization. NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 177. NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION 177. OR A SUBSTANTIAL PAST THEREOF. 186. THE REPRODUCTION IN ONE (1) BACK-UP COPY OR ADAPTATION OF A COMPUTER PROGRAM SHALL BE PERMITTED. WITHOUT THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE OWNER OF COPYRIGHT IN THE WORK. 187. SEC.1 SHALL NOT EXTEND TO THE REPRODUCTION OF: (A) A WORK OF ARCHITECTURE IN FORM OF BUILDING OR OTHER CONSTRUCTION. and not whether they suppress the desire of an individual who is affected by the criticism posted by Erlich. Accordingly. among other things. A COPY WHICH HAS BEEN LOST. ANY LIBRARY OR ARCHIVE WHOSE ACTIVITIES ARE NOT FOR PROFIT MAY. 189. REPROGRAPHIC REPRODUCTION BY LIBRARIES.2. (C) A COMPILATION OF DATA AND OTHER MATERIALS. which consist of religious scriptures and policy letters. the court finds that there is a question of fact as to whether there is a valid fair use defense. THE PRIVATE REPRODUCTION OF A PUBLISHED WORK IN A SINGLE COPY. (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. 187. Further. they cannot prove that posting their copyrighted works will harm the market for these works. PROVIDED. for 1. Netcom's copying is not for the purpose of getting to the unprotected idea behind plaintiffs' works. 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. complete copying is necessary given the type of use. OR OTHER OWNER OF COPYRIGHT IN. IN THE PERMANENT COLLECTION OF ANOTHER SIMILAR LIBRARY OR ARCHIVE. THE PERMISSION GRANTED UNDER SUBSECTION 187.2. the court does not find that Netcom's use was fair as a matter of law. (D) A COMPUTER PROGRAM EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 189. courts have recognized the fair use defense where the purpose of the use is beneficial to society. REPLACE A COPY. made available over the Internet by Netcom. 189. AND. (N) SEC. Further.2. plaintiffs submitted declarations regarding the potential effect of making the Church's secret scriptures available over the Internet. Although plaintiffs may ultimately lose on their infringement claims if. NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 177. Plaintiffs respond that the Internet's extremely widespread distribution--where more than 25 million people worldwide have access--multiplies the effects of market substitution. WITHOUT THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE AUTHOR OF COPYRIGHT OWNER. Netcom notes that the relevant question is whether the posting fulfill the demand of an individual who seeks to follow the religion's teachings. NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABOVE PROVISIONS. 188. A COMPUTER PROGRAM. 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. THAT THE COPY OR ADAPTATION IS NECESSARY FOR: (A) THE USE OF THE COMPUTER PROGRAM IN CONJUNCTION WITH A COMPUTER FOR THE PURPOSE. AND (C) WHERE THE MAKING OF SUCH A COPY IS IN ORDER TO PRESERVE AND. WORK OF ARCHITECTURE. 188. TOME OR PART IS OUT OF STOCK. plaintiffs never gave either Erlich or Netcom permission to view or copy their works.6. In balancing the various factors. 188. FINAL EXAM (B) AN ENTIRE BOOK. AND (B) ARCHIVAL PURPOSES. the home viewers' use was not commercial and the viewers were allowed to watch the entire shows for free. IF NECESSARY IN THE EVENT THAT IT IS LOST. 189. FOR WHICH THE COMPUTER PROGRAM HAS BEEN OBTAINED.

ONLY THE ABOVE MENTIONED 16 . What kind of works are deposited? A. OR OTHER DEROGATORY ACTION IN RELATION TO. [Right to] Integrity NOTE: There are certain instances that although the crea tor’s moral rights are violated. TO REQUIRE THAT THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE WORKS BE ATTRIBUTED TO HIM. (SEC. COLLEGE. 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. In the drafting of the code. Q. So how do you prove copyright ownership if you file cases? A. AND 193. [Right against] False Attribution 4. IN PARTICULAR. No.1. 12 SCRA 321 (1964) when registration was needed to obtain a copyright. BE REGISTERED AND DEPOSITED WITH IT. You do not need registration in the National Library to get copyright protection. IMPORTATION FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES. 193. UNIVERSITY. letter) since these are the only things that can benefit the collection of the Nat’l Lib. BUT SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATION UNDER THE SUBSECTION 185.3. WITHIN THREE (3) WEEKS. Q. For instance. AND. OR IS FOR THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF THE FINE ARTS. 34. Q. . IN COPIES PRODUCED AFTER THE CREATOR’S DEATH. Is the existence of a certificate proof of the existence of copyright? A. Q. AND THE YEAR OF ITS FIRST PUBLICATION.. all works are to be deposited. OR (II) THE IMPORTATION IS BY AUTHORITY OF AND FOR THE USE OF THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT. it would be better not to enforce them. AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE.2. CONSISTING OF NOT MORE THAN THREE (3) SUCH COPIES OR LIKENESSES IN ANY ONE INVOICE. Q. That’s all it is. 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. SEC.1. .2. IS NOT FOR SALE BUT FOR THE USE ONLY OF ANY RELIGIOUS. 218. letters. who found works authored by another.3. National Library – only the 1st 3 in the list (books. Lim gave the example of the author of the Cocodile Files (expose of the Coconut Levy Funds which says it belongs to Danding Cojuanco). Atty.3 OF THIS ACT. WITHIN THREE (3) WEEKS AFTER RECEIPT BY THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OF A WRITTEN DEMAND FROM THE DIRECTORS FOR SUCH DEPOSIT. 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. SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE. BY PERSONAL DELIVERY OR BY REGISTERED MAIL. THERE SHALL. 193. Paternity – attributing ownership to someone 2.6. NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISION OF SUBSECTION 177. NO. only one year was agreed upon). BE INDICATED IN A PROMINENT WAY ON THE COPIES. 190. No. Q. NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT.4.2.2 AND 172. What is the significance of certificate? A. IF. 191. 192. Supreme Court – only works related to the law But the law actually says. 49) Moral rights can also be denominated as follows: 1. THE REQUIRED COPIES OR REPRODUCTIONS ARE NOT DELIVERED AND THE FEE IS NOT PAID. P. HAVE THE RIGHT: 193. AND IN CONNECTION WITH THE PUBLIC USE OF HIS WORK. AND SUCH UNLAWFUL USE SHALL BE DEEMED AN INFRINGEMENT AND SHALL BE PUNISHABLE AS SUCH WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROPRIETOR’S RIGHT OF ACTION. OR FREE PUBLIC LIBRARY IN THE PHILIPPINES. saying that the funds are public funds (which virtually means a recantation). OR FOR ANY STATE SCHOOL. 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. OR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY OR INSTITUTION DULY INCORPORATED OR REGISTERED. Just says that you deposited. Does the National Library review if work is copyrightable subject matter? A. FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPLETING THE RECORDS OF THE NATIONAL LIBRARY AND THE SUPREME COURT LIBRARY. TO MAKE ANY ALTERATIONS OF HIS WORK PRIOR TO. It was important before. TO OBJECT TO ANY DISTORTION. SCOPE OF MORAL RIGHTS. THE YEAR OF SUCH DEATH. 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. Archival FINAL EXAM SEC. OR (III) THE IMPORTATION. THAT SUCH COPIES DO NOT EXCEED THREE (3). You file an affidavit evidence under Sec. OR OTHER OWNER OF COPYRIGHT IN. CHAPTER IX DEPOSIT AND NOTICE SEC.AFTER THE FIRST PUBLIC DISSEMINATION OF PERFORMANCE BY AUTHORITY OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OF A WORK FALLING UNDER SUBSECTIONS 172. TWO (2) COMPLETE COPIES OR REPRODUCTIONS OF THE WORK IN SUCH FORM AS THE DIRECTORS OF SAID LIBRARIES MAY PRESCRIBE. CHARMAGNE purposes 2. THE RIGHT THAT HIS NAME. MUTILATION OR OTHER MODIFICATION OF.EACH COPY OF A WORK PUBLISHED OR OFFERED FOR SALE MAY CONTAIN A NOTICE BEARING THE NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER. D. National Library and Supreme Court. CHAPTER X MORAL RIGHTS SEC. he lost his case. articles. All it certifies is that you deposited two copies there. Privacy – the right to withhold publication 3. especially in Santos v. Under the IP Code now.1. OR TO WITHHOLD IT FROM PUBLICATION. 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. 190. 2. HIS WORK WHICH WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO HIS HONOR OR REPUTATION. Since he didn’t register before the second printing. (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. 193. Here.REVIEWER IN IPL PREPARED BY FERRER-LIM. McCullough Printer Co. CHARITABLE. Chris Lim suggested to the drafters: 1. INDEPENDENTLY OF THE ECONOMIC RIGHTS IN SECTION 177 OR THE GRANT OF AN ASSIGNMENT OR LICENSE WITH RESPECT TO SUCH RIGHT. Mauro Malang registered his copyright of his painting after his ―copyright‖ was violated (his painting was used for greeting cards for two years.THE AUTHOR OF A WORK SHALL. 172. NO PRESUMPTION ARISES AS TO COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP. a certificate of deposit. 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. REGISTRATION AND DEPOSIT WITH NATIONAL LIBRARY AND THE SUPREME COURT LIBRARY. Who issues the certificate? A. 190. CLASSES OF WORK SHALL BE ACCEPTED FOR DEPOSIT BY THE NATIONAL LIBRARY AND THE SUPREME COURT LIBRARY. Atty.

HOWEVER. and is performed by Y is produced.1. Berne Convention – prescribed the rights of creators TRIPS Agreement – here. performer – the neighboring rights 3. ANY DAMAGE RECOVERED AFTER THE CREATOR'S DEATH SHALL BE HELD IN TRUST FOR AND REMITTED TO HIS HEIRS. DECLAIM. 202. WHERE ACCOMPANIED BY SOUNDS. HE MAY BE HELD LIABLE FOR DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF SUCH CONTRACT. . 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%). OR WORKS OF SIMILAR KIND WHEREIN THE AUTHOR PRIMARILY DERIVES GAIN FROM THE PROCEEDS OF REPRODUCTIONS. WITH THE CONSENT OF THE RIGHT HOLDER: PROVIDED. NO.6. TO USE THE NAME OF THE AUTHOR. OR THE LEGAL ENTITY. WORKS OF APPLIED ART. BECAUSE OF ALTERATIONS THEREIN. OR OTHERWISE TO MAKE USE OF HIS REPUTATION WITH RESPECT TO ANY VERSION OR ADAPTATION OF HIS WORK WHICH. SUBSEQUENT TO THE FIRST DISPOSITION THEREOF BY THE AUTHOR. 31. AND IN DEFAULT OF THE HEIRS. ENGRAVINGS. "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.1. D. 202. D. SUSCEPTIBLE OF BEING MADE VISIBLE AND. OTHER THAN IN THE FORM OF A FIXATION INCORPORATED IN A CINEMATOGRAPHIC OR OTHER AUDIOVISUAL WORK. ARRANGING AND ADAPTATION OF WORK. 39. (SEC. He did not create the song. 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. 202. DAMAGES WHICH MAY BE AVAILED OF UNDER THE CIVIL CODE MAY ALSO BE RECOVERED. DRAMATIZATION. since he would have to testify that he is the author of the Cocodile Files! SEC. . TO USE THE NAME OF THE AUTHOR WITH RESPECT TO A WORK HE DID NOT CREATE. CONTRIBUTION TO COLLECTIVE WORK. SEC. WITH OR WITHOUT ACCOMPANYING SOUNDS. REPRODUCED OR COMMUNICATED THROUGH A DEVICE. "FIXATION" MEANS THE EMBODIMENT OF SOUNDS. 202. 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. P. WAIVER OF MORAL RIGHTS. . OR THE REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS.‖ you violate three rights: 1. 196. (SEC.THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL NOT APPLY TO PRINTS. His right is to his interpretation. 201. "PERFORMERS" ARE ACTORS. SEC. 198. MUSICIANS. SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO CONTRAVENE THE AUTHOR'S RIGHTS SECURED BY THIS CHAPTER.AN AUTHOR MAY WAIVE HIS RIGHTS MENTIONED IN SECTION 193 BY A WRITTEN INSTRUMENT. ASSOCIATION. 195. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION. . it is X. WHO OR WHICH TAKES THE INITIATIVE AND HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FIRST FIXATION OF THE SOUNDS OF A PERFORMANCE OR OTHER SOUNDS. CHARMAGNE If he were to enforce his rights and file a complaint (civil or criminal) he would be subjecting himself to criminal prosecution. AN "AUDIOVISUAL WORK OR FIXATION" IS A WORK THAT CONSISTS OF A SERIES OF RELATED IMAGES WHICH IMPART THE IMPRESSION OF MOTION. THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL LIBRARY MAY PRESCRIBE REASONABLE FEES TO BE CHARGED FOR HIS SERVICES IN THE APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION. STUDY SCOPE OF PERFORMER’S AND PRODUCER’S RIGHTS. P. . broadcaster – his neighboring rights NOTE: ATTY. 49) SEC. OR REPRESENTATION OF SOUND. BUT NO SUCH WAIVER SHALL BE VALID WHERE ITS EFFECTS IS TO PERMIT ANOTHER: 195. 202. NO.2. (SEC. WILL COME OUT IN THE EXAM. SALE OR LEASE OF WORK. BROADCAST. 49) CHAPTER XI RIGHTS TO PROCEEDS IN SUBSEQUENT TRANSFERS FINAL EXAM SEC.2.AN AUTHOR CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO PERFORM HIS CONTRACT TO CREATE A WORK OR FOR THE PUBLICATION OF HIS WORK ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. PRODUCERS OF SOUNDS RECORDINGS AND BROADCASTING ORGANIZATIONS Neighboring Rights – performer’s rights are also called ―neighboring rights. OR SOCIETY. TERM OF MORAL RIGHTS. he just interpreted it. IN DEFAULT OF SUCH PERSON OR PERSONS. NO. D.5. 198. as the composer. P. AND IN DEFAULT OF THE HEIRS. 199. HIS RIGHT TO HAVE HIS CONTRIBUTION ATTRIBUTED TO HIM IS DEEMED WAIVED UNLESS HE EXPRESSLY RESERVES IT. USE IN A MOTION PICTURE. SEC. FROM WHICH THEY CAN BE PERCEIVED. ENFORCEMENT REMEDIES. Y has no copyright. NO. THE NECESSARY EDITING. FOR PUBLICATION.REVIEWER IN IPL PREPARED BY FERRER-LIM. 49) SEC. OR THE TITLE OF HIS WORK.IN EVERY SALE OR LEASE OF AN ORIGINAL WORK OF PAINTING OR SCULPTURE OR OF THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT OF A WRITER OR COMPOSER. ARRANGING OR ADAPTATION OF SUCH WORK. SUCH ENFORCEMENT SHALL DEVOLVE UPON EITHER THE AUTHOR'S HEIRS. D. INTERPRET.IN THE ABSENCE OF A CONTRARY STIPULATION AT THE TIME AN AUTHOR LICENSES OR PERMITS ANOTHER TO USE HIS WORK. SINGERS.‖ This is because when a song composed by X. OR 195. 202. SEC. IN ADDITION.4. a neighboring right to the copyright of the composer. THE FOLLOWING TERMS SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING MEANINGS: 202. 197. 200.FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ACT. 40. ETCHINGS.2. performer’s rights are called ―related rights‖ So when you record the rendition of Nick Carter of Baby Face’s song ―Take a Bow. 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. "PRODUCER OF A SOUND RECORDING" MEANS THE PERSON. composer – the copyright 2. BREACH OF CONTRACT. "PERSON" SHALL MEAN ANY INDIVIDUAL. DEFINITIONS. THAT COPIES ARE OFFERED TO THE PUBLIC IN REASONABLE QUALITY. SHALL BELONG TO THE GOVERNMENT. . AND OTHER PERSONS WHO ACT. 198. (SEC. 33. . OR OTHERWISE PERFORM LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORK. DANCERS. CORPORATION. "SOUND RECORDING" MEANS THE FIXATION OF THE SOUNDS OF A PERFORMANCE OR OF OTHER SOUNDS. P. OR OF THE REPRESENTATIONS THEREOF. LIM SAYS.3. THIS RIGHT SHALL EXIST DURING THE LIFETIME OF THE AUTHOR AND FOR FIFTY (50) YEARS AFTER HIS DEATH. 194. SUSCEPTIBLE OF BEING MADE AUDIBLE. EDITING. . 17 .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. SEC. THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL LIBRARY.1. who has the copyright.WHEN AN AUTHOR CONTRIBUTES TO A COLLECTIVE WORK. PLAY IN. 49) CHAPTER XII RIGHTS OF PERFORMERS. NOR SHALL COMPLETE DESTRUCTION OF A WORK UNCONDITIONALLY TRANSFERRED BY THE AUTHOR BE DEEMED TO VIOLATE SUCH RIGHTS. WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY TEND TO INJURE THE LITERARY OR ARTISTIC REPUTATION OF ANOTHER AUTHOR. WORKS NOT COVERED. SING. PARTNERSHIP.

EVEN AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THEM BY. INDEPENDENTLY OF A PERFORMER'S ECONOMIC RIGHTS.9. 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. OR A REPRODUCTION OF SUCH SOUND RECORDING. THE PLACING OF THESE REPRODUCTIONS IN THE MARKET AND THE RIGHT OF RENTAL OR LENDING. THE RIGHT TO AUTHORIZE THE COMMERCIAL RENTAL TO THE PUBLIC OF THE ORIGINAL AND COPIES OF THEIR SOUND RECORDINGS. THE RIGHT OF AUTHORIZING THE DIRECT OR INDIRECT REPRODUCTION OF THEIR PERFORMANCES FIXED IN SOUND RECORDINGS. 202. HAVE THE RIGHT TO CLAIM TO BE IDENTIFIED AS THE PERFORMER OF HIS PERFORMANCES. CHARMAGNE 202. (N) CHAPTER XIII PRODUCERS OF SOUND RECORDINGS SEC. 210. IS USED DIRECTLY FOR BROADCASTING OR FOR OTHER COMMUNICATION TO THE PUBLIC.IF A SOUND RECORDING PUBLISHED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. SEC. CONTRACT TERMS. 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. AND 211. "COMMUNICATION TO THE PUBLIC" INCLUDES MAKING THE SOUNDS OR REPRESENTATIONS OF SOUNDS FIXED IN A SOUND RECORDING AUDIBLE TO THE PUBLIC. CHAPTER XV LIMITATIONS ON PROTECTION SEC.5.1. PRODUCERS OF SOUND RECORDINGS SHALL ENJOY THE FOLLOWING EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: 208. . THE RIGHTS GRANTED TO A PERFORMER IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBSECTION 203. AND TO OBJECT TO ANY DISTORTION. "COMMUNICATION TO THE PUBLIC OF A PERFORMANCE OR A SOUND RECORDING" MEANS THE TRANSMISSION TO THE PUBLIC.SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 212. IN ANY MANNER OR FORM. AND 202. THE RECORDING IN ANY MANNER. 203. WHO. .1. 205. 209. AUTHORIZE OR PREVENT ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ACTS: 211. THE USE OF SUCH RECORDS FOR TRANSMISSIONS OR FOR FRESH RECORDING. OF SOUNDS OF A PERFORMANCE OR THE REPRESENTATIONS OF SOUNDS FIXED IN A SOUND RECORDING. AND 208. INCLUDING THE MAKING OF FILMS OR THE USE OF VIDEO TAPE.2. IN SUCH A WAY THAT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY ACCESS THEM FROM A PLACE AND TIME INDIVIDUALLY CHOSEN BY THEM. IN EVERY COMMUNICATION TO THE PUBLIC OR BROADCAST OF A PERFORMANCE SUBSEQUENT TO THE FIRST COMMUNICATION OR BROADCAST THEREOF BY THE BROADCASTING ORGANIZATION. 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. THE RIGHT OF AUTHORIZING THE MAKING AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC OF THEIR PERFORMANCES FIXED IN SOUND RECORDINGS.2.1.REVIEWER IN IPL PREPARED BY FERRER-LIM. A SINGLE EQUITABLE REMUNERATION FOR THE PERFORMER OR PERFORMERS. (N) SEC. THE RIGHT OF AUTHORIZING: (A) THE BROADCASTING AND OTHER COMMUNICATION TO THE PUBLIC OF THEIR PERFORMANCE. AND (B) THE FIXATION OF THEIR UNFIXED PERFORMANCE. . SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 206. 211. . BY HIS HEIRS.UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE CONTRACT. ADDITIONAL REMUNERATION FOR SUBSEQUENT COMMUNICATIONS OR BROADCASTS. SEC. LIMITATION ON RIGHT. 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. WHERE PROTECTION IS CLAIMED. SEC. BROADCASTING ORGANIZATIONS SHALL ENJOY THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO CARRY OUT. OTHERWISE THAN BY BROADCASTING. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 203 SHALL HAVE NO FURTHER APPLICATION. AND 203.SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 212. LIMITATIONS ON RIGHTS. ONCE THE PERFORMER HAS AUTHORIZED THE BROADCASTING OR FIXATION OF HIS PERFORMANCE. 204. SCOPE OF PERFORMERS' RIGHTS. 212. SEC. MORAL RIGHTS OF PERFORMERS. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 184 AND SECTION 185 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO PERFORMERS. "BROADCASTING ORGANIZATION" SHALL INCLUDE A NATURAL PERSON OR A JURIDICAL ENTITY DULY AUTHORIZED TO ENGAGE IN BROADCASTING. THE REBROADCASTING OF THEIR BROADCASTS. 203.SECTIONS 184 AND 185 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THE PRODUCER OF SOUND RECORDINGS. BY WIRE OR WIRELESS MEANS.3. 205. SEC. MUTILATION OR OTHER MODIFICATION OF HIS PERFORMANCES THAT WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO HIS REPUTATION. . 204. 205.SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 212. PERFORMERS SHALL ENJOY THE FOLLOWING EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: 203. OR IS PUBLICLY PERFORMED WITH THE INTENTION OF MAKING AND ENHANCING PROFIT.SECTIONS 203. SCOPE OF RIGHT.7. AS REGARDS HIS LIVE AURAL PERFORMANCES OR PERFORMANCES FIXED IN SOUND RECORDINGS. THE RIGHT TO AUTHORIZE THE DIRECT OR INDIRECT REPRODUCTION OF THEIR SOUND RECORDINGS. 203. THE RIGHT OF AUTHORIZING THE COMMERCIAL RENTAL TO THE PUBLIC OF THE ORIGINAL AND COPIES OF THEIR PERFORMANCES FIXED IN SOUND RECORDINGS. BY ANY MEDIUM. . 204. 208. EXCEPT WHERE THE OMISSION IS DICTATED BY THE MANNER OF THE USE OF THE PERFORMANCE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY AGREEMENT SHALL SHARE EQUALLY. 211.8. CHAPTER XIV BROADCASTING ORGANIZATIONS SEC.3. FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 209.1.2. 208 AND 209 SHALL NOT APPLY WHERE THE ACTS REFERRED TO IN THOSE SECTIONS ARE RELATED TO: FRESH 18 . THE GOVERNMENT.1 SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND EXERCISED FIFTY (50) YEARS AFTER HIS DEATH. EVEN AFTER DISTRIBUTION BY THEM BY OR PURSUANT TO AUTHORIZATION BY THE PRODUCER.4.2. "BROADCASTING" MEANS THE TRANSMISSION BY WIRELESS MEANS FOR THE PUBLIC RECEPTION OF SOUNDS OR OF IMAGES OR OF REPRESENTATIONS THEREOF.1.3. (N) FINAL EXAM SEC. COMMUNICATION TO THE PUBLIC. AND IN DEFAULT OF HEIRS. LIMITATION OF RIGHT. THE PERFORMER. . IN ANY MANNER OR FORM. OF THEIR BROADCASTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMUNICATION TO THE PUBLIC OF TELEVISION BROADCASTS OF THE SAME. 203. 206. 207. AND THE PRODUCER OF THE SOUND RECORDING SHALL BE PAID BY THE USER TO BOTH THE PERFORMERS AND THE PRODUCER. . OR PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION BY THE PERFORMER. 208.2. AS REGARDS THEIR PERFORMANCES.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. SCOPE OF RIGHT. SHALL.

4.REVIEWER IN IPL PREPARED BY FERRER-LIM. IN CASE OF ANONYMOUS OR PSEUDONYMOUS WORKS. THIS RULE ALSO APPLIES TO POSTHUMOUS WORKS. FAIR USE OF THE BROADCAST SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS UNDER SECTION 185. FIFTY (50) YEARS FROM THE MAKING. 49A) Infringement – doing an act pertaining to copyrighted works that one is not authorized to do.6. IN CASE OF BROADCASTS.1.2 SHALL APPLY. 216. AS THE CASE MAY BE: PROVIDED. 3. 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. FIFTY (50) YEARS FROM THE END OF THE YEAR IN WHICH THE PERFORMANCE TOOK PLACE. ANY PERSON INFRINGING A RIGHT PROTECTED UNDER THIS LAW SHALL BE LIABLE: (A) TO AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING SUCH INFRINGEMENT. 212. THE TERM SHALL BE FIFTY (50) YEARS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION AND. 213. AS WELL AS ALL PLATES. SEC. USING SHORT EXCERPTS FOR REPORTING CURRENT EVENTS. 28. 216.2. THE EXTENDED TERM SHALL BE APPLIED ONLY TO OLD WORKS WITH SUBSISTING PROTECTION UNDER THE PRIOR LAW.2 TO 213. UPON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THE COURT MAY PRESCRIBE. AMONG OTHERS. IF UNPUBLISHED. TERM OF PROTECTION FOR PERFORMERS. Getting a search warrant in criminal cases. INCLUDING LEGAL COSTS AND OTHER EXPENSES.1 AND 213. BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE SAID PERIOD. 217. SALES INVOICES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS EVIDENCING SALES. OR OTHER MEANS FOR MAKING SUCH INFRINGING COPIES AS THE COURT MAY ORDER. P. IF UNPUBLISHED. CHAPTER XVI TERM OF PROTECTION SEC. MOLDS. CHAPTER XVII INFRINGEMENT FINAL EXAM SEC. copying took place Q. THE COPYRIGHT SHALL BE PROTECTED FOR FIFTY (50) YEARS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE WORK WAS FIRST LAWFULLY PUBLISHED: PROVIDED. 216. 213. 217.2. AND 212. 213. D. 213. CHARMAGNE 212. 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. 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. Q. THE COURT MAY ALSO ORDER THE DEFENDANT TO DESIST FROM AN INFRINGEMENT.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. THE RIGHTS GRANTED TO PERFORMERS AND PRODUCERS OF SOUND RECORDINGS UNDER THIS LAW SHALL EXPIRE: (A) FOR PERFORMANCES NOT INCORPORATED IN RECORDINGS. THAT SUCH WORKS IF NOT PUBLISHED BEFORE SHALL BE PROTECTED FOR FIFTY (50) YEARS COUNTED FROM THE MAKING OF THE WORK. 212. THE ECONOMIC RIGHTS SHALL BE PROTECTED DURING THE LIFE OF THE LAST SURVIVING AUTHOR AND FOR FIFTY (50) YEARS AFTER HIS DEATH.3. (C) DELIVER UNDER OATH. What do you want in SW? A. (D) DELIVER UNDER OATH FOR DESTRUCTION WITHOUT ANY COMPENSATION ALL INFRINGING COPIES OR DEVICES. 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 19 . IN CASE OF AUDIO-VISUAL WORKS INCLUDING THOSE PRODUCED BY PROCESS ANALOGOUS TO PHOTOGRAPHY OR ANY PROCESS FOR MAKING AUDIO-VISUAL RECORDINGS. SEC.3. – 213. access (person knows or ought to know that work is copyrighted) 4. WHICH THE COURT MAY DEEM PROPER. OR. No injury = no crime? A. CALCULATION OF TERM. FROM THE DATE OF MAKING. NO.5. Seize goods – seize the infringing copies so damage (lost sales) will stop immediately 2. 2.1. act is unauthorized 2. THE PROTECTION SHALL BE FOR FIFTY (50) YEARS FROM PUBLICATION OF THE WORK AND. IN LIEU OF ACTUAL DAMAGES AND PROFITS. USE SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF TEACHING OR FOR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. Seize equipment used for reproduction 3. (E) SUCH OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS. (B) PAY TO THE COPYRIGHT PROPRIETOR OR HIS ASSIGNS OR HEIRS SUCH ACTUAL DAMAGES. AS HE MAY HAVE INCURRED DUE TO THE INFRINGEMENT AS WELL AS THE PROFITS THE INFRINGER MAY HAVE MADE DUE TO SUCH INFRINGEMENT. FURTHER. IN CASE OF WORKS OF APPLIED ART THE PROTECTION SHALL BE FOR A PERIOD OF TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEARS FROM THE DATE OF MAKING. IN AN INFRINGEMENT ACTION. 215. CRIMINAL PENALTIES. 215.1. THE TERM SHALL BE TWENTY (20) YEARS FROM THE DATE THE BROADCAST TOOK PLACE. FIFTY (50) YEARS FROM THE END OF THE YEAR IN WHICH THE RECORDING TOOK PLACE. 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. WISE AND EQUITABLE AND THE DESTRUCTION OF INFRINGING COPIES OF THE WORK EVEN IN THE EVENT OF ACQUITTAL IN A CRIMINAL CASE.4. IN CASE OF PHOTOGRAPHIC WORKS. SEC.1. Seize documents to prove sales (to compute actual damages) and to find out his real source. AND (B) FOR SOUND OR IMAGE AND SOUND RECORDINGS AND FOR PERFORMANCES INCORPORATED THEREIN. 214.1. IN CASE OF WORKS OF JOINT AUTHORSHIP.5. FOR IMPOUNDING DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE ACTION. INCLUDING THE PAYMENT OF MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. Elements/What must be Proven 1. 215. THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTIONS 213. TO PREVENT THE ENTRY INTO THE CHANNELS OF COMMERCE OF IMPORTED GOODS THAT INVOLVE AN INFRINGEMENT. IMMEDIATELY AFTER CUSTOMS CLEARANCE OF SUCH GOODS. SUCH DAMAGES WHICH TO THE COURT SHALL APPEAR TO BE JUST AND SHALL NOT BE REGARDED AS PENALTY. THAT WHERE.2. SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTIONS 213. 213. . PRODUCERS AND BROADCASTING ORGANIZATIONS. Hmm… Seems like it. TERM OF PROTECTION. ALL ARTICLES AND THEIR PACKAGING ALLEGED TO INFRINGE A COPYRIGHT AND IMPLEMENTS FOR MAKING THEM. THE USE BY A NATURAL PERSON EXCLUSIVELY FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL PURPOSES. REMEDIES FOR INFRINGEMENT. THE AUTHOR'S IDENTITY IS REVEALED OR IS NO LONGER IN DOUBT. 213. You want to: 1.

3. but nevertheless continued airing It's a Date. However. Inc. CORPORATE WHOSE NAME APPEARS ON AN AUDIO-VISUAL WORK IN THE USUAL MANNER SHALL. DRILON Petitioner BJ Productions.1. Meanwhile. THEREBY OCCASIONING UNNECESSARY COSTS OR DELAY IN THE PROCEEDINGS. discontinue airing It's a Date. 218. 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. Inc. No.2. the complaint was eventually dismissed Secretary of Justice Franklin Drilon. 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. 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. 220. TO BE AN INFRINGING COPY OF THE WORK FOR THE PURPOSE OF: (A) SELLING. PUTS IN ISSUE THE QUESTIONS OF WHETHER COPYRIGHT SUBSISTS IN A WORK OR OTHER SUBJECT MATTER TO WHICH THE ACTION RELATES.A STATEMENT CONCERNING A WORK. claim that the presentation of the master tapes was not necessary. OR HIRE. (N) SEC. whether the person knows that the DVDs are counterfeit or not. THE NATURAL PERSON WHOSE NAME IS INDICATED ON A WORK IN THE USUAL MANNER AS THE AUTHOR SHALL. 217. BJ Productions. THIS PROVISION SHALL BE APPLICABLE EVEN IF THE NAME IS A PSEUDONYM.1. Petitioners.2. Inc. Inc. BE PRESUMED TO BE THE MAKER OF SAID WORK. since written descriptions of the formats of the two television shows were presented during the preliminary investigation. N. THE COURT SHALL CONSIDER THE VALUE OF THE INFRINGING MATERIALS THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS PRODUCED OR MANUFACTURED AND THE DAMAGE THAT THE COPYRIGHT OWNER HAS SUFFERED BY REASON OF THE INFRINGEMENT. OR (C) TRADE EXHIBIT OF THE ARTICLE IN PUBLIC. After the sale. Upon complaint of BJ Productions. had a copyright to Rhoda and Me and demanding that IXL Productions. Inc. Respondents in this case also contend that BJ Production. (B) IMPRISONMENT OF THREE (3) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY TO SIX (6) YEARS PLUS A FINE RANGING FROM ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P150.1. SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT IN CASES OF INSOLVENCY. (N) SEC. Sometime in 1991. ANY PERSON WHO AT THE TIME WHEN COPYRIGHT SUBSISTS IN A WORK HAS IN HIS POSSESSION AN ARTICLE WHICH HE KNOWS. FINAL EXAM (C) WHERE THE DEFENDANT. OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE TO AN EXTENT THAT WILL PREJUDICE THE RIGHTS OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER IN THE WORK. sought a meeting with BJ Productions. in order to do away with the good faith defense. Inc. IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF TO THE CONTRARY. OR BY WAY OF TRADE OFFERING OR EXPOSING FOR SALE. 219. then wrote a letter to the president of IXL Productions. 220. WITHOUT GOOD FAITH.2. 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. CHARMAGNE (P50. the IP code provides an exception.000) TO ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P150. 219. Inc. 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. COPYRIGHT SUBSISTED IN THE WORK OR OTHER SUBJECT MATTER. INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION OF WORKS. Inc. (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. It's a Date. THE PERSON OR BODY.2. 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. (C) IMPRISONMENT OF SIX (6) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY TO NINE (9) YEARS PLUS A FINE RANGING FROM FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500.REVIEWER IN IPL PREPARED BY FERRER-LIM.500.000) FOR THE THIRD AND SUBSEQUENT OFFENSES. Q. However. LETTING FOR HIRE. 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. submitted to the National Library an addendum to its Certificate of Copyright specifying the show's format and style of presentation. The law clearly provides when one does not know or it is impossible to know that the copy is infringed. OR OUGHT TO KNOW.49. there is no longer possession. RECORDED IN AN INTERNATIONAL REGISTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY TO WHICH THE PHILIPPINES IS OR MAY BECOME A PARTY. on the other hand. . BE PRESUMED TO BE THE AUTHOR OF THE WORK. AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE. It is thus very important to do controlled buys. Inc. SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS TRUE UNTIL THE CONTRARY IS PROVED EXCEPT: 220. 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. Mistake of fact is a defense only in crimes mala in se. and RPN Channel 9. he can be punished. on the other hand. was the holder/grantee of a Certificate of Copyright of Rhoda and Me.D. discovered that another television show. Inc. SEC..000) FOR THE SECOND OFFENSE. PRESUMPTION OF AUTHORSHIP. 217.. 218. SHALL BE GUILTY OF AN OFFENSE AND SHALL BE LIABLE ON CONVICTION TO IMPRISONMENT AND FINE AS ABOVE MENTIONED. Inc. IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF TO THE CONTRARY.000) FOR THE FIRST OFFENSE. BJ Productions. B.000) TO FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500. WHERE THE STATEMENT IS CONTRADICTED BY ANOTHER STATEMENT RECORDED IN THE INTERNATIONAL REGISTER. Therefore. It's a Date was produced by IXL Productions.000) TO ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P1. BJ Productions. upon the petition of IXL Productions. JOAQUIN V.'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 . However. Inc. IN AN ACTION UNDER THIS CHAPTER. asserted that the format of Rhoda and Me is a product of ingenuity and skill and is thus entitled to copyright protection. 20 . IN DETERMINING THE NUMBER OF YEARS OF IMPRISONMENT AND THE AMOUNT OF FINE. WHERE THE STATEMENT CANNOT BE VALID UNDER THIS ACT OR ANY OTHER LAW CONCERNING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. 218. Is good faith a valid defense in copyright infringement? A. (D) IN ALL CASES. WHERE THE PSEUDONYM LEAVES NO DOUBT AS TO THE IDENTITY OF THE AUTHOR. Inc. On 1973. good faith is a defense. Inc. THE ARTICLE. as the two shows were practically exact copies of the other. a dating game show aired from 1970 to 1977. Informing them that BJ Productions. an information for violation of P. only the act of possession can be protected with good faith. AND (B) WHERE THE SUBSISTENCE OF THE COPYRIGHT IS ESTABLISHED. No. Petitioners. BJ Productions. (B) HE OR THE PERSON NAMED THEREIN IS THE OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHT. IN AN ACTION UNDER THIS CHAPTER. Inc. (B) DISTRIBUTING THE ARTICLE FOR PURPOSE OF TRADE.D. It was also from these descriptions that the investigating prosecutor found substantial similarities and ruled that there was indeed infringement of copyright. Violations of the IP Code are mala prohibitum. IXL Productions. then filed a petition with the Supreme Court questioning this decision of Secretary Drilon. OR THE OWNERSHIP OF COPYRIGHT IN SUCH WORK OR SUBJECT MATTER. AND (C) THE COPY OF THE WORK OR OTHER SUBJECT MATTER ANNEXED THERETO IS A TRUE COPY THEREOF. IXL Productions. with a similar format to Rhoda and Me was being aired on RPN Channel 9. 219.49 was filed against the officers of IXL Productions.

If so much is taken that the value of the original is sensibly diminished. Petitioners Pacita Habana. be copied. system. that is. Petitioners found that several pages of the respondent's book are similar. copying alone is not what is prohibited. Books 1 and 2. even if they are expressed. so you can seize broadcast equipment. and he copied at his peril52. Drilon – It is very difficult to prove reproduction of plays and shows unless there is EXACT copying. method or operation. This is precisely what the law on copyright protected. being a statutory right.D. and on terms and conditions specified in the statute. Hence. If you file civil case and get an injunction. Alicia Cinco and Jovita Fernando are the authors and copyright owner. equipment would have been moved and they would be broadcasting from a different office. Joaquin – criminal case. method of operation. is an important consideration. After their demand that respondent pay damages and cease and desist from selling the infringing copies of respondent's book went unheeded. principle. No. HABANA – civil case. Could you give me the basic provisions governing administrative cases? A. consists in the doing by any person. such that no similarity or dissimilarity may be found by merely describing the general copyright! format of both dating game shows. and may be obtained and enjoyed only with respect to the subjects and by the persons. What action would you recommend? A. 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.49 enumerates the classes of work entitled to copyright protection. explained. The copying must produce an "injurious effect". Notably. illustrated. In copyrighting books the purpose is to give protection to the intellectual product of an author. If so much is taken that the value of the original work is substantially diminished. explained. scheme or presentation. HABANA V. She circulated the book DEP for commercial use and did not acknowledge petitioners as her source. principle. a copy of a piracy is an infringement of the original. You need to get the equipment fast. Q. and infringement of copyright. illustrations and illustrative examples in their own book. the Court found indicia of guilt on the part of the respondent. or piracy. 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. video and audio. To what extent can copying be injurious to the author of the book being copied? In this case. and her failure to acknowledge the same in her book is an infringement of petitioner's copyright. petitioners discovered that respondent's books were strikingly to the contents. 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 enumerating what are subject to copyright.REVIEWER IN IPL PREPARED BY FERRER-LIM. This being th8' case. procedure. the format of a dating game show falls under what is referred to as "unprotected subject matter". Joaquin v.. (In the immortal words of Johnbee Sison) Certainly. BJ Production. In the course of revising their published works. all the pages cited by petitioners to contain portion of their book were conspicuously eliminated. Q. discovery or mere data. it is not necessary that the whole or even a large portion of the work shall have been copied. system. the format or mechanics of a television show is not included in this list of protected works. Section 2 of P. regardless of the form in which it is described. the Supreme Court held that this would be true had the respondent mentioned the source and the name of the author in her book.D. or embodied in such work48. which book was covered by copyrights issued to them. to wit: cinematographic works and works produced by a process analogous to cinematography or any process for making audiovisual recordings. Lastly. Administrative cases Filed against manufacturers AND retailers. civil case maybe because it’s harder to prove anyway and no immediate relief can be obtained. A provincial cable company without license to broadcast Star Channels picked out the signal and broadcasted. In determining the question of infringement. To constitute infringement. there is an infringement of copyright and to an injurious extent. Q. In TV shows. are the author/publisher and distributor/seller of another published work entitled "Developing English Proficiency". Nevertheless. therefore. or discovery.49. It is therefore clear that under law. The copyright does not extend to an idea. the right is only such as the statute confers. and it is no defense that the pirate. 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. Series 1. concept. by the time you get it. as falling within the class of works mentioned in Section 2 of P. which is a case of plagiarism and copyright infringement. Respondents Felicidad Robles and Goodwill Trading Co. Books 1 and 2. the amount of matter copied from the copyrighted work.D. there is a clear case of appropriation of copyrighted work for her benefit that respondent Robles committed. Also. Why? A. CHARMAGNE Held: The format of a show is not copyrightable. Section 2 of P. or the labours of the original author are substantially and to an injurious extent appropriated by another. No. that is sufficient in point of law to constitute piracy. No protection shall extend to any idea. in such cases. as such. without the consent of the owner of the copyright. In cases of infringement. did not know whether or not he was infringing any copyright. the work is appropriated. he at least knew that what he was copying was not his. For this reason. the Court held that it was not an excuse for them to be identical even in the examples contained in their books. The Court held that Mere description by words of the general format of the two dating game shows is insufficient.'s copyright covers only the audio-visual recordings of each episode of Rhoda and Me. Held: Respondent's act of lifting from the book of petitioners substantial portions of discussions and examples. the presentation of the master videotape in evidence was indispensable to the determination of the existence of probable cause. In computer CD crimes – you need immediate relief. Criminal. illustrated or embodied in a work49. College English for Today.49. No. Infringement of a copyright is a trespass on FINAL EXAM a private domain owned and occupied by the owner of the copyright. RULES AND REGULATIONS ON ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS FOR VIOLATION OF LAWS INVOLVING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS 21 . Thus. As to substantial reproduction of a book. 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. procedure. even if the petitioners and the respondent were of the same background in terms of teaching and orientation. which is a synonymous term in this connection. protected by law. the protection afforded by the law cannot be extended to cover them. concept. The Court further noted that when the respondent's book was re-issued as a revised version. and. the Court found that the respondent had pulled out from Goodwill bookstores her book upon learning of petitioners' complaint while denying petitioners' demand. or even a large portion of it. it does not necessarily require that the entire copyrighted work. Q. Inc. petitioners filed a compliant for infringement and unfair competition against the respondent. Copyright. refers to finished works and not to concepts. In this case. ROBLES This case involves the question of plagiarism and the possible infringement of copyrighted materials in a textbook. 200K above – Intellectual Property Office 200K below – DTI’s Bureau of Trade Regulation and Consumer Protection. Injunction is all that you can get. seizure of products so you can stop sales and your loss of profits. and Workbook for College Freshman English. if not all together a copy of petitioner's book. process. 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 essence of intellectual piracy should be essayed in conceptual terms in order to underscore its gravity by an appropriate understanding thereof. Inc.s of duly issued certificates of copyright registration covering their published works. 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. Jurisdiction? A.

Complaint. Whether or not the parties submit a final pleading such as memorandum. Rule 3 POWERS OF HEARING OFFICERS Section 1. Rule 14 22 . — A judgment or final order determining the merits of the case shall be in writing. Original Jurisdiction. with a certificate that such judgment or final order has become final and executory. FINAL ORDERS AND ENTRY THEREOF Section 1. 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. Powers of Hearing Officers. 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. A fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence. signed by the Director. Administrative Penalties Imposable. — 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. The Director shall coordinate with local enforcement agencies for the strict and effective implementation and enforcement of these Regulations. The date of finality of the judgment or final order shall be deemed to be the date of its entry. CHARMAGNE Rule 1 DEFINITIONS.00 (f) The cancellation of any permit. 2. 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. or if the date be unknown. 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. — (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. from the date of discovery of the violation. Rule 12 ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES AND SANCTIONS Section 1. — After formal investigation. correspondence and other records which are material to the case.00). grant provisional remedies in accordance with these Regulations and the Rules of Court. — (a) A Hearing Officer conducting the hearing and investigating shall be empowered to administer oaths and affirmations. (e) The imposition of administrative fines in such amount as deemed reasonable by the Director. Rule 11 DECISIONS AND ORDERS Section 1. and should knowledge thereof be acquired after the filing of the complaint…. (i) Censure Rule 13 JUDGMENTS. paper. stating clearly and distinctly the facts and law on which they are based and signed by the Director. authority or registration which is being secured by the respondent from the Office. (b) Decisions and final orders shall be saved by mail.000. the Director shall forthwith cause the entry of the judgment or final order in the appropriate Register of the Office. document. RULES OF COURT Sec. license. that availment of the provisional remedies may be granted in accordance with these Regulations and the provisions of the Rules of Court. 2. or the suspension of the validity thereof not exceeding one (1) year. It means such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support or justify a conclusion. issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum to compel attendance of parties and witnesses and the production of any book. Evidence Required. authority. Sec. — (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. (c) The condemnation or seizure of products which are subject of the offense. 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. 2. Rendition of Decision. the status of the same must be stated. — If no appeal is filed within the time provided in these Regulations. the Director. All decisions determining the merits of cases shall be in writing. (g) The withholding of any permit. — Substantial evidence shall be sufficient to support decision or order. and filed with the appropriate Register of the Office. Interpretation. however. with the ultimate decision on the merits of all the issues involved being left to the Director. Entry of judgments and Final Orders. stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. Rule 4 PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT Rule 5 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Rule 6 CONTEMPT Rule 7 CALENDAR AND ADJOURNMENTS Rule 8 DEPOSITIONS AND DISCOVERIES Rule 9 HEARING FINAL EXAM Rule 10 EVIDENCE Section 1. Rendition of Judgment and Final Orders. Sec. (h) The assessment and award of damages. When and to Whom Filed. personal service or publication as the case may require. and make preliminary rulings on questions raised at the hearings. Provided however.REVIEWER IN IPL PREPARED BY FERRER-LIM. that if any such action is pending. license. the case shall be decided by the Bureau within thirty (30) calendar days from submission as provided herein. or registration which may have been granted by the Office.… (b) The acceptance of a voluntary assurance of compliance or discontinuance as may be imposed. (d) The forfeiture of paraphernalia and all real and personal properties which have been used in the commission of the offense.000. which shall in no case be less than P5. The record shall contain the dispositive part of the judgment or final order and shall be signed by the Director.

3 and possessor knows or ought to know that such is copyrighted. • 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. Q. Q. 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 don’t expect to obtain substantial damages. so they have lesser competence as to IP laws. Is there any disadvantage in filing the case with an administrative agency? A. • The entire battle is fought at the getting of the injunction. (D) WORKS FIRST PUBLISHED IN THE PHILIPPINES. (d) No motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Director General shall be allowed. Yes. (B) AUDIO-VISUAL WORKS THE PRODUCER OF WHICH HAS HIS HEADQUARTERS OR HABITUAL RESIDENCE IN THE PHILIPPINES. Is it possible for him to obtain protection in RP? A. Can administrative agencies impose damages? A. Q. Bulk of the evidence is presented here. Note that in software piracy. Does the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative relief apply? Do you have to file administrative case before you file civil/criminal case? A. Q. IP code cases. Q. • Not as expensive for the client. So even if case goes on for 20 years. But if case is clear cut. What kind of determination does the agency make. 221. 221. Admini Q. civil. Yes. AND (E) WORKS FIRST PUBLISHED IN ANOTHER COUNTRY BUT ALSO PUBLISHED IN THE PHILIPPINES WITHIN THIRTY DAYS. POINTS OF ATTACHMENT FOR WORKS UNDER SECTIONS 172 AND 173. The law does not make a distinction. Sec. There is no limit as to the amount of damages it may award. But it is criminally punished when it falls under Sec. Finality of Decision and Order. Is possession of copyrighted goods punishable? A. go to RTC. But it may not impose imprisonment. He should publish in RP within 30 days. don’t file this.REVIEWER IN IPL PREPARED BY FERRER-LIM. Appeal. He does not need to be a Filipino or a resident of RP to obtain the protection. he can’t manufacture fakes • Most expensive for the client because you pay trademark investigators to do the test purchases. Yes. so police will file for SW. You can file any case. 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. you are automatically given protection in RP. administrative or criminal. (N) Q.1. Should the author be the one to cause the publication of the work for his work to obtain protection? A. and also because the losing party can file an administrative case against him in the Sandiganbayan for malfeasance. Q. At the Prelim Inves stage. does it determine guilt? A. violation). if you publish in Japan. this is easier because there is an actual 100% reproduction • Immediate relief is needed by seizure of means of production. Note thought that it is hard to overcome presumption of this knowledge that work is copyrighted. How Perfected. No. IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NATIONALITY OR RESIDENCE OF THE AUTHORS. the treaty provisions require that protection be extended to all citizens of signatory countries. criminal. What if you publish in a non-member country like China. Q. 217. it can’t impose penalties. 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. No. 2. Describe the appeals process. If you are a national of a country which ratified the TRIPS or the Berne Convention. Summary of Crim/Civ/Admi Pros and Cons Criminal Civil Administrative • Hardest to prove – requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.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. A book is published in China by a Chinese. CHARMAGNE APPEAL Section 1. No. OR HAVE THEIR HABITUAL RESIDENCE IN THE PHILIPPINES. Note that in major cities though. Decisions of the RTC have more weight because administrative cases are summary and is not bound by the technical rules on evidence. — 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. (C) WORKS OF ARCHITECTURE ERECTED IN THE PHILIPPINES OR OTHER ARTISTIC WORKS INCORPORATED IN A BUILDING OR OTHER STRUCTURE LOCATED IN THE PHILIPPINES. But RTC hears all sorts of cases. the government does not defend him. Administrative agencies are hesitant to award large amounts of damages.2. Yes! Without a determination of guilt (or at least. to make sure that the IP issues are appreciated. since this is the court’s job. What if you are not able to publish within the 30 day window. 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. Q. so no need to get seizure in civil case . — (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. There is more chance that the IPO case will be reversed on appeal. and you miss the 30 day window in the Philippines? How can you 23 . In this case. What kind of cases does the IPO hear? A. there are some courts assigned to hear only IP cases. (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. 221. CHAPTER XVIII SCOPE OF APPLICATION SEC. FINAL EXAM Delivery under oath – can be done even in civil cases. Q. accused will quash SW to claim that evidence obtained is inadmissible. A. Will also question finding of probable cause by fiscal to DOJ • Important to pay for storage so evidence seized will not be lost. Yes. Why would you file a case with an administrative agency rather than regular courts? A. If no injunction is obtained. can you ever obtain protection? A. So he is hesitant even to grant temporary relief like injunctions. Therefore.

manufactured computers and designed software to run those computers. . 224. CHARMAGNE obtain copyright protection in TRIPS or Berne Convention signatory countries? A. 225. Peak Computer. RP is a first to create jurisdiction.1. AND 223.. You obtain copyright by registration. which is necessary to run any other program on the computer. 1.broader reproduction rights. Implied license – when the website where the material is found contains no restrictions on copying 2. (N) SEC.THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT ON THE PROTECTION OF PERFORMERS SHALL APPLY TO: 222. internet. OR (B) ARE INCORPORATED IN SOUND RECORDINGS THAT ARE PROTECTED UNDER THIS ACT. manufacture and use of the anticircumvention devices 2. What is SB 1704 by Ople? A. Prescriptive periods: Civil case – 4 years Criminal case – follow the RPC based on penalty (i. United States is a first to register jurisdiction. Anti-circumvention measures to beimplemented . .2. But you can still bring a case for this under a criminal action. Peak's service of MAI computers includes routine maintenance and emergency repairs. right to make work available 3. (N) SEC. 222. v. THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL ALSO APPLY TO PERFORMERS WHO. Q.REVIEWER IN IPL PREPARED BY FERRER-LIM. PEAK COMPUTER. It may not be possible to file a civil case. PERFORMERS WHO ARE NOT NATIONALS OF THE PHILIPPINES BUT WHOSE PERFORMANCES: (A) TAKE PLACE IN THE PHILIPPINES. Terms of Protection extended (from 50 years to 75 years) 4. SOUND RECORDINGS THAT WERE FIRST PUBLISHED IN THE PHILIPPINES. 991 F. POINTS OF ATTACHMENT FOR SOUND RECORDINGS. . What are some issues on fair use in the internet? A. 228. the website control the access.. Sec. Q. for the discharge of its services under this Act.1. 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. there may be several copyright owners in the internet setting. The company continues to service its computers and the software necessary to operate the computers. is a company organized in 1990 that maintains computer systems for its clients.e. In August. Fair use 3. Enforcement – making the IP Code easier to enforce with stiffer penalties Q. SEC. 224. CHAPTER XIX INSTITUTION OF ACTIONS SEC. SEC. making the person who allowed the making of copies an accessory or accomplice. 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. disclosure and to prevent alteration (it is easier to make alterations over the internet). 222.1. . You obtain copyright by virtue of creation. AND (B) BROADCASTS TRANSMITTED FROM TRANSMITTERS SITUATED IN THE PHILIPPINES.THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT ON THE PROTECTION OF SOUND RECORDINGS SHALL APPLY TO: 223. etc. OR (C) WHICH HAS NOT BEEN FIXED IN SOUND RECORDING BUT ARE CARRIED BY BROADCAST QUALIFYING FOR PROTECTION UNDER THIS ACT. US is not a signatory of the Berne.THE SECTION OR DIVISION OF THE NATIONAL LIBRARY AND THE SUPREME COURT LIBRARY CHARGED WITH RECEIVING COPIES AND INSTRUMENTS DEPOSITED AND WITH KEEPING RECORDS FINAL EXAM REQUIRED UNDER THIS ACT AND EVERYTHING IN IT SHALL BE OPENED TO PUBLIC INSPECTION. SEC. 223. POINTS OF ATTACHMENT FOR BROADCASTS. It is on proposed amendments on the copyright portion of the IP Code. B.would penalize the sale. such fees as may be promulgated by it from time to time subject to the approval of the Department Head.2. 229. PERFORMERS WHO ARE NATIONALS OF THE PHILIPPINES.2. OWNERSHIP OF DEPOSIT AND INSTRUMENTS.The Copyright Section of the National Library shall be classified as a Division upon the effectivity of this Act. Broader reproduction rights . Simply publish in a country which ratified the TRIPS but allows for longer period for publication than 30 days. Peak maintains MAI computers for more than one hundred clients in Southern California. JURISDICTION. MAI SYSTEMS CORP. There is no specific provision for contributory infringement in the IP Code. AND TO PRODUCERS OF SOUND RECORDINGS AND BROADCASTING ORGANIZATIONS WHICH. . SB 1704 may be passed. When is it possible to use digital works (found over the internet) without infringement? A. 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. Also. DAMAGES. 1991. POINTS OF ATTACHMENT FOR PERFORMERS. The National Library shall have the power to collect. The Berne Convention reinforces the first to create doctrine. It is when you allow others to make copies. Since the Senate has already ratified the WiPO. This accounts for between fifty and seventy percent of Peak's business. INC.NO DAMAGES MAY BE RECOVERED UNDER THIS ACT AFTER FOUR (4) YEARS FROM THE TIME THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE. 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. Malfunctions often are related to the failure of circuit boards inside the computers. 227. Copyright Division Fees.. length of imprisonment. ACTIONS UNDER THIS ACT SHALL BE COGNIZABLE BY THE COURTS WITH APPROPRIATE JURISDICTION UNDER EXISTING LAW. Q. What is contributory infringement? A. 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.Sony and the chip . Information posted is part of public domain or is not copyrightable Q. Content maybe owned by the author. So you can go after the website owner and the ISP and the source of their liability would be the violation of the ECA. SOUND RECORDINGS THE PRODUCERS OF WHICH ARE NATIONALS OF THE PHILIPPINES. 224. 1993) MAI Systems Corp. 226. temporary and permanent reproduction. Some relevant provisions of the SB 1704 are: 1. . PUBLIC RECORDS. (N) N. and it may be necessary for a Peak technician to operate the computer and its operating system software in order to service the machine. Note however that SB 1740 provides for contributory infringement.1(C). It makes it more difficult to enforce the right to control access. Inc. What is the significance of the E-Commerce Act on copyright infringement? A. Eric Francis left his job as customer service manager at MAI and joined Peak. Internet gives (or requires) a new way of looking at copyright. until recently. Three other MAI employees 24 .WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION 7.2d 511 (9th Cir. amount of fine) CHAPTER XX MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS SEC. MAI software includes operating system software.

or read only memory) into the memory of a central processing unit ("CPU") causes a copy to be made.‖ 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. Members may avail themselves of the exceptions permitted under paragraph 1 in relation to judicial and administrative procedures. such acts constitute copyright infringement. and 2) Most Favored Nation Principle? A. Exempted from this obligation are any advantage. The Berne Convention for the protection of literary and artistic works is the Paris Act of July 24. that: "the loading of copyrighted computer software from a storage medium (hard disk. 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. The complaint includes counts alleging copyright infringement. the Rome Convention or the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits. misappropriation of trade secrets. reproduced. and. On March 17. (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. 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. In the absence of ownership of the copyright or express permission by license. 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. such enjoyment and such exercise shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work. What are the pertinent provisions on 1) national treatment. (3) Peak's loaning of MAI computers and software to its customers. and Francis. Consequently. the Berne Convention (1971). Peak argues that this loading of copyrighted software does not constitute a copyright violation because the "copy" created in RAM is not "fixed. 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. Principle of Independence of Protection. by or under the authority of the author. 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. CHARMAGNE joined Peak a short time later. The alleged copyright violations include: (1) Peak's running of MAI software licensed to Peak customers. The TRIPS is the agreement on the trade related aspects of rights. in granting the preliminary injunction. 2) principle of automatic protection and 3) principle of independence of protection? A. (c) in respect of the rights of performers. In respect of performers. 3. 1. false advertising. 2. or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. any advantage. favour. However. in respect of works for which they are protected under this convention. however. They are: 1. reproduced. MAI filed suit in the district court against Peak. (2) Peak's use of unlicensed software at its headquarters. Q. This conclusion is consistent with its finding. Q. Peak's president Vincent Chiechi. As part of diagnosing a computer problem at the customer site. (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. floppy disk. the extent of protection. What are the pertinent provisions of the TRIPS concerning 1) National Treatment. thereby enabling the technician to diagnose the problem. 1992. However.REVIEWER IN IPL PREPARED BY FERRER-LIM. 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. privilege or immunity accorded by a Member: (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. Held: To prevail on a claim of copyright infringement. MAI software licenses do not allow for the use or copying of MAI software by third parties such as Peak. Each of these alleged violations must be considered separately. Some businesses that had been using MAI to service their computers switched to Peak after learning of Francis's move. The Copyright Act then explains. producers of phonograms and broadcasting organizations. provided that such 25 . including trade in counterfeit goods. 2. Peak concedes that in maintaining its customer's computers. 2. allowing the technician to view the systems error log. as well as the rights specially granted by this Convention. respectively. Principle of automatic protection (2) The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality. in countries of the Union other than the country of origin. as well as the means of redress afforded to the author to protect his rights. or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. (3) Protection in the country of origin is governed by domestic law. apart from the provisions of this convention. a plaintiff must prove ownership of a copyright and a "`copying' of protectable expression" beyond the scope of a license. the rights which their respective laws do now or may hereafter grant to their nationals. is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived. 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. What is the TRIPS Agreement? A. MAI software licenses allow MAI customers to use the software for their own internal information processing. including the designation of an address for service or the appointment of an agent within the jurisdiction of a Member. he shall enjoy in that country the same rights as national authors. trademark infringement." However. the Paris Convention (1967). and unfair competition. National Treatment: 1. 1971. Q. favour. ―A work is "fixed" in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord. any "copying" done by Peak is "beyond the scope" of the license. Most Favored Nation Treatment With regard to the protection of intellectual property. 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. Therefore. It is not disputed that MAI owns the copyright to the software at issue here.[n3] This allowed use necessarily includes the loading of the software into the computer's random access memory ("RAM") by a MAI customer. What is the Berne Convention? A." We find that this conclusion is supported by the record and by the law. this obligation only applies in respect of the rights provided under this Agreement. which is part of the operating system. subject to the exceptions already provided in. shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the country where protection is claimed. Peak vigorously disputes the district court's conclusion that a "copying" occurred under the Copyright Act. when the author is not a national of the country of origin of the work for which is protected under this Convention. the Peak technician runs the computer's operating system software. MAI has adequately shown that the representation created in the RAM is "sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived. National Treatment FINAL EXAM (1) Authors shall enjoy. producers of phonograms and broadcasting organizations not provided under this Agreement. Q.

FINAL EXAM 26 . CHARMAGNE agreements are notified to the Council for TRIPS and do not constitute an arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination against nationals of other Members.REVIEWER IN IPL PREPARED BY FERRER-LIM.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful