Copyright Laws, Issues Concerns and Cases

by
MILAGROS SANTOS-ONG
Seminar-Workshop on Research in Librarianship,
Challenges, Competencies and Strategies
La Vista Resort, Pansol, Laguna on October 10, 2007
COPYRIGHT LAWS
1.

Law on Intellectual Property on January 10, 1879 published in the Gaceta de Madrid
on January 12, 1879.
2. The Spanish Copyright Law came to the Phil by way of the Royal Decree of May 5, 1887.
3. The US Copyright Law was enforced in the Philippines when Spain ceded it to the United
States under the Treaty of Paris of 10th December 1898.
4. The first intellectual property law was Act 3134 was passed by the Philippine Legislature on
March 6, 1924, patterned after the US Copyright Law.
5. Art. 721-724 of Rep. Act No. 386 (Civil Code of 1949. Provisions are on Intellectual Creations.
6. Presidential Decree No. 49, Decree on Intellectual Property. One of the first laws passed
during Martial Law on December 15, 1972.
7. Presidential Decree No. 285, Authorizing the Compulsory Licensing or Reprinting of
Educational Scientific or Cultural Books and Materials as a Temporary or Emergency
Measure Whenever the Prices Thereof Become So Exorbitant as to be Detrimental to
the National Interest. September 3, 1973
8. Republic Act No. 8293, An Act Prescribing the Intellectual Property Code and Establishing
the Intellectual Property Office, was passed June 6 1997 and took effect January
1, 1998. This law incorporated the provisions of international agreements wherein the
Philippines is a signatory such as the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and
Artistic Works( August 1, 1951), the United States entered into an Exchange of Notes on
the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights on April 6, 1993, WTO
TRIPS Agreement(Agreement on Trade Related Aspects in Intellectual Property Rights)
on December 15, 1994 and the December 1996, the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO) Geneva Protocol which is significant for it has covered the
protection of digital technology.
9. Republic Act No. 8792, An Act Providing for the Recognition and Use of Electronic
Commercial and, Non-Commercial Transactions, Penalties for Unlawful Use Thereof, and Other
Purpose, popularly known as the E-Commerce Law was signed into law on June 14, 2000,
Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Electronic Commerce Act one month after the approval
of the law, 13th July 2000.
COPYRIGHT PROVISIONS
Copyright is vested upon the author or creator from the time of creation irrespective of their mode or form of
expression, as well as their content, quality and purpose. Existing copyright laws primarily cover tangible or printed
literary and artistic works. Our copyright law , sec. 172, Republic Act No. 8293 explicitly included computer programs
in its enumeration of said works. However the use of mode or form of expression in section 172.2 maybe interpreted
as to cover digital works. Republic Act No. 8792 now provides more explicit provisions on digital works.
The author or the other creators of literary and artistic works, tangible/printed or digital are
guaranteed by the Copyright law the exclusive right to carry out, authorize or prevent for a determined limited time,
the following acts:
(a) Reproduction of the work or substantial portion of the work;
(b) Dramatization, translation, adaptation, abridgement, arrangement or other
transformation of the work;
(c) First public distribution of the original and each copy of the work by sale or other forms
of transfer of ownership;
(d) Public display of the original copy of the work;
(e) Public performance of the work;
(f) Other communication to the public of the work.

DURATION OF COPYRIGHT
Sec. 213.1 of Republic Act No. 8293

original and derivative works, protection subsists during the lifetime of the author and for 50 years
after his death. Joint authorship, the economic rights are protected during the lifetime of the
surviving author and for 50 years after his death.

anonymous or pseudonymous works, protection is for 50 years from the date of publication or from
the date of its making if unpublished, 50 years after his death

audio-visual or photographic works, be 50 years from publication or from its making, if

unpublished.

Works of applied arts, 25 years from the date of making

We, Librarians must be aware of the coverage and limitations of copyright laws and be guided:
1. in servicing its clients
2. in improving library operations such as Digitization
3. in conducting research and in the presentation of the research outputs
Unlike other professions, the law provides safeguards for librarians who fear that in the process of providing
the needed library service, they may be liable for copyright infringements.
ISSUES AND CONCERNS Safeguards for Librarians
Republic Act No. 8293 enumerates the following safeguards for librarians in providing effective
dissemination of information:
1. Fair Use Doctrine, Sec 185. Use of a copyrighted work for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching,
multiple copied for classroom use, scholarship, research and similar purposes is not copyright infringement and may
be considered as fair use. This privilege is given to people other than the copyright owner, to use the work even
without his consent for as long as it is done in a reasonable manner. To determine fair use, the following factors
should be considered:
(1) Purpose and character of the use, whether it is of commercial nature or non-profit
educational purposes;
(2) Nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) Amount and substantiality of the portion used to the copyrighted work as a whole;
(4) Effect of use upon the potential market for or value of the work.
There are two (2) cases involving intellectual property infringement on books. The first case
Pedro Serrano Laktaw v. Mamerto Paglinawan, G.R. No. 11937, April 1, 1918 (44 Phil. 856-866) involve the
reproduction of registered literary work entitled Diccionario Hispano-Tagalog which was copied in the book entitled
Diccionariong Kastila-Tagalog, in violation to article 7 of the Intellectual Property Law of January 10, 1879. The
Court rule that there was infringement and ordered the book to be pulled out of the market.
There are twenty nine (29) cases decided by the Supreme Court on copyright
(APPENDIX C), wherein the copyright owners complied with the copyright registration at the National Library.
However, there is only one that pertains to Fair use doctrine of Republic Act No. 8293, more specifically on
(3) Amount and substantiality of the portion used to the copyrighted work as a whole;
(4) Effect of use upon the potential market for or value of the work.
This second case Habana v. Robles, G.R. No. 131522, July 1, 1999 (369 Phil 764-798) when filed at the
trial court was pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 49 and in favor of the respondent. The Supreme Court decided
the case based on Republic Act No. 8293 for notwithstanding the change of the law, the same principles of economic
rights are found in sec. 177. This case clearly illustrates how the Supreme Court justices meticulously evaluate
facts vis--vis the law at hand in coming out with a fair and just decision. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions
of both courts but what is interesting is the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Davide Jr. is longer than the main
opinion and his evaluation and analysis of facts includes library practice and terminologies in cataloging and
classification

system of book classification, the different kinds of card

catalogs and their entries, use of punctuation marks,

paragraphs, the characteristics of an effective paragraph,

language structure, different parts of a book, etc.

recognized library classification systems (Dewey Decimal

System and the Library of Congress System), or how a book
can be divided into parts (frontispiece, title page,
copyright page, preface, table of contents, etc.) or to
the different headings used in a card catalogue (title card,
author card and subject card)

Pacita Habana, Alicia Cinco and Jovita Fernando filed a case against Felicidad Robles and Goodwill
Trading Co. Petitioners claim that respondents lifted, copied, plagiarized and/or transposed certain portions of their
book, College English for Today, (CET) without securing their permission. They claim that the textual content and
illustrations of their book was literally reproduced in the respondents book, Developing English Proficiency. *DEP)
In addition to plagiarism the complaint include misrepresentation on the part of the respondent which had adversely
and substantially diminished the sale of the petitioners book and caused them damage by way of unrealized income.
Both books were issued copyright registration.
Republic Act No. 8293:
177.1 Reproduction of the work or substantial portion of the work;
Sec. 184.1 Limitations on copyright.-- Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter V, the following acts shall
not constitute infringement of copyright:
(a) the recitation or performance of a work, once it has been lawfully made accessible to the public,
if done privately and free of charge or if made strictly for a charitable or religious institution or
society; [Sec. 10(1), P.D. No. 49]
(b) The making of quotations from a published work if they are compatible with fair use and only to
the extent justified for the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in
the form of press summaries; Provided, that the source and
the name of the author, if
appearing on the work are mentioned; (Sec. 11 third par. P.D.49)
(c) The making of quotations from a published work if they are compatible with fair use
and only to the extent justified for the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and
periodicals in the form of press summaries: Provided, That the source and the name of the
author, if appearing on the work, are mentioned.
(e) The inclusion of a work in a publication, broadcast, or other communication to the public,
sound recording of film, if such inclusion is made by way of illustration for teaching purposes and
is compatible with fair use: Provided, That the source and the name of the author, if
appearing in the work is mentioned;
In the above quoted provisions, work has reference to literary and artistic
creations and this includes books and other literary, scholarly and scientific works.
A copy of a piracy is an infringement of the original, and it is no defense that the pirate, in
such cases, did not know whether or not he was infringing any copyright; he at least knew that what he was copying
was not his, and he copied at his peril.
This is a classic case wherein there is only a microscopic difference that decided that resulted in the
Supreme Courts decision. In a division of five, there was one dissent. When one goes though the dissent, Chief
Justice Davides dissent a lot of us may say we agree.
To constitute infringement, Chief Justice Davide supports the findings of the Court of Appeals:
1. that there is infringement when the usurper must have copied or appropriated the original work of an
author or copyright proprietor. To test this, both works need to be compared. Both courts were of the opinion that
there were discernible similarity between the two but copied.
2. Both Chief Justice and the majority opinion agree that to constitute a substantial reproduction, it is not
necessary that the entire copyrighted work, or even a large portion of it, be copied, if so much is taken that the value

of the original is substantially diminished, or if the labors of the original author are substantially, and to an injurious
extent, appropriated. They differ only in the opinion as to the amount or degree to consider the appropriation of
the book to a substantial.
The Chief Justice and the Court of Appeals concluded that similarities exist due to the following:
1. the two books are on grammar
2. sources and materials are common , such as those claimed to have been lifted and literally reproduced
also appeared in earlier works, mostly by foreign authors.
3. Similarity in orientation and style can be attributed to the exposure of the authors to the APCAS syllabus
and their respective academic experience, teaching approaches and methodology.
Chief Justice Davide Jr. opinion that there was no copying and this, there was no unfair use was supported
be the definition of Fair use as a privilege to use the copyrighted material in a reasonable manner without the
consent of the copyrighted owner or as a copying the theme or ideas rather than their expression.
The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner based on the following grounds:
1.
2.

3.

lifting of substantial portions of discussions and example from petitioners book

failure to acknowledge them in respondents book
indicia of guilt or wrongdoing the act of respondent Robles of pulling out from Goodwill bookstores the
book DEP upon learning of petitioners complaint. It was further noted that when the book DEP was
re-issued as a revised version, all the pages cited by petitioners to contain portion of their book College
English for Today were eliminated.

The Court ruled that the copying alone is not the cause of infringement but injurious effect or the harm
that it has caused to the complainant. The injury caused by the respondent Robles is lifting from petitioners book
materials and misrepresenting them as her own. When respondent circulated the book for commercial use without
acknowledging petitioners as her source, this may have adversely and substantially diminished the sale of the
petitioners book and caused them damage by way of unrealized income.
Robles has fully explained that the portion or material of the book claimed by appellants to have been
copied or lifted from foreign books. She has duly proven that most of the topics or materials contained in her book,
with particular reference to those matters claimed by appellants to have been plagiarized were topics or matters
appearing not only in appellants and her books but also in earlier books on College English, including foreign books,
e.i. Edmund Burkes Speech on Conciliation, Boerigs Competence in English and Broughtons, Edmund Burkes
Collection.
The above quoted paragraph is the defense of Robles Admission that both are guilty of plagiarism.
Although the Supreme Court did not rule on it, by this admission, the proper party or parties that should have filed a
case of copyright infringement and plagiarism is Edmund Burke, Broughton and authors of earlier College English
books.
This case is may be classified as a landmark case for librarians for it is the only case
that deals with books and fair use of Republic Act No. 8293 and the following reasons:
1.

there are still a lot of people copy or lift materials in books and other literary works in their
researches without the consent or without acknowledging the it;
2. sad to say that we have in our field those who were guilty of copyright infringement and/or
plagiarism but were either not prosecuted and/or just required to resign. This is probably why I often
times say that librarians always revised our Code of Ethics, I think as frequent as the change in
Chairmanship in the Board of Librarians but no ethical offense has been death with.
In the United States two cases which involve researchers and students were decided differently, one
declared fair use and the other unfair use. In Williams & Wilkins Co. v. U.S. (487 F2d 1345), the United States Court
of Claims held that the large-scale photocopying of entire journal articles for the use of researchers, and private
commercial organizations was fair use for lack of proof that the copyright holders suffered substantial harm from
copying and that there would be danger to medical research if the practice would be made a copyright infringement.
Decided differently was the case of Basic Books Inc. v. Kinkos Graphics (758 F. Supp. 1522). Although these
coursepacks were for students, they were used to commercially exploit the excerpts without paying the permission to
do so.

2. Reproduction of Published Works, Sec 187. Reproduction is allowed under the following
conditions:
(a) Made in a single copy;
(b) For private use;
(c) Exclusively for research and private study
Exceptions are:
(1) Work of architecture;
(2) Entire book, or substantial part thereof, or of a musical work in
graphic form or reprographic;
(3) Compilation of data or materials;
(4) Any work in cases where reproduction would unreasonably conflict
with a normal exploitation of the work or would otherwise unreasonably
prejudice the legitimate interest of the author.
Reproduction is a major problem as far as copyright laws are concerned. Photocopying shops surround the
universities. This condition has not been solved and based on International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) in
their 2007 Special 301 Report (page 373), statistics trade loss attributed to reproduction is increasing. Said report
has even identified the areas university beltin Manila and a particular street in most cities, the example given is the
Lower Bonifacio Street in Baguio City.
Students reproduce not only journal or periodical articles but the entire textbooks. This practice is worse
than the Basic Books Inc. v. Kinkos Graphics Corp (758 F. Supp. 1522) for textbooks are reproduced in its entirety
without even any slight modification.
Librarians should put notices either in the library premises or library brochures on the limitations of
reproduction or photocopying of copyrighted materials. In Singapore, the Institute of Southeast Asian, Studies
explicitly incorporated in its Library Guide to Collections & Services the following photocopying limitations: Users
should observe the conditions stipulated in the Singapore Copyright Act of 1987 and are not allowed to bring
materials not found in the Library for photocopying.
Librarians can mitigate, if not control this problem where photocopying machines are found within library
premises by placing notices to remind their clientele of these photocopying limitations and by informing the Library
staff to strictly implement photocopying policies. To allow students to freely copy books and other library materials
can make librarians as accessory. Librarians who knowingly allow and condone students or do not do anything, they
may be accused as principal. In legal parlance, librarians may be prosecuted as co-defendant or accessory. Under
the Philippine law, sec. 217 of Republic Act No. 8293 provides the penalties of imprisonment and fine for aiding or
abetting infringements.
3. Reproduction by Libraries, Sec. 188. Reproduction is allowed for libraries and archives whose
activities are not for profit and made for a single copy for the following purposes:
(a) Fragile character of the original;
(b) Isolated articles contained in composite works or brief portions is
reproduced to persons requesting them for research or study
purposes, instead of lending the volumes or booklets containing them;
(c) where the original work has to be preserved or has been lost destroyed or
rendered unusable or in case of intra-loan, if the book in the permanent
collection of another, has been lost, destroyed or rendered unusable
and no copy can be obtained from the publisher or is out of print.
This provision specifies preservation and replacement as grounds where reproduction of a single copy is
allowed. Acquisition is not one of them. There have been situations where a book is needed but it could not be readily
purchased locally. The librarian has to choose between whether to provide the needed material by reproducing it and
possibly infringe copyright or to tell the client that the book has still to be ordered abroad. If the activity is for
educational or research purposes, then it can readily fall under the fair use doctrine. If the purpose is otherwise, the
librarian has a decision to make. On several occasions, librarians chose to take the risk of infringing copyright and
reproduce in lull the needed material.
There seems to be a gray area as far as out of print or out of stock materials are concerned. If a book is
out of print, are we licensed to reproduce a copy? What if it is just temporarily out of print and a book is needed? The
view of a professor of law is to allow librarians to photocopy the whole book to replace a missing book or volume or

parts of published work are out of stock. The opinion of a retired justice who is an author of legal treaties, is to ask
the permission of the author. The problem for this opinion is when the author is dead and difficult to ask the
permission of the rightful heirs. There is the 50 years period after the death of the copyright holder. In my opinion, if
reproduction is due to any of the three above enumerated purposes, the Librarian can reproduce a single copy. The
immediate need for this material for research may be another justifying reason to reproduce one copy. However, if the
purpose is to just have an available copy in the library or to acquire one, then I must agree with the opinion of the
retired justice that the permission of the copyright owner or his heirs must be sought.
Those who can automatically photocopy out of stock works are the depository libraries created by special
laws namely: Presidential Decree No. 812 and Republic Act No. 8293. The National Library and the Supreme Court
Library are two of these depository libraries.
Sec. 188.2 of Republic Act No. 8293 allows the reproduction of a volume of a work published in several
volumes or to produce missing volumes (tomes) or pages of magazines or similar works, unless the volume, (tome)
or part is out of stock; provided that every library which, by law, is entitled to receive copies of a printed work shall be
entitled, when special reasons require, to reproduce a copy of a published work which is considered necessary for
the collection of the library but which is out of stock.
Liberal interpretation of the law is recommended. However, the courts are empowered by the Constitution to
determine the proper interpretation, if a case is filed in court. Otherwise, librarians should be cautious in reproducing
these materials.
Reproduction of a single copy has been abused by some libraries who have budgetary constraints or
limitations. They legitimately purchase a copy but they reproduce several copies due to the demands of the client. In
the Philippines, some librarians admittedly reproduced copies of a book, not due to the above mentioned reasons but
due to property accountability of librarians. This makes Philippine librarianship unique. The librarian is personally
accountable for any loss of library material. So for expensive books, they photocopy it, keep the original and use or
service the photocopy Will this reason fall under the ambit of the exception provided by the law?
4. Reproduction of Computer Programs, Sec. 189.
permitted provided:

Reproduction of one backup copy or adaptation is

(a) Use of the program in conjunction with the purpose and to the extent to which the
computer program is obtained;
(b) Archival purposes or replacement of the lawfully obtained copy which is lost,
destroyed or rendered unusable.
DIGITAL WORKS
There are no clear cut rules or expressed provisions of copyright law on digital technology. Republic Act No.
8792 primarily seeks to promote e-commerce in the Philippines, particularly in business-to business and business-toconsumers transaction. However, it recognizes the use of electronic documents, criminalizes hacking of computers
or the launching of viruses and penalizes piracy of copyrighted works (Sec. 31(b)). This legislation is considered an
important legislation to boost economic relations among ASEAN regions electronically. To guarantee its
implementation, this law further provides for penalties to related crimes particularly those that involve hacking and
piracy.
Republic Act No. 8484 is an act regulating the issuance and use of access devices, prohibiting fraudulent
arts committed relative thereto, providing penalties. Although this law recognizes the recent advances in technology
and the widespread use of access devices, it deals specifically with commercial transactions only.
In the Unites States, the bill amending the copyright law, Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Pub. L.
No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860, was signed by President Bill Clinton on 28th October 1998. It specifically covers
webcasting activities. This law provides that it will be a crime to create or sell any technology that could be used to
break copyright protection devises.
In 2000, the major copyright problem of developing countries like the Philippines in the field of digital
technology was more on software piracy than the Internet application per se for online technology was not yet widely
used. The situation is now different for there no longer exists a difference between developed and developing
countries with regards to the use of online technology. The use and development of online technology was facilitated
by Republic Act No. 8792, which provided an express mandate that within two years from the effectivity of the Act
2000), all government departments, business, offices, agencies, entities and instrumentalities as well as

government-owned and controlled corporations to use and accept electronic data messages, documents and
signatures in their transactions. This law has achieved its mandate.
Go to the government website
(http://www.gov..ph) and you will see that greater majority government agencies, s and instrumentalities as well as
government-owned and controlled corporations have their own websites where the public can access all information,
issuances, etc.
Atty. Adrian Cristobal Jr., Director of the Intellectual Property Office, wrote an article, Copyright and
Government Works. at the Business Mirror last August 30, 2007, In this article, Atty. Cristobal stated that recently a
member of Congress complained that one of his bills was pirated and passed into law but under another legislators
name. How do you think will Atty. Cristobal resolve this issue? Bills should be widely read by community. Members
of Congress at times go around to get the publics perception. Bills are considered as government works which are
not protected by the Copyright law (Section 176 of Republic Act No. 8293). This holds true to other works of
government such as official legislation (law), court decisions, administrative or legal documents. However, the
government has proprietary rights if works are exploited for profits. The approval of the government agency concern
is necessary. Said agency can impose conditions of payment of royalties. The Supreme Court issued A.M. No. 047-06-SC, Re: Conditions on the Commercial Exploitation of Supreme Court Decisions on July 20, 2004. It covers
those who compile and reproduce decisions in printed and digital forms. These companies are required to deposit to
the Supreme Court Library twenty (20) copies of their publications. The amendment of A.M. No. 04-7-06-SC on
August 17, 2004 clarified the term compilation to cover complete collection of all decisions of the Supreme Court
covering the period of more than twenty (20) years. With this clarification, less publications were affected.
Copyrighted works placed in the Internet have implied consent or implied license from the author to
reproduce it using the Internet transactions or process. Authors who allow their works to be on the Internet are
presumed to know that the operation of this technology allows the user to make a digital archives for the purpose of
reading. There will be infringement when the portions or the whole material copied will form part of another
publication without acknowledging the author or asking his consent. Consent for works in the Internet is
needed when the entire text cannot be read unless the reader pays or subscribes to it. This subscription
requirement may be equivalent to consent for full access. Clear infringement of copyright may be when a
copyrighted work finds its way m the Internet without the knowledge of the copyright owner.
International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) in their 2007 Special 301 Report (page 377) stated that
the increase in 2006, the availability of broadband both homes and internet cafes has increase the threat of illegal
downloads to legitimate sales and distribution. Motion picture industry and local music recording industry are affected
by the illegal loading of pirated music. MP3 format recording are illegally downloaded to mobile phones, flash drives,
recordable discs and even computer hard drive. GUILTY ON TWO COUNTS.
What I consider alarming is the report that in 2005, the Philippines had one of the fastest rates of growth in
the world well over 100% - in broadband lines. From September 2005 to September 2006, the Philippines was
exceeded in percentage in growth of broadband connectivity by three other countries Greece, India and Croatia.
Based on this findings, why do we need ZTE from China? Sen. Santiago was wrong when she said that there is
waste in money in the Senate hearing on ZTE. Senator Gordon, the UP professors are right that our own facilities
are enough. If there will be broadband connections in government, what type of illegal downloads will there be?
In the digital era, software problems may be dealt with by copyright, patent, trademark or licensing. Aniceto
Ribao in his article Legal and practical considerations of software piracy (World Bulletin 13, 44. (1997)) stated that
Infringement is called theft of copyright or software piracy which involve any of the following:
(a) Unauthorized duplication of computer program;
(b) Softlifting and disk-swapping.
(c) Hard-disk loading is the loading of counterfeit software.
(d) CD-ROM piracy;
(e) Copying of some program elements;
(f) Copying of the organization, structure or design of program.
The last two infringements are called software plagiarism:1
Software piracy as enumerated above has continued to spread.
CD-ROM piracy in the number one
problem throughout the world despite efforts being made. CD burning seems to be so easy despite the availability of
a number of software for protection. For those traveling to the United States, beware. Once caught bringing a
pirated CD, this will mean a refusal of entry or deportation. CD Publishers such as CD Asia Technologies inc.
have not yet solved the piracy of their products despite court actions and improvements or changes made with the
advancement of the latest technology. Our own Supreme Court E-Library is being pirated and my student said that it
is being sold for P500.00 in a store in Morayta, in front of the Professional Regulations Commission.
1

There might be a decrease in software piracy due to the free Open Source softwares. The statement on the
decline in software piracy was noted in 2006 by the Business Software Alliance as stated in International Intellectual
Property Alliance (IIPA) in their 2007 Special 301 Report (page 377)
ENFORCEMENT OF COPYRIGHT LAWS
The Philippines has made serious efforts in the enforcement of intellectual property laws by promulgating
laws to protect intellectual property laws, conforming to the international agreements entered into. Law enforcers,
prosecutors and the judges have worked together to insure the enforcement of these laws.
The Supreme Court of the Philippines under Administrative Order No. 113-95, designed 48 regional and
municipal trial courts to try and decide cases for violations of laws on intellectual properly committed in the respective
territories. Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 104-96 was issued clarifying that intellectual property rights
cases be tried exclusively by the Regional Trial Courts and withdrawing the designation of the Metropolitan and
Municipal/City Trial Courts as part thereof. However, C. Reyes in her article at the Philippine Daily Inquirer in July
2000 recommended that the Supreme Court needs to designate more special courts to handle IPR cases and more
judges who can issue search warrants which can be serviced in any place in the country. The International
Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) in their 2007 Special 301 Report (page 383) noted the need for these special
courts and acknowledged the support of Atty. Adrian Cristobal Jr. , IPO Director on this issue.
As of June 2007, there are 252 newly filed cases in these courts designated to try intellectual property
cases; 677 are pending and 68 decided/resolved. 246 of the newly filed cases were filed in the Regional Trial Courts
and 187 of them in Metro Manila. APPENDIX A is the Statistics of Cases on Violation of Intellectual Property
from 2004-2007. APPENDIX B is the Statistics by Region. These decided cases are rarely appealed to the
Supreme Court for there only decided cases (APPENDIX C) The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA)
in their 2007 Special 301 Report (page 383) cited two decided cases, Multilinks Book Supply case which convicted
Catherine Marquez on June 22, 2004 and the People v. Eugene Li where Li was convicted on February 10, 2005.
Both on our E-library, both cases did not reach the Supreme Court.
It is interesting to learn from this report (page. 383) that out of the 1,685 cases reported by the Department
of Justice, only 718 were disposed of out of which out of which 367 were filed in court. This 367 does not seem to
tally with the statistics (APPENDIX A) data from the Supreme Court, but it near to that of 2006.
The IIPA Report (page 382) stated that court cases drag on for years and rarely result in successful
judgments or criminal conviction due to incessant appeals and judicial delays in relation to the issuance of search
warrants, and unsuccessful raids. These judicial delays makes prosecution costly and expensive. IIPA likewise
observed and I quote the availability of the never-ending delay tactics in these cases, and the ultimate failure to date
to impose the sentence, signals to others that one can commit brazen acts of copyright piracy, be finally convicted
and never see punishment or jail time. Our defense for the availability of the never-ending delay tactics is that we
are in a democracy where we are guided by the Constitution and other laws. However, there is no excuse for those
convicted never to suffer their punishment. In the United States, personalities like Martha Stewart, Paris Hilton serve
their penalties in prison. In the Multilinks Book Supply case, what is so disheartening in not only the fact that
Catherine Marquez did not suffer jail time. IIPA learn that several government-run universities, hospitals and
agencies are still ordering illegal photocopied books from her. Emphasized is government-run universities. Ironic
isnt it? The government is promulgated laws, rules and regulations on copyright but it one of the infringers of
copyright.
In the United States, there are four cases involving libraries (LibraryLaw: Copyright and Libraries
http://www.librarylaw.com)
1. Hotaling v. Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints involve unauthorized microfiche included in it
catalog and indexing system made available to the public
2. American Geophysical v. Texaco involves a corporate researcher making copies of journal articles in
his files
3. Sony v. Universal Studios
4. Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States - Case against the National Library of Medicine for
systematically unauthorized photocopying of periodical articles for scientists and researchers. Trial
court ruled against the National Library of Medicine but when appealed, there was a 4-3 decision.
Enforcement of intellectual property rights cases is now gaining ground specially in the optical disc piracy of
moving pictures and sound recordings. However, it is not enough for the International Intellectual Property Alliance
(IIPA) recommends that the Philippines remain in the watchlist. They have further recommended priority actions to
be taken in 2007 to address the problem.

CONCLUSION
Librarians and library associations can even assist in protecting the rights of copyright owners and
implementing copyright laws by:
1. continuing education for librarians in seminars, conferences, etc.
2, calling their attention or advising them in case one perceives that there is copyright
Infringement
3. post in the library association websites or blog guidelines and list of articles similar to those found in the
LibraryLaw: Copyright and Libraries http://www.librarylaw.com)
4. taking action and reporting them to authorities
Librarians may have good intentions in developing our libraries or assisting the continuing education of our
colleagues but in the process we may be guilty of copyright infringement. The provisions of the law must be our
guide for in law, ignorance of the law excuses no one. Pirated materials are cheaper than the original, whether in
hard or soft copy. Budget, whether personal or in our respective institution is a consideration. The challenge is now
before us. Will compromise or risk prosecution in order to fulfill our mission in providing effective and accurate
dissemination of information to our clients?
In the Philippines, the right to information is guaranteed under the 1987 Philippine Constitution (Bill of
Rights, Art. III, Sec. 7). The right of scientists, inventors, artist and gifted citizens to their intellectual property creation
are likewise protected by Art. XIV, Sec. 13 of the 1987 Constitution. We librarians have the duty to provide access to
information to our clientle, the public. In this regard, we librarians should provide a balance between the rights of the
owners of copyrighted works and the free exchange of ideas or public access to information must be formulated and
implemented in order to effectively perform our role in society and assist in the growth of every nation.
Librarians as information providers are protected from copyright infringement by the fair use doctrine and
other safeguards to effectively perform their functions. They must, however, know the limits and bounds of these
safeguards. They should not use these safeguards as license or make these safeguards as excuse to infringe the
rights of the copyright owners. Librarians should not be the tools or the means by which the clients they serve will
infringe the rights of copyright owners. By doing so we will be as guilty as the principal or we will be accessory to the
crime. Librarians should be honest and upright. They should not compromise their principles in providing service to
their clients at the detriment of copyright owners.
Library advocacy may be practiced is support for laws and regulations being drafted pending or are to be
implemented, specially those affecting the library profession in order to be assured that the mission and vision of the
profession would be rightfully implemented.
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX C
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON COPURIGHT INFRINGEMENT
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

Habana v. Robles, G.R. No. 131522, July 19, 1999

Pearl and Dean (Phil) Inc. v. Shoemart Inc. G.R. No. 148222, August 15, 2003
Illuminated Display units wherein certificate of registration was issued Pres. Decree No. 49
Ching v. Salinas Sr., G.R. No.161295, June 29, 2005
Leif Spring Eye Bushing for Automobile manufacturers
Joaquin Jr. v. Drilon, G.R. No. 108946, January 28, 1999, 302 SCRA 225 (1999).
Copyright to a TV program Its a Date
NBI-Microsoft Corp. v. Hwan, G.R. No. 147043, June 21, 2005
Licensing agreement and the Department of Justices grave abuse of discretion
Microsoft Corp. v. Maxicorp. Inc., G.R. No. 140946, September 13, 2004
Unfair competition pursuant to Pres. Decree No. 49 and the Revised Penal Code
Columbia Pictures Inc. v. Court of Appeals. G.R. No. 110318, August 29, 1996, , 261 SCRA 144
(1996). Copyright on motion pictures and the validity of the search warrants - Pres. Decree No. 49
Sambar v. Levis Straus & Co., Gr. No. 132604, March 6, 2002
Director of National Library was order to cancel registration - Design on the back pocket of European jeans
Levis Straus (Phil) v. Vogue Traders Clothing Co., G.R. No. 132993, June 29, 2000
Copyright infringement of Live & Original Jeans, pocket design
Chuan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 230360, August 15, 2001
Vermicelli cereals Certificate of registration by the National Library was issued Pres. Decree No. 49
Chung v. China National Cereal Oil & Foodstuff Import & Export Inc., G.R. No. 131502, June 8, 2000 -

Vermicelli sotanghon
12. Summerville Merchandising v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 158767
Plastic container of playing cards
13. Uniliver Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119298
Airing of TV commercial of laundry soap double tagtac-toc. Certificate of registration was issued
14. Mighty Corporation v. E & J Gallo Winery, G.R. No. 154342, July 14, 2004
Certificate of registration by the National Library was issued for La Campanas lifetime copyright claim
over Gallo cigarette labels
15. Columbia Pictures Entertainment Inc. v. Court of Appeals. G.R. No. 111267, September 20, 1996
Probable cause to determine copyright infringement of films
16. Mirpuri v. Court of Appeals, G.R No. 114508, November 19, 1999
Trademark infringement of Barbison - Convention of Paris for the Protection of Industrial Property
17. Manly Sportwear v. Dsdotte Ent., G.R. No. 165306, September 20, 2005
Copyright on sportswear
18. Bayanihan Music v. BMG, G.R. No. 166337, March 7, 2005
Certificate of registration by the National Library was issued for 2 musical composition of Jose Mari Chan
19. Sony Music Phils. V. Espanol, G.R. No. 156804, March 14, 2005
Pirated CDs
20. Kho v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115758, March 19, 2002
Oval facial cream case as shown in its Certificate of registration
21. Kho v. Summerville Merchandising, G.R. No. 144100, August 29, 2000
Certificate of registration by the National Library on container of beauty cream
22. People v. Choi, R.R. No. 152950
Probable cause on copyright infringement on fake cigaretts
23. People v. Estrada, G.R. No. 124461, September 25, 1998, 296 SCRA 383 (1998).
Search for pirated CD Pres. Decree No. 49
24. Serrano v. NLRC, G.R. 117040, May 4, 2000
Probable cause for issuance of search warrant
25. McDonalds v. Big Mak, G.R. No. 143993, August 18, 2004
Patent and Trademark
26. Cucueco v. Court of Appeals, October 25, 2004
27. Phoenix Publishing House, Inc. v. Ramos, Jose X, G.R. No. L-32339, March 29, 1988, 159 SCRA
383 (1988).
28. 20th Century Fox Film Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 76649-51, August 19, 1988. 164
SCRA 655 (1988).
29. Laktaw v. Mamerto Paglinawan, G.R. No. 11937, April 1, 1918 (44 Phil. 856-866)