MARCIA, JESSE MYL A.

JD4302
TOPIC: OWNERSHIP
COMMUNITY v. REID
490 US 7300
(1989)
FACTS:
Petitioner decided to participate in the Christmas Pageant and hire the respondent
as a sculptor. Defendant work in his studio and hire the respondent as a sculptor.
Defendant work in his studio with a little direction from petitioner. When petitioner began
making plans to take statue on a tour to raise money, defendant objected because the
materials use was not strong enough. Respondent then filed a certificate of copyright
registration and contends that since he had not been employed by the petitioner under
common law agency principles, he owned the copyright of the sculpture. Petitioner
immediately filed a competing certificate of copyright registration and an action against
defendant to return the sculpture because the statue is a “woke made for hire.”
ISSUE:
WON the making of the statue is a “work made for hire”
HELD:
YES. Under common-law agency principles, one who creates an artwork at the
directive of another retains copyright upon it unless it employed the artist.
In the case at bar, Reid was an independent contractor, not an employee. It was
evident that Reid supplied his own tools, work in his own studio and time. He also receive
his salary base on contingent basis. Moreover, petitioner did not pay Reid’s social security
taxes nor provide him any employee benefits.
Hence, the making of the statue is not a work made for hire.
TOPIC: FIRST SALE DOCTRINE
BOBBS-MERRILL v. STRAUS
210 US 339
FACTS:
Petitioner sold a copyright novel, The Castaway, with the notice that the retail price
of the book is $1.00 and no dealer is licensed to sell it at a lower price. The defendants,
on the other hand, purchased copies of the book at a discounted price from wholesaler
and sold it at 89₵ per copy. Petitioner then filed a suit against defendants and claims that
they are the only one who has an exclusive right to distribute. On the other hand,
defendants argued that they were not part with any contract. Thus, they are not subject
to the agreement between the petitioner and the wholesaler.
ISSUE:
WON copyright holders have a statutory right to control the price of subsequent
sale
HELD:
NO. Under the first sale doctrine, it basically provides that once someone buys a
legitimate copy of a work, they can do whatever they want with it, including sell it to others,
or lend it out, or whatever. They just can’t make copies of it.
Although, copyright law gave the copyright owner to restrict others from making
their own copies of a work, it did not give them any rights to control what happened to
books after they sold them.
Thus, copyright holder has no statutory right to control the price of subsequent
resale.
TOPIC: PARODY AND FREE SPEECH
CAMPBELL v. ACUFF-ROSE MUSIC, INC,
510 U.S. 569
FACTS:
2 Live Crew composed a song called “Pretty Woman,” a parody based on Roy
Orbison’s rock ballad “Oh Pretty Woman.” The group manager asked the defendant if
they could get a license and use Orbison’s tune but the latter refused. Despite of this, 2
Live Crew still produced and released the parody, Defendant sued 2 Live Crew for
copyright infringement.
District Court favoured 2 Live Crew and held that their song was made fair use of
the original. Court of appeal, reversed.
ISSUE:
WON the 2 Live Crew’s commercial parody is a fair use.
HELD:
YES. Under the Copyright Act, in determining whether the use made of a work in
any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted
work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted
work.
In the case at bar, there was no evidentiary presumption of the first and fourth
factor. As to the second factor, the parody has an artistic value that shows their ability to
copy popular works in the past. And as to the third factor, the Court looked it as a new
work as whole producing a distinctive music. Further, the Court also states that no
indications that a potential rap market harmed in any way by 2 Live Crew’s parody rap
version. In fact, the Court found that it was unlikely that any artist would find parody a
lucrative derivative market, noting that artist “ask for criticism, but only want praise.”
Thus, 2 Live Crew’s commercial parody is a fair use.
TOPIC: FAIR USE DOCTRINE
HABANA v. ROBLES
G.R. NO. 131522
FACTS:
Petitioners are authors and copyright owners of English textbook. In the course of
revising their published works, they found that several pages of the respondent’s book
are similar to their book. Petitioner then filed an action for damages and injunction alleging
that the respondent violated P.D 49. On the other hand, Robles contends that it was a
product of her own intellectual creation and the similarities was due to the authors’
exercise of the “right to fair use of copyrighted materials as guides.”
ISSUE:
WON Robles committed copyright infringement
HELD:
YES. Under R.A. 8293, copyright holders have copy or economic rights including
the exclusive rights to carry out or authorize or prevent reproduction of the whole work or
even just a substantial portion of it. One limitation to this right is that quotations of a
copyrighted work may be included in other publication when compatible with the fair use
doctrine as long as the author is cited as source.
Here, Robles act of lifting from the book of the petitioners and her failure to
acknowledge the same in her book is an infringement of petitioners’ copyright.
Thus, Robles committed copyright infringement.
TOPIC: FAIR USE DOCTRINE
HARPER & ROW v. NATION ENTERPRISES
417 U.S. 539
FACTS:
Former President Gerald Ford had written a memoir, A Time to Heal, including an
account of his decision to pardon Richard Nixon. Ford had licensed his publication rights
to Harper & Row, which had contracted for excerpts of the memoir to be printed
in Time magazine. However, The Nation Enterprises magazine published 300 to 400
words of verbatim quotes from the 500-page book without the permission of Ford, Harper
& Row, or Time. Based on this prior publication, Time withdrew from the contract and
Harper & Row filed a lawsuit against The Nation Enterprises for copyright
infringement. The Nation asserted as a defense that Ford was a public figure, and his
reasons for pardoning Nixon were of vital interest, and that appropriation in such
circumstances should qualify as a fair use.
ISSUE:

Whether or not a fair use existed where the purported infringer published a public
figure’s yet-unpublished work

HELD:

NO. The Court applied the statutory four factor test to determine if the use was fair,
and made the following findings:

First, the purpose or character of the use weighed against a finding of fair use
because The Nation's intent to benefit by depriving the copyright holders of their right to
first publication suggest that this use was not "fair." Second, although the nature of A
Time to Heal was primarily informative or factual, and thus deserving of less copyright
protection, the work had substantial expressive value. If The Nation had limited
themselves to only reporting the factual descriptions in the work, the second factor would
have weighed in favor of finding fair use. However, The Nation "did not stop at isolated
phrases and instead excerpted subjective descriptions and portraits of public figures
whose power lies in the author's individualized expression." Third, the amount and
substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole weighed
against a finding of fair use. Although the "amount" was small, it constituted a "substantial"
portion of the work because the excerpt was the "heart of the work". Fourth, the effect of
the use on the potential market for the value of the copyrighted work also weighed against
a finding of fair use. The Nation's infringement led to actual, particular harm, Time's
cancellation of their publishing contract. Hence, fair use is not existed where the purported
infringer published a public figure’s yet-unpublished work.