SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 196956, March 11, 2015

ABS-CBN CORPORATION, Petitioner,

v.
FELIPE GOZON, et al., Respondents

DECISION

Ponente: LEONEN, J.

Case Subject Matter/s:

The Intellectual Property Code is malum prohibitum and prescribes a strict liability for
copyright infringement. Good faith, lack of knowledge of the copyright, or lack of intent to
infringe is not a defense against copyright infringement. Copyright, however is subject to the
rules of fair use and will be judged on a case-to-case basis.

FACTS
Herein petitioner, ABS-CBN Corporation (hereinafter “ABS-CBN”) is a broadcasting
organization, and herein respondents are officers and employees of GMA Network Inc.
(hereinafter “GMA-7”), also a broadcasting organization.

The controversy in this case revolves around the homecoming of Filipino overseas worker
and hostage victim, Angelo dela Cruz on July 22, 2004. Dela Cruz was kidnapped by Iraqi
militants and his release was the subject of negotiations which eventually culminated in his return
to the Philippines on the said date. In view of the public interest generated by dela Cruz’s
predicament, ABS-CBN and GMA-7 made respective arrangements as to the broadcast and
coverage of his homecoming.

ABS-CBN, in particular, had allowed Reuters Television Service (hereinafter “Reuters”)

to air its footages under a special embargo agreement, under which it was stipulated that “no
other Philippine subscriber of Reuters would be allowed to use ABS-CBN footage without the
latter’s consent.”

GMA-7, on the other hand, is subscribed to Reuters. On the date of dela Cruz’s
homecoming, GMA-7 had received a live video feed of dela Cruz’s arrival from Reuters, which it
proceeded to air under the alleged motivation that it had neither caught wind of the agreement
between ABS-CBN and Reuters nor received a “No Access Philippines” notice as to the same.

ISSUE/S
Whether or not news footage is copyrightable under the law;

Whether or not good faith and lack of knowledge are defenses in a criminal prosecution
for violation of the Intellectual Property Code; and

Whether or not there was fair use of the news footage or the live video feed.
HELD
The Court finds the news footage or the live video feed in subject copyrightable. While
Section 175 of the Intellectual Property Code holds that “news of the day and other miscellaneous
facts having the character of mere items of press information” are unprotected subject matter, the
Code does not state that expression of the news of the day, particularly when it underwent a
creative process, is not entitled to protection. Hence, although the news itself is not copyrightable,
news coverage in television is an expression of the news and is, on the contrary, copyrightable;
having undergone the creative process of framing shots, images, graphics, and sound effects.

As to whether the respondents can invoke good faith as a defense, the Court rules that it
cannot. Infringement under the Intellectual Code is malum prohibitum as the Intellectual Property
Code is a special law. Accordingly, it is the act of infringement, not the intent, which causes the
damage. Unlike other jurisdictions that require intent for a criminal prosecution of copyright
infringement, the Philippines does not statutorily support good faith as a defense. Likewise, the
Court in previous cases has ruled that lack of knowledge of infringement is not a valid defense,
and knowledge of infringement is even presumed from the moment the infringer commits the
prohibited act. In the case herewith, notice of fact of the embargo from the ABS-CBN and Reuters’
agreement is not material to find probable cause that GMA-7 committed infringement.

Finally, the court defines fair use as "a privilege to use the copyrighted material in a
reasonable manner without the consent of the copyright owner or as copying the theme or ideas
rather than their expression." Section 185 of the Intellectual Property Code list the four (4) factors
that would determine if there was fair use of a copyrighted work, namely: “the purpose and
character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit
educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the
portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the
potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.” Whether the live video feed in subject
may be considered fair use is a matter of defense. The Court thus rules that given the insufficiency
of available evidence, the determination of whether the said feed is subject to fair use is better left
to the trial court.