COPYRIGHT CASE DOCTRINES

DEFINITION
1. KHO v. CA
Copyright pertains to the legal right of a holder of said right to his artistic and
literary works which are original and intellectual creations in the literary and artistic
domain protected from the moment of their creation.
In the case at bar, the said name and container are not covered by the law on
copyright since both are not considered as literary or artistic works.
2. KENSONIC v. UNI-LINE
The law prohibits is having a generic mark that is identifiable with the goods or
service rendered by an individual or a business enterprise, pursuant to Section 123 (h)
of the IPC
In the case at bar, the name Sakura pertains to a flower in japan which is not
identifiable with the business of Kensonic, therefore the name can be appropriated in its
favor.
3. PEARL AND DEAN v. SHOEMART
ISSUE ON COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
Since copyright is a statutory right, the rights it confers can only be enjoyed
within the limitations provided for by the law. According to the Section 172 by the IPC,
copyright covers only literary and artistic works that are original intellectual creations in
the literary and artistic domain
In the case at bar, the light boxes are not considered as literary or artistic works,
hence, it cannot be subject of protection of copyright. However, the engineering
drawings are within the coverage of artistic works, thus, it can be subject of the
protection of copyright.
ISSUE ON PATENTS
A person cannot avail of patent rights, unless his work is registered pursuant to
the patent law. Inventions or works that are not registered for patent do not enjoy its
rights
In order to effectively and legally preclude others from copying and profiting from
the invention, a patent is a primordial requirement. However, ideas, once disclosed to
the public without the protection of a valid patent, are subject to appropriation without
significant restraint
In the case at bar, assuming that the lightboxes are patentable inventions, the act
of P & D of exposing their work by registering the engineering drawings under for a
copyright, exposed the same to the public. In effect, it deprives them from claiming that
they have exclusive rights enjoyed under the patent law. Hence, they cannot claim any
exclusive rights over the creation of the lightboxes.

COPYRIGHTABLE OBJECTS
LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS
4. MICROSOFT CORP v. MANANSALA
There mere sale of the illicit copies of the software programs are sufficient itself
to constitute copyright infringement.
Also, copyright infringement is malum prohibitum, therefore, the presence or
absence of malice is immaterial.
UNPROTECTED WORKS, LIMITATIONS ON COPYRIGHT
5. JOAQUIN v. DRILON
Pursuant to Section 175 of the IPC, no protection shall be afforded to any idea,
procedure, system, method or operation
In the case at bar, the format of a show is in the form of an idea which is not
copyrightable. What is subject to copyright in this case is the audio-visual recordings of
each episode of their gameshow.
6. PEARL AND DEAN v. SHOEMART
Since copyright is a statutory right, the rights it confers can only be enjoyed
within the limitations provided for by the law. According to the Section 172 by the IPC,
copyright covers only literary and artistic works that are original intellectual creations in
the literary and artistic domain
In the case at bar, the light boxes are not considered as literary or artistic works,
hence, it cannot be subject of protection of copyright. However, the engineering
drawings are within the coverage of artistic works, thus, it can be subject of the
protection of copyright.
7. RAPPLER v. BAUTISTA
Pursuant to Section 184 of the IPC, it provides that reproduction or
communication to the public through mass media of political lectures for (1) information
purposes and has not been (2) expressly reserved constitutes no copyright
infringement.
In the case at bar, the reproduction of the debates by the petitioner does not
constitute copyright infringement. Since the conditions provided for in Section 184 are
complied, the live audio of the debates not forms part of the public domain. Therefore, it
does not further constitute copyright infringement.
CONCEPT OF FAIR USE
8. ABS-CBN v. PMMSI
Pursuant to Section 184 of the IPC, the use of a work that is under the direction
and control of the government where such use is in public interest shall not constitute
copyright infringement
In the case at bar, the must carry rule provided for by the MC No. 4-08-88 does
not constitute copyright infringement. The carriage of ABS-CBN’s signal is within the
power of the NTC to promulgate rules and regulations for public safety
9. HABANA v. ROBLES
Pursuant to Section 184, of the IPC, the making of quotations from a published
work if they are compatible with fair use and only to the extent justified for the purpose
is not copyright infringement.
In determining whether there is infringement, the determinant is if what has been
taken leads to devaluing the original work or that the labors of the original author is
substantially and to an injurious extent appropriated by another.
In the case at bar, there is a clear case of appropriation for the benefit of Robles
which is substantially injurious on the part of Habana. Robles even failed to
acknowledge the work of Habana in order to escape any liability arising from such act.
10. ABS-CBN v. GOZON
Pursuant to Section 175 of the IPC, news of the day are not copyrightable.
However, when news of the day already went a creative process, then it is subject to
copyright.
In the case at bar, ABS-CBN already has a copyright over its news footage.
In determining whether there is fair use, the following elements must be all
present:
(a) The purpose and character of the use whether such use is of a commercial
use or is for non-profit
(b) The nature of the copyrighted work
(c) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole
(d) The effect of the use upon the potential market for value of the copyrighted
work
In the case at bar, GMA, used the exact reproduction of a copyrighted work.
Also, the news footage was also under an embargo agreement wherein it was
purposely aired by Reuters exclusively for its subscribers. The act of GMA of using the
same footage violates both the 3rd and 4th element. Thus fair use does not exists.

ACTS THAT DO NOT INFRINGE COPYRIGHT

11. OLANO v. LIM ENG CO
If the design is essential to the utilitarian aspect of the object, then it cannot be
copyrighted separately.
12. NBI-MICROSOFT v. HWANG
13.

RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNER

COLUMBIA PICTURES v. CA
Failure of the author to register his new creation before the National Library does
not deprive him of his copyright over the same. Under the Copyright Law, an author
acquires copyright over his new creation from the moment of its creation. Absence of
registration and deposit before the National Library is intended for the author to recover
damages in an infringement suit. Nonetheless, the author has a right to file a case for
copyright infringement when the ground for such exists, regardless of the absence of
any registration.
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
ABS-CBN v. PMMSI
There is no copyright infringement when the use of such work is under the
direction and control of the Government, and where such use is imbued with public
interest and is compatible with the principle of fair use.
Broadcasting whether by radio television stations is licensed by the government.
Also, the possession of a franchise to broadcast is not a right but a mere privilege which
may be reasonably burdened with some form of public service.

NBI-MICROSOFT v. HWANG
HABANA v. ROBLES
In determining the question of infringement, the amount of matter copied from the
copyrighted work is an important consideration. To constitute infringement, it is not
necessary that the whole or even a large portion of the work shall have been copied. If
so much is taken that the value of the original is sensibly diminished, or the labors of the
original author are substantially and to an injurious extent appropriated by another, that
is sufficient in point of law to constitute piracy.

COLUMBIA PICTURES v. CA
Failure to comply with the requirements of registration of a copyrights does not
deprive the copyright owner of the right to sue for infringement. Non-compliance only
results in limiting the remedies available to the copyright owner and subjects him to the
corresponding sanction
PEOPLE v. CHOI
MICROSOFT v. MANANSALA
Pursuant to the must carry rule, soliciting and showing advertisements of free
cable TV does not infringe on the television and broadcast markets.

ABS-CBN v. PMMSI
There is no copyright infringement when the use of such work is under the
direction and control of the Government, and where such use is imbued with public
interest and is compatible with the principle of fair use.

MANLY SPORTWEAR v. DADODETTE

The registration and deposit of the work is purely for recording the date of
registration and deposit and shall not be conclusive as to the copyright ownership or the
term of copyrights or the rights of the copyright owner including neighboring rights

The certificates of registration and deposit issued by the National Library and
Supreme Court serve merely as notice of recording and registration of the work but do
not confer any right or title upon the registered copyright owner or automatically puts his
work under the protective mantle of the copyright law. Non-registration and deposit of
the work within the prescribed period only makes the copyright owner liable to a fine.