Copyright Cases

Filipino Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers, Inc. (plaintiff) vs. Tan (defendant)
Facts: Plaintiff is allegedly the owner of certain musical compositions. Defendant, on the other hand,
is the owner of a restaurant wherein a combo w/ professional singers is hired to entertain and amuse
customers, and the same plays and sings plaintiffs compositions without the latters permission. It is
now the contention of the plaintiff that they are entitled the payment of license fee for such
infringement, but such demand was ignored, thus, they filed a complaint for infringement of
copyright. Defendant contends that the mere singing and playing of songs and popular tunes even if
they are copyrighted do not constitute infringement. The lower court favored the defendant. The CA
certified the case to the SC.
Issue: W/N defendant has infringed the copyright law for allowing the combo to sing and play the
copyrighted musical compositions of the plaintiff without prior consent.
Held: Negative.
The playing and singing of the combo in defendants restaurant constituted performance for profit
contemplated by the Copyright Law , nevertheless, Defendants allegation that the composers of the
contested musical compositions waived their right in favor of the general public when they allowed
their intellectual creations to become property of the public domain before applying for the
corresponding copyrights for the same is correct.
An intellectual creation should be copyrighted thirty (30) days after its publication, if made in
Manila, or within the (60) days if made elsewhere, failure of which renders such creation public
property. (Indeed, if the general public has made use of the object sought to be copyrighted for thirty
(30) days prior to the copyright application the law deems the object to have been donated to the
public domain and the same can no longer be copyrighted.

Pearl & Dean (Phil), Inc. vs Shoemart, Inc.

Pearl & Dean (Phil), Inc. is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of advertising display
units called light boxes. In January 1981, Pearl & Dean was able to acquire copyrights over
the designs of the display units. In 1988, their trademark application for Poster Ads was
approved; they used the same trademark to advertise their light boxes.
In 1985, Pearl & Dean negotiated with Shoemart, Inc. (SM) so that the former may be
contracted to install light boxes in the ad spaces of SM. Eventually, SM rejected Pearl
& Deans proposal.

Two years later, Pearl & Dean received report that light boxes, exactly the same as theirs,
were being used by SM in their ad spaces. They demanded SM to stop using the light
boxes and at the same time asked for damages amounting to P20 M. SM refused to pay
damages though they removed the light boxes. Pearl & Dean eventually sued SM. SM
argued that the actual light boxes are not copyrightable. The RTC ruled in favor of Pearl
& Dean. But the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of SM.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals is correct.
HELD: Yes. The light boxes cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered as
either prints, pictorial illustrations, advertising copies, labels, tags or box wraps, to be
properly classified as a copyrightable; what was copyrighted were the technical drawings
only, and not the light boxes themselves.
On the trademark infringement allegation, the words Poster Ads are a simple contraction
of the generic term poster advertising. In the absence of any convincing proof that Poster
Ads has acquired a secondary meaning in this jurisdiction, Pearl & Deans exclusive right
to the use of Poster Ads is limited to what is written in its certificate of registration, namely,
stationeries.

PACITA I. HABANA, ALICIA L. CINCO and JOVITA N. FERNANDO vs. FELICIDAD C. ROBLES
and GOODWILL TRADING CO., INC.
G.R. No. 131522, July 19, 1999
FACTS: Pacita Habana et al., are authors and copyright owners of duly issued of the book,
College English For Today (CET). Respondent Felicidad Robles was the author of the book
Developing English Proficiency (DEP). Petitioners found that several pages of the respondent's
book are similar, if not all together a copy of petitioners' book. Habana et al. filed an action for
damages and injunction, alleging respondents infringement of copyrights, in violation of P.D. 49.
They allege respondent Felicidad C. Robles being substantially familiar with the contents of
petitioners' works, and without securing their permission, lifted, copied, plagiarized and/or
transposed certain portions of their book CET.
The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, absolving them of any liability. Later, the Court
of Appeals rendered judgment in favor of respondents Robles and Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. In
this appeal, petitioners submit that the appellate court erred in affirming the trial court's decision.
ISSUE: Whether Robles committed infringement in the production of DEP.

HELD: A perusal of the records yields several pages of the book DEP that are similar if not
identical with the text of CET. The court finds that respondent Robles' act of lifting from the book
of petitioners substantial portions of discussions and examples, and her failure to acknowledge
the same in her book is an infringement of petitioners' copyrights.
In the case at bar, the least that respondent Robles could have done was to acknowledge
petitioners Habana et. al. as the source of the portions of DEP. The final product of an author's
toil is her book. To allow another to copy the book without appropriate acknowledgment is injury
enough.

ABS-CBN v. PMSI
FACTS:
Philippine Multi-Media System Inc (PMSI) is a signal provider which has cable and satellite services. It is
providing its satellite services through Dream Broadcasting System. PMSI has its Free TV and
Premium Channels. The Free TV includes ABS-CBN, GMA-7 and other
local networks
ABS-CBN is a television and broadcasting corporation. It broadcasts television programs by wireless
means to Metro Manila and nearby provinces, and by satellite to provincial stations through Channel 2
and Channel 23.
In May 2002, ABS-CBN sued PMSI for allegedly engaging in rebroadcasting and thereby infringing on
ABS-CBNs copyrights; that the transmission of Channels 2 and 23 to the provinces where these two
channels are not usually shown altered ABS-CBNs programming for the said provinces. PMSI argued
that it is not infringing upon ABS-CBNs copyrights because it is operating under the Must-Carry Rule
outlined in NTC (National Telecommunications Commission) Circular No. 4-08-88.
ISSUE: Whether or not PMSI infringed upon the copyrights of ABS-CBN.
HELD: No. The Must-Carry Rule under NTC Circular No. 4-08-88 falls under the limitations on copyright.
The Filipino people must be given wider access to more sources of news, information, education, sports
event and entertainment programs other than those provided for by mass media and afforded television
programs to attain a well informed, well-versed and culturally refined citizenry and enhance their socioeconomic growth. The very intent and spirit of the NTC Circular will prevent a situation whereby station
owners and a few networks would have unfettered power to make time available only to the highest
bidders, to communicate only their own views on public issues, people, and to permit on the air only those
with whom they agreed contrary to the state policy that the (franchise) grantee like ABS-CBN, and other
TV station owners and even the likes of PMSI, shall provide at all times sound and balanced
programming and assist in the functions of public information and education.
PMSI was likewise granted a legislative franchise under Republic Act No. 8630, Section 4 of which
similarly states that it shall provide adequate public service time to enable the government, through the
said broadcasting stations, to reach the population on important public issues; provide at all times sound
and balanced programming; promote public participation such as in community programming; assist in

the functions of public information and education.

The Must-Carry Rule favors both broadcasting organizations and the public. It prevents cable television
companies from excluding broadcasting organization especially in those places not reached by signal.
Also, the rule prevents cable television companies from depriving viewers in far-flung areas the enjoyment
of programs available to city viewers.