Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
SUMMARY OF ASSIGNMENT:
As per our discussion on July 12, 2016, this legal memorandum will
comprehensively discuss the jurisprudence on unauthorized display of
copyrighted works and who will be liable.
ISSUE:
Whether or not those who display copyrighted works without proper
authorization will be held liable for copyright infringement
SHORT ANSWER:
Yes. Those who display copyrighted works without proper authorization and
permission from the copyright owner will be held liable for violating Article
XIV, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution.
ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION:
Article XIV, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution states that the State shall
protect and secure the exclusive rights of scientists, inventors, artists, and
other gifted citizens to their intellectual property and creations, particularly
when beneficial to the people, for such period as may be provided by law. 1
This is because the State recognizes that the intellectual and industrial
property of one is vital for the development of our state as a whole. Section 4
of RA 8923 otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code of the
Philippines, states that copyright and related rights is one of the terms
that consist intellectual property rights. Under Chapter 5, Section 177 of
RA 8923, copyrights or economic rights shall consist of the exclusive right to
carry out, authorize or prevent 1) Reproduction of the work or substantial
portion of the work; 2) Dramatization, translation, adaptation, abridgment,
arrangement or other transformation of the work; 4) Rental of the original or
a copy of an audio visual or cinematographic work, a work embodied in a
sound recording, a computer program, a compilation of data and other
materials or a musical work in graphic form irrespective of the ownership of
the original or the copy which is the subject of the rental;
Bernas, J. (2009). The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines: A Commentary (p. 1310). Manila. Rex
Publishing House.
Also, the act of the respondent violated section 184.2 of RA 8923 because it
conflicted with the normal exploitation of the work and prejudiced the right
holders interest by reproducing complainant's books without the latters
authority and knowledge and also sold the book for commercial purposes,
without the consent of the petitioner. Furthermore, the respondent practically
copied or reproduced the complainant's books in their entirety. Lastly, the
respondent infringing acts in effect imposed an unfair competition against
the complainant.7
Section 185 of RA 8923 states that, Before a person could claim that he is
using the material/work/output of another in fair use, the four elements in
determining fair use should be present: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.8 In the case mentioned above, the respondents
failed to prove that the books they republish and re-printed are within the
elements of fair use, considering the fact that the respondent sold the books
and copied and reproduced the complainants books in their entirety.
However, not all copyright owners can claim copyright infringement
whenever they deem that their works were copied, displayed or publish
without their consent and knowledge. It is the Bureau of Legal Affairs under
the Intellectual Property Office, who will investigate and determine whether
or not there has been a violation of copyright. Under 177.2 of RA 8923,
among the economic rights comprising copyright is the exclusive right to
carry out, authorize or prevent translation of the work.9
In the incident that happened in 2012 which involved Senator Vicente Sotto,
he was accused of committing plagiarism and infringement after lifting parts
of his RH Bill speech from the blog of Sarah Pope. Sotto argued that his acts
constituted to fair acts since they were for Congress use. 10 This is one of
limitations which do not constitute copyright infringement. Even though
Section 172.2 of RA 8923 states that web blogs are copyright protected from
the moment of their creation, Senator Sotto is still exempted from the
liability of infringement because of the fact that he did not cause economic
harm to the blogger.
Under Republic Act 8923, it was not expressly stated who will be liable.
However, it is presumed that the person who violates the copyright or
exclusive rights of any person stated in Chapter 5, Section 177 of RA 8923
directly shall be liable and will be subject for penalty and damages against
the copyright owner. However, it is not only the direct infringer who may be
3
18,
2016
from
Yeh, B. (2010). The Jurisprudence of Justice John Paul Stevens: Selected Opinions on Intellectual
Property Law [Powerpoint Slides]. Retrieved from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41236.ppt
12
Sec. 216.1 and 216.2, RA 9823
11
CONCLUSION:
Those who display unauthorized display of copyrighted works will be held
liable for violating Article 14, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution and
Republic Act 8923 otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code of the
Philippines. In RA 8923, it is not expressly stated who are the persons liable.
However, in the U.S. Supreme Court, they recognize the fact that it is not
only the direct infringer who will be liable in violating the said provision of
the Constitution and the law of RA 8923, those who are deemed to be a
secondary infringer will also be subject for penalties and shall be compelled
to pay exclusive and moral damages of the offended copyright owner.
Therefore, before a person or a party may desire to copyright a work of a
person, they must first obtain permission from the owner itself in order to
avoid the consequence of violating the right of protecting the intellectual
property of a copyright owner.