FRANCISCO G. JOAQUIN, JR. and BJ PRODUCTIONS, INC. vs.

HONORABLE
RANKLIN M. DRILON, GABRIEL ZOSA, WILLIAM ESPOSO, FELIPE MEDINA,
JR., and CASEY FRANCISCO

FACTS:

Petitioner BJ Productions, Inc. (BJPI) is the holder / grantee of Certificate
of Copyright No. M922, dated January 28, 1971, of Rhoda and Me, a dating
game show aired from 1970 to 1977.

On June 28, 1973, petitioner BJPI submitted to the National Library an
addendum to its certificate of copyright specifying the shows format and style of
presentation.

Upon complaint of petitioners, information for violation of PD No. 49 was
filed against private respondent Zosa together with certain officers of RPN 9 for
airing Its a Date. It was assigned to Branch 104 of RTC Quezon City.

Zosa sought review of the resolution of the Assistant City Prosecutor
before the Department of Justice.

On August 12, 1992, respondent Secretary of Justice Franklin M. Drilon
reversed the Assistant City Prosecutors findings and directed him to move for
the dismissal of the case against private respondents.

Petitioner Joaquin filed motion for reconsideration but such was denied.

ISSUE:

Whether the format or mechanics or petitioners television show is entitled
to copyright protection.

HELD:

The Court ruled that the format of the show is not copyrightable. Sec. 2 of
PD No. 49, otherwise known as the Decree on Intellectual Property, enumerates
the classes of work entitled to copyright protection. The provision is substantially
the same as Sec. 172 of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (RA
8293). The format or mechanics of a television show is not included in the list of
protected works in Sec. 2 of PD No. 49. For this reason, the protection afforded
by the law cannot be extended to cover them.

Copyright, in the strict sense of the term, is purely a statutory right. It is a new
independent right granted by the statute and not simply a pre-existing right
regulated by the statute. Being a statutory grant, the rights are only such as the
statute confers, and may be obtained and enjoyed only with respect to the
subjects and by the person and on terms and conditions specified in the statute.

The Court is of the opinion that petitioner BJPIs copyright covers audio-visual
recordings of each episode of Rhoda and Me, as falling within the class of works
mentioned in PD 49.

The copyright does not extend to the general concept or format of its dating
game show.

Mere description by words of the general format of the two dating game shows is
insufficient; the presentation of the master videotape in evidence was
indispensable to the determination of the existence of a probable cause.

A television show includes more than mere words can describe because it
involves a whole spectrum of visuals and effects, video and audio, such that no
similarity or dissimilarity may be found by merely describing the general copyright
/ format of both dating game shows.




0 0 0 2 0 0 2
SPONSORED ADS

Intellectual Property Law on Copyright Must-Carry Rule
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. The premium channels include AXN, Jack TV,
etc which are paid by subscribers before such channels can be transmitted as feeds to
a subscribers TV set which has been installed with a Dream satellite.
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. The programs aired over
Channels 2 and 23 are either produced by ABS-CBN or purchased from or licensed by
other producers. ABS-CBN also owns regional television stations which pattern their
programming in accordance with perceived demands of the region. Thus, television
programs shown in Metro Manila and nearby provinces are not necessarily shown in
other provinces.
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 socio-
economic 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.


ABS-CBN vs. PMSI, G.R. No. 175769-70 (19 Jan
2009)
Post under case digests, Political Law at Wednesday, January 25, 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind
Facts: ABS-CBN is engaged in television and radio
broadcasting through wireless and satellite means while
Philippine Multi-Media Systems Inc. (PMSI for
brevity), the operator of DreamBroadcasting
System provides direct-to-home (DTH) television via
satellite to its subscribers all over the Philippines.

PMSI was granted legislative franchise under RA 8630 to
install, operate and maintain a nationwide DTH satellite
service and is obligated under by NTC
Memorandum Circular No. 4-08-88, Section 6.2 of which
requires all cable television system operators operating in
a community within Grade A or B contours to carry the
television signals of the authorized television broadcast
stations (must-carry rule).

ABS-CBN filed a complaint with Intellectual
Property Office (IPO) for violation of laws involving
property rights. It alleged that PMSIs unauthorized
rebroadcasting of Channels 2 and 23 infringed on its
broadcasting rights and copyright and that the
NTC circular only covers cable television system operators
and not DTH satellite television operators. Moreover,
NTC Circular 4-08-88 violates Sec. 9 of Art. III of the
Constitution because it allows the taking of property for
public use without payment of just compensation.

PMSI argued that its rebroadcasting of Channels 2 and 23
is sanctioned by Memorandum Circular No. 04-08-88; that
the must-carry rule under the Memorandum Circular is a
valid exercise of police power.

IPO and Court of Appeals ruled in favor of PMSI.


Issues:

(1) w/n PMSI infringed on ABS-CBNs broadcasting rights
and copyright

(2) w/n PMSI is covered by the NTC Circular (must-carry
rule)

(3) Whether NTC Circular 4-08-88 violates Sec. 9 of Art. III
of the Constitution because it allows the taking of property
for public use without payment of just compensation or it is
a valid exercise of police power.


Held:

(1) NO. PMSI does not infringe on ABS-CBNs
broadcasting rights under the IP Code as PMSI is not
engaged in rebroadcasting of Channels 2 and 23.
Rebroadcasting, which is prohibited by the IP Code, is the
simultaneous broadcasting by one broadcasting
organization of the broadcast of another broadcasting
organization. ABS-CBN creates and transmits its own
signals; PMSI merely carries such signals which the
viewers receive in its unaltered form. PMSI does not
produce, select, or determine the programs to be shown in
Channels 2 and 23. Likewise, it does not pass itself off as
the origin or author of such programs. Insofar as Channels
2 and 23 are concerned, PMSI merely retransmits the
same in accordance with NTC Memorandum Circular 04-
08-88.

(2) YES. DTH satellite tv operators is covered under the
NTCCircular which requires all cable television system
operators to carry the television signals of the
authorized television broadcast stations. The Director-
General of the IPO and the Court of
Appealscorrectly found that PMSIs services are similar to
a cable televisionsystem because the services it renders
fall under cable retransmission. Thus, PMSI, being a
DTH Satellite TV operator is covered by the NTC Circular.

(3) The carriage of ABS-CBNs signals by virtue of the
must-carry rule in Memorandum Circular No. 04-08-88 is
under the direction and control of the government though
the NTC which is vested with exclusive jurisdiction to
supervise, regulate and control telecommunications and
broadcast services/facilities in the Philippines. The
imposition of the must-carry rule is within the NTCs power
to promulgate rules and regulations, as public safety and
interest may require, to encourage a larger and more
effective use of communications, radio and television
broadcasting facilities, and to maintain effective
competition among private entities.








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.

On the other hand, Robles contends that the book DEP is the product of her own
intellectual creation, and was not a copy of any existing valid copyrighted book
and that the similarities may be due to the authors' exercise of the "right to fair
use of copyrighted materials, as guides."

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.