INCOMPLETE REVIEWER FOR COPYRIGHT

-UY

COPYRIGHT
Definition of Copyright
It is the element of a persons ownership of his intellectual creation
that permits him (author, composer or artist) to exclusively print,
publish and vend the product of his creation.
a. Common Law Copyright that which secures to the owner
exclusivity until its public dissemination
b. Statutory Copyright That which secures protection and
exclusivity in the owner by force of law even when the work
has been made accessible to public

Territorial Application of Copyright Laws (IP CODE)

Our copyright laws have no extra-territorial operation and the rights
granted under our laws can only be infringed by acts done within our
territorial jurisdiction

Copyright is DISTINCT from Trademarks and Patents

Doctrine:
Trademark, copyright and patents are different intellectual property
rights that cannot be interchanged with one another. A trademark is any
visible sign capable of distinguishing the goods or services of an
enterprise and shall include a stamped or marked container of goods.
The scope of a copyright is confined to literary and artistic works which
are original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain.
Patentable inventions refer to any technical solution of a problem in any
field of human activity which is new, involves an inventive step and is
industrially applicable.

Cases
PEARL & DEAN (PHIL.), INCORPORATED vs. SHOEMART,
INCORPORATED, and NORTH EDSA MARKETING, INCORPORATED

Doctrine:
Trademark, copyright and patents are different intellectual property
rights that cannot be interchanged with one another. A trademark is any
visible sign capable of distinguishing the goods or services of an
enterprise and shall include a stamped or marked container of goods.
The scope of a copyright is confined to literary and artistic works which
are original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain.
Patentable inventions refer to any technical solution of a problem in any
field of human activity which is new, involves an inventive step and is
industrially applicable.
FACTS:
Pearl and Dean is a corporation in the manufacture of advertising
display units also known as light boxes, which were manufactured by Metro
Industrial Services. A copyright Registration was obtained in 1981. These
were marketed in the name of "Poster Ads". They also applied for a
registration of trademark with the Bureau of Patents in 1983, but was only
approved in 19988. In 1985, petitioner had n agreement with respondent
Shoemart Inc (SMI) to install these light boxes in their Makati and Cubao
branch, Only the Makati branch was able to sigh the agreement. In 1986, the
contract was rescinded unilaterally by SMI, and instead contracted with Metro
Industrial Services. They installed these lightboxes in different SM city
branches, including Cubao and Makati, with association with North Edsa
Marketing Inc (NEMI), SMI's sister company. Petitioner requested SMI and
NEMI to put down their installations of the light boxes, and payment of
compensatory damages worth P20M. Claiming that respondents failed to
comply, they filed a case for infringement of trademark and copyright, unfair
competition and damages. RTC ruled in favor of petitioner, but CA reversed.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether there was a copyright infringement
(2) Whether there was a patent infringement
(3) Whether there was a trademark infringement
(4) Whether there was unfair competition
RULING:
No to all.
(1) Copyright is a statutory right, subject to the terms and conditions specified
in the statute. Therefore, it can only cover the works falling within the

INCOMPLETE REVIEWER FOR COPYRIGHT

-UY
statutory enumeration or description. Since the copyright was classified
under class "O" works, which includes "prints, pictorial illustrations,
advertising copies, labels, tags and box wraps," and does not include the
light box itself. A lightbox, even admitted by the president of petitioner
company, was neither a literary nor an artistic work but an engineering or
marketing invention, thus not included under a copyright.
(2) Petitioner was not able to secure a patent for its lightboxes, and cannot
legally prevent anyone from manufacturing or commercially using the same.
Patent has a three-fold purpose: a) to foster and reward invention; b)
promotes disclosures of invention and permit public to use the same upon
expiration; c) stringent requirements for patent protection to ensure in the
public domain remain there for free use of the public. Since petitioner was not
able to go through such examination, it cannot exclude others from
manufacturing, or selling such lightboxes. No patent, no protection.
(3) The certificate of registration issued by the Director of Patents gives
exclusive right to use its own symbol only to the description specified in the
certificate. It cannot prevent others to use the same trademark with a different
description.
(4) "Poster Ads" is a general term that cannot be associated specifically to
Pearl and Dean, thus it cannot be considered to use such term to be unfair
competition against the petitioner.

ELIDAD C. KHO
VS.
COURT OF APPEALS, SUMMERVILLE
GENERAL MERCHANDISING COMPANY AND ANG TIAM CHAY
G.R. No. 115758
March 19, 2002
FACTS:
Petitioners allegations are that they are doing business under the
name and style of KEC Cosmetics Laboratory, registered owner of Chin
Chun Su and oval facial cream container/case, and alleges that she also has
patent rights on Chin Chun Su and Device and Chin Chun Su Medicated
Cream after purchasing the same from Quintin Cheng, the registered owner
thereof in the supplemental register of the Philippine Patent Office and that
Summerville advertised and sold petitioners cream products under the brand
name Chin Chun Su, in similar containers that petitioner uses, thereby
misleading the public, and resulting in the decline in the petitioners business
sales and income; and, that the respondents should be enjoined from
allegedly infringing on the copyrights and patents of the petitioner.

The respondents, on the other hand, alleged as their defense that (1)
Summerville is the exclusive and authorized importer, re-packer and
distributor of Chin Chun Su products manufactured by Shun Yi factory of
Taiwan, (2) that the said Taiwanese manufacturing company authorized
Summerville to register its trade name Chin Chun Cu Medicated Cream with
the Philippine Patent office and Other appropriate governmental agencies;
(3) that KEC Cosmetics Laboratory of the petitioner obtained the copyrights
through misrepresentation and falsification; and, (4) that the authority of
Quintin Cheng, assignee of the patent registration certificate, to distribute and
market Chin Chun Su products in the Philippines had already terminated by
the said Taiwanese manufacturing company.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Kho has the sole right using the package of Chin
Chun Su products
RULING
Petitioner has no right to support her claim for the exclusive use of
the subject trade name and its container. The name and container of a
beauty cream product are proper subjects of a trademark in as much as the
same falls squarely within its definition. In order to be entitled to exclusively
use the same in the sale of the beauty cream product, the user must
sufficiently prove that she registered or used it before anybody else did. The
petitioners copyright and patent registration of the name and container would
not guarantee her the right to exclusive use of the same for the reason that
they are not appropriate subjects of the said intellectual rights. Consequently,
a preliminary injunction order cannot be issued for the reason that the
petitioner has not proven that she has a clear right over the said name and
container to the exclusion of others, not having proven that she has
registered a trademark thereto or used the same before anyone did.

JESSIE G. CHING
vs.
G.R. NO. 161295

WILLIAM SALINAS, SR.

29 June 2005

FACTS:
Petitioner is the owner and general manager of Jeshicris
Manufacturing Co., the maker and manufacturer of a Utility Model, described
as Leaf Spring Eye Bushing for Automobile made up of plastic, which was
issued by the National Library Certificates of Copyright Registration and
Deposit.
Petitioner requested the NBI for police/investigative assistance for
the apprehension and prosecution of illegal manufacturers, producers and/or

INCOMPLETE REVIEWER FOR COPYRIGHT

-UY
distributors of the works. After due investigation, the NBI filed applications for
SWs against R alleging that the latter therein reproduced and distributed the
said models penalized under R.A. No. 8293. RTC granted the application and
issued SWs for the seizure of the aforecited articles.
Respondent filed a motion to quash the search warrants averring that
the works covered by the certificates issued by the National Library are not
artistic in nature; they are considered automotive spare parts and pertain to
technology. They aver that the models are not original, and as such are the
proper subject of a patent, not copyright.

stressing that there is no copyright protection for works of applied art or

industrial design which have aesthetic or artistic features that cannot be
identified separately from the utilitarian aspects of the article. Functional
components of useful articles, no matter how artistically designed, have
generally been denied copyright protection unless they are separable from
the useful article.

RTC quashed the SW. Ps MR having been denied; he filed a petition for
certiorari in the CA. The petition was dismissed.

structural design of the components they seek to replace, the Leaf Spring
Eye Bushing and Vehicle Bearing Cushion are not ornamental. They lack the
decorative quality or value that must characterize authentic works of applied
art. They are not even artistic creations with incidental utilitarian functions or
works incorporated in a useful article. In actuality, the personal properties
described in the search warrants are mechanical works, the principal function
of which is utility sans any aesthetic embellishment.

ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not Petitioners certificate of copyright registration
over said utility models are valid; and
(2) Whether or not Petitioners utility models can be considered
literary and artistic works subject to copyright protection.
RULING:
(1) The petition has no merit. To discharge his burden, the applicant may
present the certificate of registration covering the work or, in its absence,
other evidence. A copyright certificate provides prima facie evidence of
originality which is one element of copyright validity. It constitutes prima facie
evidence of both validity and ownership and the validity of the facts stated in
the certificate. The presumption of validity to a certificate of copyright
registration merely orders the burden of proof. The applicant should not
ordinarily be forced, in the first instance, to prove all the multiple facts that
underline the validity of the copyright unless the respondent, effectively
challenging them, shifts the burden of doing so to the applicant.
A certificate of registration creates no rebuttable presumption of copyright
validity where other evidence in the record casts doubt on the question. In
such a case, validity will not be presumed. No copyright granted by law can

be said to arise in favor of the petitioner despite the issuance of the

certificates of copyright registration and the deposit of the Leaf Spring Eye
Bushing and Vehicle Bearing Cushion.
(2) We agree with the contention of the petitioner (citing Section 171.10 of
R.A. No. 8293), that the authors intellectual creation, regardless of whether it
is a creation with utilitarian functions or incorporated in a useful article
produced on an industrial scale, is protected by copyright law. However, the
law refers to a work of applied art which is an artistic creation. It bears

In this case, the petitioners models are not works of applied art, nor artistic
works. They are utility models, useful articles, albeit with no artistic design or
value. Being plain automotive spare parts that must conform to the original

In this case, the bushing and cushion are not works of art. They are, as the
petitioner himself admitted, utility models which may be the subject of a
patent.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is hereby DENIED
for lack of merit. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the CA are
AFFIRMED.

DENICOLA TEST
This test inquires into which aspects of the work are dictated by the
functional constraints of the article and which aspects reflect
unconstrained perspective of the artist (Prof. Robert Denicola)

Can an article of commerce serve as a trademark and at the same

time enjoy patent and copyright protection?

INCOMPLETE REVIEWER FOR COPYRIGHT

-UY
Copyright over literary and works is vested from moment of creation
Sec. 172. Literary and Artistic Works. 172.1 Literary and artistic works, hereinafter referred to as "works",
are original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain
protected from the moment of their creation and shall include in
particular:
(a) Books, pamphlets, articles and other writings;
(b) Periodicals and newspapers;
(c) Lectures, sermons, addresses, dissertations prepared for oral
delivery, whether or not reduced in writing or other material form;
(d) Letters;
(e) Dramatic or dramatico-musical compositions; choreographic works or
entertainment in dumb shows;
(f) Musical compositions, with or without words;
(g) Works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving,
lithography or other works of art; models or designs for works of art;
(h) Original ornamental designs or models for articles of manufacture,
whether or not registrable as an industrial design, and other works of
applied art;
(i) Illustrations, maps, plans, sketches, charts and three-dimensional
works relative to geography, topography, architecture or science;
(j) Drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical character;
(k) Photographic works including works produced by a process
analogous to photography; lantern slides;
(l) Audiovisual works and cinematographic works and works produced by
a process analogous to cinematography or any process for making
audio-visual recordings;
(m) Pictorial illustrations and advertisements;
(n) Computer programs; and
(o) Other literary, scholarly, scientific and artistic works.

172.2. Works are protected by the sole fact of their creation,

irrespective of their mode or form of expression, as well as of their
content, quality and purpose.

Case
UNILEVER PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. CA, PROCTOR & GAMBLE
PHILIPPINES
Petitioner does not deny that the questioned TV advertisements
are substantially similar to P&GPs double tug or tac-tac key visual.
UNILEVERS CONTENTION: It submits that P&GP is not entitled
to the relief demanded, which is to enjoin petitioner from airing
said TV advertisements, for the reason that petitioner has
Certificates of Copyright Registration for which advertisements
while P&GP has none with respect to its double-tug or tac-tac key
visual. In other words, it is petitioners contention that P&GP is not
entitled to any protection because it has not registered with the
National Library the very TV commercials which it claims have
been infringed by petitioner.
RULING:
We disagree. Section 2 of PD 49 stipulates that the
copyright for a work or intellectual creation subsists from the
moment of its creation. Accordingly, the creator acquires copyright
for his work right upon its creation. Contrary to petitioners
contention, the intellectual creators exercise and enjoyment of
copyright for his work and the protection given by law to him is not
contingent or dependent on any formality or registration.
Therefore, taking the material allegations of paragraphs 1.3 to 1.5
of P&GPs verified Complaint in the context of PD 49, it cannot be
seriously doubted that at least, for purposes of determining
whether preliminary injunction should issue during the pendency
of the case, P&GP is entitled to the injunctive relief prayed for in its
Complaint.
The provisional remedy of preliminary injunction will not issue
unless it is shown in the verified complaint that plaintiff is probably
entitled to the relief demanded, which consists in whole or in part
in restraining the commission or continuance of the acts
complained of. In view of such requirement, the court has to make
a tentative determination if the right sought to be protected exists

and whether the act against which the writ is to be directed is

violative of such right. Certainly, the courts determination as to the
propriety of issuing the writ cannot be taken as a prejudgment of
the merits of the case because it is tentative in nature and the writ
may be dissolved during or after the trial if the court finds that
plaintiff was not entitled to it.

Works PROTECTED by Copyright

INCOMPLETE REVIEWER FOR COPYRIGHT

-UY
typographical arrangement of the published edition of the
work.
REQUIREMENT OF ORIGINALITY
An original work is that which requires originality in skill or labor in
execution such that the works became individual either in matter,
forms, arrangement or treatment (not necessarily original thought,
idea or research)
Case

a. ORIGINAL WORKS (Sec. 172)

See section on Copyright over literary and works is vested

from moment of creation

b. DERIVATIVE WORKS (Sec. 173)
173.1. The following derivative works shall also be protected by
copyright:
(a) Dramatizations, translations, adaptations, abridgments,
arrangements, and other alterations of literary or artistic works;
and
(b) Collections of literary, scholarly or artistic works, and
compilations of data and other materials which are original by
reason of the selection or coordination or arrangement of their
contents. (Sec. 2, [P] and [Q], P. D. No. 49)
173.2. The works referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Subsection
173.1 shall be protected as a new works: Provided however, That
such new work shall not affect the force of any subsisting copyright
upon the original works employed or any part thereof, or be construed
to imply any right to such use of the original works, or to secure or
extend copyright in such original works. (Sec. 8, P. D. 49; Art. 10, TRIPS)
Sec. 174. Published Edition of Work.
- In addition to the right to publish granted by the author, his
heirs or assigns, the publisher shall have a copy right
consisting merely of the right of reproduction of the

VENANCIO SAMBAR, doing business under the name and style of CVS
Garment Enterprises vs. LEVI STRAUSS & CO., and LEVI STRAUSS
(PHIL.), INC.
G.R. No. 132604
March 6, 2002
FACTS:
Levi Strauss & Co., and Levi Strauss Phil, Inc., through a letter from their legal
officer, demanded that CVS Garment Enterprises (CVSGE) desist from using
their stitched arcuate design on the Europress jeans which CVSGE advertised
in the Manila Bulletin.
Defense counsel of CVSGE: the arcuate design on the back pockets of
Europress jeans was different from the design on the back pockets of Levis
jeans. He further asserted that his client had a copyright on the design it was
using.
Private respondents filed a complaint against Sambar, doing business under
the name and style of CVSGE. Private respondents also impleaded the
Director of the National Library. Alleged in their complaint that Levi Strauss and
Co. (LS&Co.), an internationally known clothing manufacturer, owns the
arcuate design trademark which was registered under U.S. Trademark
Registration No. 404, 248 and in the Principal Register of trademarks with the
Philippine Patent Office under Certificate of Registration No. 20240 CVSGIC
and Venancio Sambar, without the consent and authority of private
respondents and in infringement and unfair competition, sold and advertised,
and despite demands to cease and desist, continued to manufacture, sell and
advertise denim pants under the brand name Europress with back pockets
bearing a design similar to the arcuate trademark of private respondents,
thereby causing confusion on the buying public, prejudicial to private
respondents goodwill and property right.
CVSGIC admitted manufacturing and selling denim pants under the brand
name of Europress, bearing a back pocket design of two double arcs meeting
in the middle. However, it denied that there was infringement or unfair
competition because the display rooms of department stores where Levis and
Europress jeans were sold, were distinctively segregated by billboards and

INCOMPLETE REVIEWER FOR COPYRIGHT

-UY
other modes of advertisement. CVSGIC avers that the public would not be
confused on the ownership of such known trademark as Levis, Jag,
Europress, etc.. Also, CVSGIC claimed that it had its own original arcuate
design, as evidenced by Copyright Registration No. 1-1998, which was very
different and distinct from Levis design.
Trial Court as affirmed by CA issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining
CVSGIC and petitioner from manufacturing, advertising and selling pants with
the arcuate design on their back pockets.
ISSUE: WON there was an infringement of respondents arcuate mark.
HELD: Europress use of the arcuate design was an infringement of the Levis
design.

Principal Register of Bureau of Patents, Trademarks, and Technology

Transfer. According to private respondents, the essence of copyright
registration is originality and a copied design is inherently noncopyrightable. They insist that registration does not confer originality upon a
copycat version of a prior design.
The award of damages and cancellation of petitioners copyright are
appropriate. Award of damages is clearly provided in Section 23, while
cancellation of petitioners copyright finds basis on the fact that the design was
a mere copy of that of private respondents trademark. To be entitled to
copyright, the thing being copyrighted must be original, created by the author
through his own skill, labor and judgment, without directly copying or evasively
imitating the work of another

RATIO:
The backpocket design of Europress jeans, a double arc intersecting
in the middle was the same as Levis mark, also a double arc intersecting at
the center. Although the trial court found differences in the two designs, these
differences were not noticeable. Further, private respondents said,
infringement of trademark did not require exact similarity. Colorable imitation
enough to cause confusion among the public, was sufficient for a trademark to
be infringed. Private respondents explained that in a market research they
conducted with 600 respondents, the result showed that the public was
confused by Europress trademark vis the Levis trademark.
It must be stressed that it was immaterial whether or not petitioner was
connected with CVSGIC. What is relevant is that petitioner had a copyright
over the design and that he allowed the use of the same by CVSGIC.
Private respondents assert that the lower courts found that there was
infringement and Levis was entitled to damages based on Sections 22 and 23
of RA No. 166 otherwise known as the Trade Mark Law, as amended, which
was the law then governing. Said sections define infringement and prescribe
the remedies therefor. Further, private respondents aver it was misleading for
petitioner to claim that the trial court ruled that private respondents did not
suffer pecuniary loss, suggesting that the award of damages was
improper. According to the private respondents, the trial court did not make
any such ruling. It simply stated that there was no evidence that Levis had
suffered decline in its sales because of the use of the arcuate design by
Europress jeans. They offer that while there may be no direct proof that they
suffered a decline in sales, damages may still be measured based on a
reasonable percentage of the gross sales of the respondents, pursuant to
Section 23 of the Trademark law.
The cancellation of petitioners copyright was justified because
petitioners copyright cannot prevail over respondents registration in the

Works NOT PROTECTED by Copyright

Sec. 175. Unprotected Subject Matter.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 172 and 173, no protection shall
extend, under this law, to any idea, procedure, system method or operation,
concept, principle, discovery or mere data as such, even if they are
expressed, explained, illustrated or embodied in a work; news of the day and
other miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of press
information; or any official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature,
as well as any official translation thereof. (n)

Sec. 176. Works of the Government.

176.1. No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the
Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office
wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work
for profit. Such agency or office may, among other things, impose as a
condition the payment of royalties. No prior approval or conditions shall be
required for the use of any purpose of statutes, rules and regulations, and
speeches, lectures, sermons, addresses, and dissertations, pronounced,
read or rendered in courts of justice, before administrative agencies, in
deliberative assemblies and in meetings of public character. (Sec. 9, First
Par., P. D. No. 49)
176.2. The Author of speeches, lectures, sermons, addresses, and
dissertations mentioned in the preceding paragraphs shall have the exclusive
right of making a collection of his works. (n)

176.3. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, the Government is not

precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by
assignment, bequest or otherwise; nor shall publication or republication by
the government in a public document of any work in which copy right is
subsisting be taken to cause any abridgment or annulment of the copyright or
to authorize any use or appropriation of such work without the consent of the
copyright owners. (Sec. 9, Third Par., P. D. No. 49)

Rights conferred by Copyright

1. Economic Right
Subject to the provisions of Chapter VIII, copyright or economic rights shall
consist of the exclusive right to carry out, authorize or prevent the following
acts:

Reproduction of the work or substantial portion of the work;

Dramatization, translation, adaptation, abridgment,
arrangement or other transformation of the work;
The first public distribution of the original and each copy of the
work by sale or other forms of transfer of ownership;
Rental of the original or a copy of an audiovisual 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; (n)
Public display of the original or a copy of the work;
Public performance of the work; and
Other communication to the public of the work (Sec. 5, P. D.
No. 49a)

2. Moral Rights (Sec. 193)

The author of a work shall, independently of the economic rights in
Section 177 or the grant of an assignment or license with respect to
such right, have the right:

INCOMPLETE REVIEWER FOR COPYRIGHT

-UY
To require that the authorship of the works be attributed to him,
in particular, the right that his name, as far as practicable, be
indicated in a prominent way on the copies, and in connection
with the public use of his work;
To make any alterations of his work prior to, or to withhold it
from publication;
To object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of,
or other derogatory action in relation to, his work which would
be prejudicial to his honor or reputation; and
To restrain the use of his name with respect to any work not of
his own creation or in a distorted version of his work.

3. Rights of Performers, Producers of Sound Recordings and

Broadcasting Organizations
Scope of Performers' Rights (Sec. 203)
Subject to the provisions of Section 212, performers shall enjoy the
following exclusive rights:
- As regards their performances, the right of authorizing:
(a) The broadcasting and other communication to the public of their
performance; and
(b) The fixation of their unfixed performance.
- The right of authorizing the direct or indirect reproduction of
their performances fixed in sound recordings, in any manner or
form;
- Subject to the provisions of Section 206, the right of
authorizing the first public distribution of the original and copies
of their performance fixed in the sound recording through sale
or rental or other forms of transfer of ownership;
- The right of authorizing the commercial rental to the public of
the original and copies of their performances fixed in sound
recordings, even after distribution of them by, or pursuant to
the authorization by the performer; and
- The right of authorizing the making available to the public of
their performances fixed in sound recordings, by wire or
wireless means, in such a way that members of the public may
access them from a place and time individually chosen by
them.

INCOMPLETE REVIEWER FOR COPYRIGHT

-UY
Rules on Copyright Ownership (Sec. 178)
Moral Rights of Performers (Sec. 204)
- Independently of a performer's economic rights, the performer,
shall, as regards his live aural performances or performances
fixed in sound recordings, have the right to claim to be
identified as the performer of his performances, except where
the omission is dictated by the manner of the use of the
performance, and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other
modification of his performances that would be prejudicial to
his reputation.
- The rights granted to a performer in accordance with
Subsection 203.1 shall be maintained and exercised fifty (50)
years after his death, by his heirs, and in default of heirs, the
government, where protection is claimed.
Additional Remuneration for Subsequent Communications or
Broadcasts (Sec. 206)
- Unless otherwise provided in the contract, in every
communication to the public or broadcast of a performance
subsequent to the first communication or broadcast thereof by
the broadcasting organization, the performer shall be entitled
to an additional remuneration equivalent to at least five percent
(5%) of the original compensation he or she received for the
first communication or broadcast.
Right Producers of Sound Recordings (Sec. 208)
Subject to the provisions of Section 212, producers of sound
recordings shall enjoy the following exclusive rights:
- The right to authorize the direct or indirect reproduction of their
sound recordings, in any manner or form; the placing of these
reproductions in the market and the right of rental or lending;
- The right to authorize the first public distribution of the original
and copies of their sound recordings through sale or rental or
other forms of transferring ownership; and
- The right to authorize the commercial rental to the public of the
original and copies of their sound recordings, even after
distribution by them by or pursuant to authorization by the
producer.

Copyright ownership shall be governed by the following rules:

1. Subject to the provisions of this section, in the case of original
literary and artistic works, copyright shall belong to the author
of the work;
2. In the case of works of joint authorship, the co-authors shall be
the original owners of the copyright and in the absence of
agreement, their rights shall be governed by the rules on co-

ownership.
If, however, a work of joint authorship consists of parts that can
be used separately and the author of each part can be
identified, the author of each part shall be the original owner of
the copyright in the part that he has created;
3. In the case of work created by an author during and in the
course of his employment, the copyright shall belong to:
a. The employee, if the creation of the object of copyright is
not a part of his regular duties even if the employee uses
the time, facilities and materials of the employer.
b. The employer, if the work is the result of the performance
of his regularly-assigned duties, unless there is an
agreement, express or implied, to the contrary.
4. In the case of a work-commissioned by a person other than an
employer of the author and who pays for it and the work is
made in pursuance of the commission, the person who so
commissioned the work shall have ownership of work, but the
copyright thereto shall remain with the creator, unless there is
a written stipulation to the contrary;
5. In the case of audiovisual work, the copyright shall belong to

the producer, the author of the scenario, the composer of the

music, the film director, and the author of the work so adapted.
However, subject to contrary or other stipulations among the
creators, the producers shall exercise the copyright to an
extent required for the exhibition of the work in any manner,

INCOMPLETE REVIEWER FOR COPYRIGHT

-UY
except for the right to collect performing license fees for the
performance of musical compositions, with or without words,
which are incorporated into the work; and
6. In respect of letters, the copyright shall belong to the writer
subject to the provisions of Article 723 of the Civil Code.
Sec. 179. Anonymous and Pseudonymous Works. - For purposes of
this Act, the publishers shall be deemed to represent the authors of
articles and other writings published without the names of the authors
or under pseudonyms, unless the contrary appears, or the
pseudonyms or adopted name leaves no doubts as to the authors
identity, or if the author of the anonymous works discloses his identity.