Estefanie A.

Dayanghirang

Legal Research and Computer - Final Paper

Section 1A AY 2018-2019

Submitted to: Atty. Oliver Xaiver A. Reyes

 I. Introduction
1. Background

In this day and age, it can be said that technology and man cannot live without each other.
Without the intervention of man, technology would not have evolved and grown as it did; and
without the development of technology, man would not have the convenience and ease that he
enjoys today. From using smart phones, laptops, automated systems, social media algorithms,
robotic hands, and even robot assistants; there is no doubt that the future will be driven by
technology.

With that being said, the exponential growth of technology has also led to complications
and the blurring of lines between what is created by man and what is created by machines. Today,
the term Artificial Intelligence (AI) no longer shocks the common man and although previously
illustrated as merely robots; today, these intelligent creatures have taken various forms from
software that creates own music, to self-driving motor vehicles, to Google Assistants and
Amazon’s infamous “Alexa.” Essentially, what makes all of these intelligent creations is that it
has the same elements of the ability to think on its own; the capacity to decide and take action on
its own; and the ability to produce output from the series of decision making it has done.

2. The Problem

With the onset of AI systems in the daily life of man, more particularly in the important
fields of healthcare, transportation, the arts, business and economics; the debate then arises when
the discussion touches the topic of crediting work and the rights and liabilities involved therein. In
simpler terms, when a man uses AIs to produce something and he barely participates in the
production, nor inputs anything creative; who then is better deemed to be the producer or the author
of the output? Is it the man, the application developer, or the AI?

More importantly, bringing all of these back to the Philippine setting; as there is yet no
provision that discusses who the author is in the relationship between AI systems and humans
today; and since there has been a difficulty in amending the current Intellectual Property Code due
to the exponential changes in technology as was mentioned by Atty. Ma. Gladys Vilchez, a partner
in a firm that primarily engages in Intellectual Property Law Practice1; it is not only timely, but
important to discuss, who then is the proper party to be considered the owner of AI outputs; and
who then will be the proper party to be protected by Intellectual Property Laws?

3. Significance of the Paper

Under the current legal system of both the international and local setting, legal frameworks
have not yet explicitly stated who has the better rights over AI output. As was mentioned by Atty.
Vilchez, the last time that the IP laws were touched was about ten (10) years ago and it took years
to make it as well; today as they are currently once again in the works for another amendment2, it
is the best time to discuss the loopholes of the Intellectual Property Code and give
recommendations as to the current debate on AI systems and ownership.

II. How Copyright and the Intellectual Property Law Came to Be

1. History

In the year 1972, the then President Ferdinand Marcos signed into law the Decree on
Intellectual Property, laying the foundation of intellectual protection in the Philippines; as well as
the doctrinal concept that copyright protection begins the very moment it comes into existence.3

Naturally, when the Philippines was conquered by the United States of America in the year
1898, the U.S.’ own Copyright Laws at that time became the basis of the then Act No. 3134 or
“An Act to Protect Intellectual Property.”4

In the year 1995, the infamous TRIPS Agreement or the “Agreement on Trade Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property Rights” was acceded to by the Philippines; upon which the provisions of
the present Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines was based.5

Finally, in the year 1998, Republic Act No. 8293 or “An Act Prescribing the Intellectual
Property Code and Establishing the Intellectual Property Office” was born.6

1
Interview with Atty. Ma. Gladys C. Vilchez, Partner, of Hechanova, Bugay, Vilchez & Andaya-Racadio Law
Offices, in Makati City, Philippines (Dec. 7, 2018).
2
Id.
3
P.D. No. 49 (November 1972).
4
Christopher L. Lim, The Development of Philippine Copyright Law, 46 ATENEO L.J. 368, 369 (2001).
5
Id at 372.
6
Id at 373.
 III. Authorship vs. Ownership
1. The Concept of the “Author”

One of the classifications of property in the Philippines is tangible or corporeal, which are
objects that can be touched and seen; and intangible or incorporeal like credits or rights 7; the
second of which belongs Intellectual Property.

This right over said intellectual property has been accorded to the “Author” of said work;
or as defined in the Intellectual Property code, the “natural person” who created the work.8 This
author has also taken various of forms depending on the field of creation of the work, namely the
arts, science, business and economics; but it basically means that the author is considered the
creator of the object. It is also stated in the IP code that copyright belongs to the author as the
creator of the work, unless there is stipulation to the contrary.9

2. The Concept of “Ownership”

From the interpretation of the IP Code and the international copyright laws that the Philippines
bases its IP laws from, this concept of “authorship” of copyrightable works seems to be different
from the concept of “ownership” of the copyrights themselves.

In the same code, there are some instances wherein ownership is granted not to the author or
the creator. The first instance is when works are created in the course of employment, in which the
rights are given to the employer10; the second is when the work is commissioned by another11; and
the third is in the case of audiovisual work, wherein rights are divided between the producer, the
composer, the film director, and the author of the work so adapted.12

3. The Blurring of Lines

7
EDGARDO L. PARAS, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES BOOK II PROPERTY, OWNERSHIP, AND ITS MODIFICATIONS
TITLE I. (16th ed. 2008).
8
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE, § 171 ¶ 1.
9
INTELL. PROP. CODE, § 178, ¶1
10
Id. ¶3.
11
Id. ¶4.
12
Id. ¶5.
 As the Philippine intellectual property laws are based largely on the U.S.’ promulgations,
there is a necessity to examine U.S cases on the recent developments of authorship and
copyright.

The 2015 case of Naruto vs. Slater13 illustrates a situation wherein non-humans have
created artistic work and such was appropriated by humans. PETA or “People for Ethical
Treatment of Animals” sued a nature photographer in behalf of a monkey, for distributing and
having economic gain over a photograph taken by the monkey himself. What complicates the
situation more is that it was the photographer’s camera that was used, and it was the
photographer who chose which among the photos was best for reproduction; thus reducing the
participation of the monkey to merely clicking the camera button. To add to such, Wikipedia
published such photos without the photographer’s nor PETA’s consent; arguing that said
photographs weren’t eligible for copyright protection as it was taken by a non-human, thus not
having the legal capacity to claim rights. They argued that said photo properly belonged to the
public domain.14

This concept of belonging to the public domain is also present in Philippine laws. When
works are classified as belonging to such, then intellectual property protection no longer
applies and anyone is free to use such works without anybody’s consent or permission.15 The
various ways that such works become public domains is first, when there is no way to identify
the author16; second is after the lapse of ten (10) years17; and third is when rights have been
deemed waived in favor of the public.18

4. The Necessity to Protect Copyrightable Works

Both internationally and locally, the trend has been to award copyright and to protect the
authors, the owners, and the collaborators; as the ultimate goal of awarding such is to provide

13
Naruto vs. Slater, No. 16-15469 (9th Cir. 2018) (U.S.).
14
Alexis Kleinman, Wikipedia Is In A Pretty Weird Battle Over A Monkey Selfie, available at
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/06/monkey-selfie_n_5654752.html (last accessed Jun. 8, 2019).
15
Ignacio S. Sapalo, Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, in BACKGROUND READING MATERIAL ON THE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SYSTEM OF THE PHILIPPINES 137 (1994).
16
Id. at 89.
17
INTELL. PROP. CODE note, at §198.
18
Filipino Society of Composers v. Benjamin Tan, 148 SCRA 461 (1987).
 economic incentives; encourage creativity and production; and to balance the interest between
creators and the consuming public.19

IV. Conclusion and Recommendation

The current Intellectual Property Code does not specify who is considered the author, the
owner, or if it is the considered as one and the same in certain situations. This may be due to the
fact that when the framers of said code were in the works for its provisions, there hasn’t been as
much development in AIs as there is today. Due to the unprecedented growth of said AIs,
Philippine laws haven’t been able to keep up with the complicated multi-party situations that we
have today.

With that being said, it is proposed that in the upcoming amendment of the IP code, a provision
or provisions must be included that identifies who the author, owner, or the fact that it is considered
to be one and the same in view of the different situations that are real and happening today. These
situations are generally those that involve AIs that have self-autonomy or the power to make
decisions on their own and produce output.

To better illustrate, say in the example wherein an application draws its own artworks and the
end-user merely turns on the application; the provision should clearly identify that the author is
considered to be the AI that produced said work, but the ownership rights must belong to the end-
user as he was the one who enabled said AI to work.

In the example wherein highly automated and self-driven motor vehicles are involved in a car
accident; the provision must state that the one liable is the one who operated said motor vehicle
and is in charge of the transportation from point A to point B.

In conclusion, as there are multiple situations today that involve the different uses of AIs, the
framers of the currently being amended IP Code, must take into consideration that AIs are going
to continue developing and that the possibility of AIs having their own rights isn’t as absurd as it
sounds. This is why there is a need to identify the rightful owners of copyright, who the rightful
author is, and who owns the produced material.

19
VICENTE B. AMADOR, COPYRIGHT UNDER THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE 8 (1998 ed.).
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Authorities

A. Local Laws
1. An Act Prescribing the Intellectual Property Code and Establishing the Intellectual
Property Office, Providing For Its Powers and Functions, and For Other Purposes
[INTELL. PROP. CODE], Republic Act No. 8293, §171, §178 (1997).
2. Presidential Decree No. 49 (November 1972).

B. Local Cases
1. Filipino Society of Composers v. Benjamin Tan, 148 SCRA 461 (1987).

C. Foreign Cases
1. Naruto vs. Slater, No. 16-15469 (9th Cir. 2018) (U.S.).

Secondary Authorities

A. Books
1. EDGARDO L. PARAS, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES BOOK II PROPERTY,
OWNERSHIP, AND ITS MODIFICATIONS TITLE I. (16th ed. 2008).
2. VICENTE B. AMADOR, COPYRIGHT UNDER THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE 8
(1998 ed.).

B. Journal Articles
3. Christopher L. Lim, The Development of Philippine Copyright Law, 46 ATENEO
L.J. 368, 369 (2001).

C. Interviews
4. Interview with Atty. Ma. Gladys C. Vilchez, Partner, of Hechanova, Bugay,
Vilchez & Andaya-Racadio Law Offices, in Makati City, Philippines (Dec. 7,
2018).

D. Internet Sources
5. Alexis Kleinman, Wikipedia Is In A Pretty Weird Battle Over A Monkey Selfie,
available at https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/06/monkey-
selfie_n_5654752.html (last accessed Jun. 8, 2019).