Zacarias - First Draft of Thesis

SAN SEBASTIAN COLLEGE- RECOLETOS, MANILA 1
TYPE YOUR TITLE HERE. THE APA RECOMMENDATION

FOR TITLE LENGTH SHOULD NOT EXCEED 12 WORDS
A Thesis
Presented to the
INSTITUTE OF LAW
SAN SEBASTIAN COLLEGE-RECOLETOS
MANILA, PHILIPPINES
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements of the Degree
JURIS DOCTOR
by
JADINE REID
October 2018
ABSTRACT
This section is limited to 100-150 words (approximately 12-15 lines), singly

spaced and must include at least four (4) keywords.
Keywords: law, education, justice, equality

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Certificate
Prefatory Note (Optional)
1.0 Problem Rationale 1

1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem 4
1.3 Objectives 5
1.4 Significance 6
1.5 Scope and Limitations
2.0 The Research Literature

2.1 Literature Review
2.2 Theoretical Framework

2.3 Research Paradigm
3.0 Research Methods
3.1 Research Designs (…example for mix methods)

3.1.1 Case Study Design (…for example)
3.1.2 Meaning
3.1.3 Selection/Subjects and Study Site
3.1.4 Data Measure
3.1.5 Data Gathering Procedure

3.1.6 Ethical Consideration
3.1.7 Mode of Analysis (…for Qualitative Research)
3.2.1 Descriptive-Correlational (…for example)

3.2.2 Meaning
3.2.3 Subjects and Study Site
3.2.4 Data Measure/Instrumentation
3.2.5 Data Gathering Procedure
3.2.6 Ethical Considerations (VERY IMPORTANT section!)
3.2.7 Data Analysis (…for Quantitative Research)
References
Examples only! (remove those not applicable)

Appendix I: Permit to Conduct the Interviews 37
Appendix II: Request for Pertinent Data 38
Appendix III: Informed Consent for Research Participants 39
Appendix IV: Informed Consent for Research Participation
Recruited Concept Mapping Participants 40
Appendix V: Survey Questionnaires 41
Appendix VI: The Interview Protocol 44

Appendix VII: The Interview Protocol for Tutors/Reviewers 46
Appendix VIII: The Interview Protocol 47
Appendix IX: Concept Mapping Instrument 48
Appendix X: Documentary Analysis 49
Appendix XI: Timetable for Research 50

Appendix XII: Budget Proposal 51
Curriculum Vitae
Chapter 1
THE PROBLEM RATIONALE
1.1. Introduction
The 1987 Constitution provides 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
The embodiment of Article XIV, Section 13, is the Intellectual
Property Code2 which provides protection to the scientists, inventors,
artists, and other gifted citizens stated in the constitutional provision.
Patents, trademarks, and copyrights are the intellectual properties
protected by the law.
Intellectual property rights over music fall within the scope of
copyright. Along with the rights protected by the law, violations of such
rights are also dealt with by the Intellectual Property Code. Infringement of
a person’s rights are punishable. The most common act of infringing an
artist’s or composer’s copyright is the illegal reproduction and sale of
1
Article XIV, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines
2
RA 9283
pirated copies. In this digital age, obtaining a copy of the song and mass
reproducing them for commercial purpose has become easy.
Another form of infringement that is easily committed is through
online file sharing and streaming. There are several unlicensed websites
that offer downloadable copies of songs without payment or credit to the
owners of the songs’ copyright. Several softwares are also available
online where users are able to share files with each other. Among those
files that are illegally shared online are songs.
One manner of infringement that does not often come to light in the
Philippine music scene is when an artist or composer appropriates a song
or portions of the song of made by another. Although there are no cases
filed as regards this issue in the Philippines, there remains to be a
violation of the Intellectual Property Code. This act is common in Filipino
rap music, jingles of politicians during election campaigns and of products
for advertising, and cover songs performed by local bands.
Ex-battalion, a rap group which took the spotlight in late 2017,
became the subject of allegations of copyright infringement over the song
“Hayaan Mo Sila”. The song had 13 million views on Youtube 3 when the
issue of copyright infringement arose. Diamond Style composed a beat
entitled “One Kiss”. The beat of “One Kiss” was used by Ex Battalion as
the melody of “Hayaan Mo Sila”. When the song became popular online,
3
Youtube is a free online video sharing platform.
Diamond Style accused Ex Battalion of using the beat without the proper
license. According to Diamond Style, Ex Battalion paid for the license

4
which only allowed 2,000 streams and 250,000 views only. When the
music video of “Hayaan Mo Sila” reached millions, Diamond style
demanded 4,000 US dollars, or Php 200,000 for the use of the beat that
exceeded the lease.5 No lawsuits were filed.
Raymund Marasigan, lead singer of Sandwich and former member
of Eraserheads, tweeted6 not to support candidates of the 2019 elections
who use “unauthorized bastardized version of a popular song as an
election jingle” and further stated that “Di pa na-elect, nagnakaw na
([They] haven’t been elected yet but they have already stolen
something)”7.
A conflict between two popular OPM 8 bands arose from covering
songs. December Avenue frontman Zel Bautista posted a tweet stating
that to be famous, copying another person’s work would lead to earning
money, however, glory and respect does not come with it. 9 Bautista
4
Gabinete, J. (2018, January 19). Ex-Battalion Embroiled in Copyright Issue Over Monster Hit
"Hayaan Mo Sila. PEPph News. Retrieved from https://www.pep.ph/news/local/69290/ex-
battalion-embroiled-in-copyright-issue-over-monster-hit-hayaan-mo-sila
5
Fallore, R. (2018, January 4). Look: Ex Battalion Releases Official Statement Regarding
"Hayaan Mo Sila" Copyright Issue! Myx Articles. Retrieved from https://myx.abs-
cbn.com/features/13793/look-ex-battalion-releases-statement-regarding-h
6
A tweet is a statement posted on a social media platform called Twitter where users are able to
post their thoughts with 150 characters or less.
7
Lacson, M. C. (2019, April 8). Lacson: On campaign jingles and copyright infringement.
SunStar Pampanga. Retrieved from https://www.sunstar.com.ph/article/1800604
8
The term ‘OPM’ refers to Original Pilipino Music or Original Pinoy Music, refers to Philippine
pop songs.
9
ABS-CBN News. (2019, February 1). How song covers can be problematic:. ABS-CBN News -
Entertainment. Retrieved from https://news.abs-cbn.com/entertainment/02/01/19/how-song-
highlighted that he did not expressly mention any names nor anything
about covers. Subsequently, Agsunta, a band that became known for their
covers of popular OPM songs, deleted all their covers posted online. Clem
Castro, a member of another popular OPM band called Orange and
Lemons, posted a series of tweets stating how the conflict between
December Avenue and Agsunta “sets a precedent for intellectual property
concerns”10.
1.2. Statement of the Problem
This research will look into the copyright restrictions as regards the
use of another’s work and how a more lenient copyright law would enable
the furtherance of music writing by building on the foundations made by
other artists. Particularly, this will answer the following questions.
1.2.1. What is sampling?
1.2.2. How is sampling in music characterized under the Philippine
Copyright Law?
1.2.3. What is a parody?
1.2.4. How is parody used in music, characterized in Philippine
Copyright Law?
covers-can-be-problematic-orange-lemons-frontman-explains
10
Id.
1.2.5. In the U.S., where the copyright laws of the Philippines was
mostly lifted, how does several U.S. jurisprudences tackle the issue of
copyright infringement as regards sampling and parodies?
1.2.6. What would be the status of the Philippine music industry if
the U.S. jurisprudences were to be adopted in the Philippines?
1.2.7. Aside from obtaining consent, how would artists be allowed
to continue or build upon the composition of other artists to advance
songwriting without committing infringement?
1.3. Objectives
The current landscape of the music industry of the Philippines does
not encourage the full exercise of a copyright. When actual copyright
infringement by means of copying another’s work is committed, it is
common that artists turn a blind eye from the infringement. At the same
time, the boundaries of when appropriating a song or its portion for
another song has not yet been clearly defined. Because of such unclear
boundaries, artists are left in the dark as to how much copying would be
allowed.
This study aims to highlight the problems that occur because of the
unclear boundaries between allowable copying and copyright
infringement. Also, another objective of this study is to provide a definite

boundary between the two, with respect to sampling and parodies, which
benefits both the composer and artist of the original and the artists that
attempts to evolve the original.
1.4. Significance
Copyright law, with respect to music, has been focused heavily on
the unauthorized reproduction of songs. This kind of copyright law dispute
typically involves the producer and the artist on one side and a person
engaged in piracy on the other side. Disputes arising from between
composers or artists for using each of their songs do not frequently arise.
The reason behind such lack of dispute could be that of peaceful
coexistence between the artists, or they unknowingly accept such
behavior. However, even though the disputes do not lead to litigation, a
wrong done remains as such, whether people cry foul or not. A violation of
the copyright still exists. The inability of an artist to exercise his rights fully
causes damage to one artist to which he might be unaware.
On the other hand, a copyright that remains too stringent imposes a
hindrance on the proliferation of songwriting. As the famous American
writer Mark Twain stated,
“There is no such thing as a new idea. It is
impossible. We simply take a lot of old ideas and put
them into a sort of metal kaleidoscope. We give them

a turn and they make new and curious combinations.
We keep on turning and making new combinations
indefinitely; but they are the same old pieces of
colored glass that have been in use through all the
ages.”11
In the same manner, composing a song is involves such concept.
There are only a limited number of notes. Songs are composed by
arranging the same notes in different ways in order to create melodies.
There being no new ‘notes’ and the limitations of several music theories
as regards proper progressions, songs are bound to repeat the same
arrangement of notes, thereby essentially creating the same melodies.
However, they remain to be different songs.
Because of this limitation, the strictness of copyright law over the
application of some aspects of a song in the composition of a new song
restricts the creativity of an artist. In his efforts to abide by the stern
requirements of copyright law, the creative thinking in which the artist
becomes able to compose a song is minimized.
Specifically, in the United States, several artists and composers
have been accused of copyright infringement merely because of having
similarities with an existing song. Katy Perry, a famous American singer,
and her co-composers of the song “Dark Horse” have been sued by
11
Twain, M. (2010). Mark Twain's Own Autobiography: The Chapters from the North American
Review. University of Wisconsin Press.
Marcus Grey (popularly known as Flame), Lecrae Moore, Emanuel
Lambert, and Chike Ojukwu for allegedly copying the high-pitched beat of
rhythmic monotonous scalar descending notes of “Joyful Noise” and
including it in “Dark Horse”.12 The federal jury found that Katy Perry and
the other co-composers copied “Joyful Noise” because of the similarities
between the two songs.
Pop singer songwriter Bruno Mars and songwriting Mark Ronson
have faced several copyright infringement allegations over the song
“Uptown Funk”. A 1970s rap group called The Sequence alleged the
“Uptown Funk” violated the copyright of their song “Funk You Up”.
Lastrada Entertainment, owner of the copyright of the song “More Bounce
to the Ounce”, sued Ronson for the intro and first few parts of “Uptown
Funk”. Collage, a funk band, claims that the Bruno Mars song was
indistinguishable from their song “Young Girls”. 13 The cases filed by
Collage14 and Lastrada Entertainment 15 have not yet been decided. All of
the evidence has not yet been presented in court.
12
Marcus Grey et al. vs. Katy Perry, CV-05642 (United States District Court for the Central
District of California April 3, 2017).
13
Kaminsky, M. (2017, December 30). Bruno Mars and Mark Ronson's 'Uptown Funk' Faces (Yet
Another) Copyright Infringement Suit. Forbes - Hollywood & Entertainment. Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michellefabio/2017/12/30/bruno-mars-and-mark-ronsons-uptown-
funk-faces-yet-another-copyright-infringement-suit/#4a1fdff770c0
14
Yours, Mine & Ours vs. Sony et al., 2:2016cv08056 (US District Court for the Central District
of California October 28, 2016).
15
Lastrada Entertainment vs. Mark Ronson, et al., CV-6937 (United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York September 12, 2017).
The polarized situation of the music industry of the Philippines and
the United States both provide a situation where the balance between
copyright protection for the owner and encouragement for artists to create
songs. When copyright law fails to find the balance between the two, one
is sacrificed for the other.
1.5. Scope and Limitations
This study focuses only on sampling and parodies. Aside from
these two, there are other acts which may fall on the grey area between
acceptable appropriation of another’s work and infringement, such as
subconscious or accidental copying 16, similarities as to the ‘vibe’ of the
song17, and influence and inspiration of an artist towards succeeding
artists.
This study limited its scope into sampling and parodies because
they are the most common acts done in the music industry where an artist
or composer uses another person’s work. The others enumerated above
are commonly used as defense or grounds in an infringement suit. Also,
both sampling and parodies inherently admit the existence of a previous
work to which a sampled song or a parody is derived from.
16
Accidental copying occurs when a composer, with no intent to copy another’s work, creates a
song which is similar to the other work by reason of being subconsciously inspired by such work.
17
This is the main argument of the heirs of Marvin Gaye in its case against Robin Thicke and
Pharrell Williams over the alleged copyright infringement of the song “Blurred Lines”
As mentioned earlier, disputes surrounding this issue of copyright
infringement does not commonly reach to a full-blown trial which could
provide legal precedents. Infringement suits involving song copyright are
often settled out-of-court. In the Philippines, this type of case seldomly go
beyond back-and-forth statements between two conflicting artists until the
issue dies down without reaching any clear resolution. This study presents
that such issue exists long enough and should be resolved, or at the very
least, a guideline for resolving the issue should be made.
Another limitation of this study is the scarcity of Philippine
jurisprudence which is specific to music copyright law. Most of the
jurisprudences related to copyright law involves written materials such as
books, news articles, etc. The only landmark case in copyright law which
is related to music is Filipino Society of Composers, Authors, and
Publishers, Inc. vs. Benjamin Tan18 which was decided based on
procedural matters and was rendered prior to the enactment of the
Intellectual Property Code.
18
GR No. L-36402, March 16, 1987
Chapter 2
Review of Related Literature
2.1. Review of the Literature
2.1.1. Copyright and Music
At first thought, law and music are two separate concepts that do
not intertwine. However, due to prospering business of the music industry
and the disputes revolving around it, law had to step in to settle such
disputes and set standards.19 Under Intellectual Property, abstract
possessions, such as musical compositions and performance, fall within
its scope.
According to Tada20, copyright law in music makes two distinctions.
The first distinction is the composition and the sound recordings, both of
which are subject to separate copyright protection. The second distinction
is the performance and reproduction of musical works. These two are
distinct aspects of music which are subject to different rights of the
copyright holder.
19
Stav, I. (2014). Musical Plagiarism: A True Challenge for the Copyright Law. DePaul Journal
of Art, Technology, & Intellectual Property.
20
Tada, Y. (1998). The Internet and Musical Copyright Law. Harvard University. Retrieved from
https://cyber.harvard.edu/fallsem98/final_papers/Tada.html
The distinctions become material when royalties are paid. As stated
in the aforementioned study, copyright owners of musical compositions
(the songwriters) receive royalties and the copyright owners sound
recordings (usually the musician) both receive mechanical royalties for the
reproduction and distribution of the recording. However, only copyright
owners of musical compositions have the exclusive right of public
performance. In effect, the musician does not receive any royalties each
time the recordings are played (id.).
In the United States, holders of copyright are also treated based on
the two types of music copyright. Composition copyright, that which
belongs to the songwriter, and sound recording copyright, that which
belongs to the performer21; the two types of music copyright mentioned by
the latter study is similar to the first distinction stated by Tada.
Blacc, et.al, stated that there are three factors exist

in music copyright which causes the modern music
industry to struggle. First, the enactment by the U.S.
Congress of compulsory license limited the
songwriter’s rights as regards reproduction.
Through the compulsory license, a person copying
or trying to make reproductions of the composition
only needs to pay the composition copyright owner
an amount determined, not by the songwriter, but by
the judges appointed to the Copyright Royalty
21
Blacc, A., Manta, I. D., & Olson, D. S. (2015). A Sustainable Music Industry for the 21st
Century. Cornell Law Review Online.
Board. The songwriter can neither charge an

amount higher than prescribed nor completely
prevent anyone from recording a cover of the song.
Second, the emergence of blanket license caused the prices of
licenses to play a song publicly to skyrocketed. This is the result of the
separate legal protection of Copyright Law to public performances.
Because of the burdensome nature of purchasing license for every song
to be played publicly (in cases of radio and television), music companies
sold blanket licenses which allowed buyers to pay a single fee for use of
any song in a collection. Individual song licenses became practically
worthless since it was easier to use a different song covered by a blanket
license than to buy one specific song’s license. 22
Lastly, in an effort to account for digital distribution of music, U.S.
Congress applied compulsory licenses in streaming services.
Furthermore, it also “granted sound recording copyright owners and
performers a public performance right for digitally streamed music, and to
make this right subject to a compulsory license.” (Id.) This resulted in
substantially low payment because streaming was treated as a public
performance, like playing the song on a bar or stage, rather than purchase
of the song, similar to purchase of CDs in a music store. And being
subject to compulsory license, the price of the license is not dictated by
the holders of the copyright.
22
Ibid
2.1.2. Differences in Copyright Law of Countries
As highlighted in Christopher Lim’s article, Philippine copyright law
was patterned from U.S. Copyright Law. Although there may be some
differences in the provisions, the Supreme Court has consistently relied on
U.S. jurisprudence in resolving copyright cases. For example, in Ching vs.
Salinas and in Olaño vs. Lim Eng Co, the Supreme Court applied the
principles upheld in Star Athletica vs. Varsity Brands, as U.S. copyright
case, in deciding the mentioned cases even though the Intellectual
Property Code has differences with the U.S. Copyright Law.
The World Intellectual Property Organization conducted a baseline
study on the economic distribution of copyright-based industries in the
Philippines. The result of the study showed that copyright has great
potential on promoting growth of Philippine industries. However, such
potential is yet to be realized. Even though the Intellectual Property Code
already exists, additional legislative initiatives and actions from
government agencies are still needed. 23
As regards the United States, copyright law is used as a means to
give incentives to individuals who contribute to the public. As explained by
the U.S. Supreme Court expressed that “the economic philosophy behind
the clause [Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution] is the conviction
23
World Intellectual Property Organization. (2008). The Economic Contribution of Copyright-
Based Industries in the Philippines. The Economic Performance of Copyright-Based Industries.
that the encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best
way to advance public welfare through the talents of authors and
inventors” (Mazer vs. Stein 347 U.S. 201, 219; 1954). Copyright, through
granting a bundle of exclusive rights, grants creators the appropriate
incentives to engage in creative activities.24
U.S. economy provide significant value added to the Gross
Domestic Product of the United States. The copyright industry contributed
11.44% of the U.S. economy. It also increased high-paying jobs and its
25
growth is faster than other contributors to the economy.
China, on the other hand, have had different approach in copyright.
The history of Chinese copyright, specifically in music, could be divided
into four periods, namely: pre-2000 where the music industry was largely
neglected, except for censorship and propaganda; early 2000s where
concern about piracy increased; mid-2000s where greater global
cooperation and reform of domestic copyright was made; and mid 2010s
where copyright reform is stalled.26 The Report 27

made by the World
24
Committee on the Impact of Copyright Policy on Innovation in the Digital Era. (2013).
Copyright in the Digital Era: Building Evidence for Policy. (S. A. Merrill, & W. J. Raduchel,
Eds.) National Academies Press. Retrieved September 2019, from https://www.nap.edu/search/?
term=copyright+in+the+digital+area
25
Siwek, S. E. (2014). Copyright Industries in the U.S. Economy: The 2014 Report. California:
International Intellectual Property Alliance.
26
Street, J., Zhang, L., Simuniak, M., & Wang, Q. (2015). Copyright and Music Policy in China:
A Literature Review. Create Working Paper Series. doi:10.5281/zenodo.29125
27
World Intellectual Property Organization. (2009). The Economic Contribution of Copyright-
based Industries in China.
Intellectual Property Organization showed that China has a relatively
complete copyright protection system. However, it has low awareness of
copyright and piracy is considered a serious issue. Because of this,
independent innovation has been weakened affecting the development of
copyright industries.
2.1.3. Technological Advancements Affecting Music Copyright
As Hartman explained, before the advent of digitalization,
information, including music recordings, were made through analog
recording. The music reproduced through analog recordings is only an
analogous representation of the original, as the name suggests. Because
of this, all recordings of the original are of inferior quality. 28 Music stores, in
effect, offered the best recording of a song in an album compared to any
secondary recordings like recording in a tape of a song played on a radio.
However, digital technology made it possible to produce perfect
copies of the original because the information (in this case, music) is
converted into bits readable by a computer. Through digital recording, the
quality remains perfect even after several reproductions (Ibid.) This made
reproduction easy through burning of CDs. The songs burned in a CD
sounds exactly the same as the albums sold in music stores.
28
Hartman, A. (1996). Don't Worry, Be Happy! Music Performance and Distribution on the
Internet is Protected after the Digital Performance Rights in Sound Recordings Act of 1995.
DePaul Journal of Art, Technology, & Intellectual Property Law.
The introduction of the internet made filesharing easy. Music can
be created several ways. Hartman discussed that a person can share a
song by uploading a digital copy of the song online allowing other users
who visits the website where it was uploaded to download a copy of the
digital recoring.
Another similar mode is the peer-to-peer sharing which was
popularized by Napster.29 Unlike in the previous mode, peer-to-peer
sharing of files are done through a software which downloads the
information from a central server.30 Further developments in technology
allowed a decentralized structure, meaning, there is no central server to
source the download but all participants in the sharing program are
sources.
Carrier explained fully the services that Napster provided step-by-
step. The article said that:
The Napster service in particular worked as follows.

First, a user downloaded from Napster’s website its
MusicShare software, which allowed access to the
network.41 Second, the user specified files to be shared
with others, and—when the user was online—the list of
files was supplied to Napster.42 Third, the user
searched for other users’ files.43Finally, to transfer a
copy of the file, the user received the Internet address of
the “host user” (who had the files) from the Napster
29
Carrier, M. (2012). Copyright and Innovation: The Untold Story. Wisconsin Law
Review.
30
Gong, Y. (2005). Indentifying P@P users using traffic analysis. Symantec.
servers, connected to the host user, and downloaded a

copy of the file directly from the other computer in a
“peer-to-peer” fashion.
2.1.4. Influence vs. Plagiarism
Songwriting is not only threatened by the increasing unauthorized
reproduction which deprives artists of their rights and corresponding
royalties. Artists are also threatened by copyright infringement lawsuits
based on similarities in their compositions.
Lawrence Lessig argued in Remix31 that the current culture is
derived from previous works and is essential a remix of such work. Jazz,
as used as an example, is a genre of music which is created by “building
upon the creativity of others before”.32 It was said that jazz musicians
improvised melodies made by their predecessors, citing Louis Armstrong
who recomposed several pop-tunes that played.
The common practice of using another artist’s composition
accompanied by the second artist’s improvisation to create “new” music
did not raise as much issue as regards copyright infringement. However,
when “sampling” became prevalent, the law was not as lenient as it was
with jazz. Sampling is done by taking the sound recording of a different
musician and remixing it. When hip-hop introduced sampling to pop-
31
Lessig, L. (2008). Remix. Great Britain: Bloomsbury Publishing PLC.
32
See note Error: Reference source not found
culture, copyright law required permission from the owners of the sound
recordings used in a remixed recording (Ibid.)
Since early 70s until recent years, several cases involving songs
ranging from pop to rock anthems have been the subject of alleged
musical plagiarism (Pinter, 2015). Songs like All About the Bass, Blurred
Lines, Get Lucky, recent pop songs, and Sweet Child of Mine, Hotel
California, and Stairway to Heaven, popular rock songs, have been
subjected to allegations of being copied from precessor songs of the same
or different genre.
The Music Copyright Infringement Resource has published in their
webpage a list of cases pending and decided since 1840s. As indicated
therein, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of cases over
the past thirty years. Most copyright infringement cases do not go to trial
and moreso do not generate judicial opinions. Out of the 241 cases on the
list, only three cases were decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Others are
decided only by circuit courts, federal courts of U.S. and other states.
The first problem that arises in music copyright is the undefined line
that separates coincidence, influence and plagiarism. Because of this,
there are several cases involving compositions for alleged plagiarism.

Coincidence has been defined as the state of two or more things
being the same.33 This may occur to a reasonable extent 34 As there are
only so much chords and notes, similarities are bound to occur, especially
in pop music where similar chord progressions are used. 35 However,
Stav36 pointed out that there are several dimensions of a song and the
more dimensions there are in a song, the probability of coincidental
similarity lessens and the probability of plagiarism increases.
Influence, in its general meaning, is the power or capacity of
causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways. 37 In music, influence is
derived from existing expressions. Compositions are never made in a
vacuum, rather, it is influenced by other compositions. For the similarity to
be a legitimate cause of influence, the composer must synthesize
fragments of ideas from different sources to create a new and original
expression.38
Plagiarism has been defined as an act of plagiarizing something or
copying another person’s ideas, words, or work and pretend that they are
your own39. In case of musical plagiarism, the work is no longer legitimate
33
Coincidence [def. 3] Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online. In Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
Retrieved October 1, 2019, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coincidence
34
Lindley, A. (1952) Plagiarism and Originality, as cited by Stav in Musical Plagiarism: A True
Challenge for the Copyright Law, see note 19
35
36
Ibid.
37
Influence [def. 3] Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online. In Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
Retrieved October 1, 2019, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/influence
38
39
Plagiarism [def] Oxford Learner’s Dictionary Online. In Oxford Learner’s Dictionary.
Retrieved October 1, 2019, from
as there is wrongful appropriation of another composer’s work. As
distinguished by Stav40, plagiarism is different from copyright infringement.
Plagiarism becomes copyright infringement when there is an appropriation
of another’s work which is protected by copyright. If the work plagiarized is
not copyrightable, then there is no copyright infringement although there
was plagiarism.
Even though there may be possible definitions of the terms above,
these are not concrete definitions as applied in music. Influence, on its
own, is indefinite as to determine where it begins and ends. It is from this
vagueness between influence and plagiarism occurs.
2.1.5. The Intellectual Property Code
The Philippine government saw the need to update its outmoded
intellectual property laws. Considering the country’s commitment to the
international community under the Exchange of Notes with the U.S.
government and the membership to the World Trade Organization, a
proposal for a copyright act was made in 1995. Then Senator Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo filed Senate Bill No. 964 to introduce amendments. 41
The Proposed Copyright Act included definitions which are
compatible with international agreements such as the Berne Convention
and the TRIPS Agreement. It also considered the advancements in
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/plagiarize#plagiarize_inflg_2
40
41
Lim, C. L. (2001). The Development of Philippine Copyright Law. Ateneo Law Journal.
technology which resulted in works created not by traditional means. The
proposal increased the term of protection for sound recordings,
cinematographic and audio-visual works, newspapers and periodicals to
international standards. It granted a new economic right for other means
of communicating to the public of the work in consideration of the
technological advancements which may occur.42 The Intellectual Property
Code43 of 1998 was approved on June 6, 1997 and took effect on January
1, 1998.
42
Id.
43
Chapter 3
The Research Methods
This study will use a mixed research methodology combining
doctrinal legal research and non-doctrinal or socio-legal legal research
methods. Since it is very common that disputes regarding copyright of
music are settled out of court, there are only few cases which serves as
jurisprudence. Most cases decided by the Supreme Court are copyright
cases involving film, television shows, or printed works (Gaba, 2004). This
study focuses on the music industry, specifically songwriting. Thus, there
is a need to study cases and doctrines held by other jurisdictions and
analyzing its potential application within the Philippines.
3.1. Research Methods
3.1.1. Doctrinal Legal Research
Doctrinal or black letter legal research has been defined by several
scholars. Ian Dobinson and Francis Johns defined doctrinal or theoretical
legal research has been defined as “a research which asks what the law is
in a particular area. It is concerned with analysis of the legal doctrine and
how it has been developed and applied. This type of research is also
known as pure theoretical research. It consists of either a simple research

directed at finding a specific statement of the law or a more complex and
in-depth analysis of legal reasoning.”44
Another definition of doctrinal legal research is it is a research into
legal doctrines through analysis of statutory provisions and cases by the
application of power of reasoning. It gives emphasis on analysis of legal
rules, principles and doctrines.45
In essence, doctrinal legal research involves “analyses of case law,
arranging, ordering and systemizing legal propositions and study of legal
institutions through legal reasoning or rational deduction” 46. It has been
carried out by way of “analyzing the existing statutory provisions and
cases by applying reasoning power”.47
3.1.2. Non-Doctrinal Legal Research
Non-doctrinal legal research or socio-legal research is defined as
“research that employs methods taken from other disciplines to generate
empirical data that answers research questions.” 48 The research involves
the testing of the theories made by doctrinal legal research to see whether
44
Dobinson, I., & Johns, F. (2007). Qualitative Legal Research. Research Methods for
Law, 18-19.
45
Vibhute, K., & Aynalem, F. (2009). Legal Research Methods: Teaching Material.
Justice and Legal System Research Institute, 70.
46
Jain, S. N. (2006). Doctrinal and Non-Doctrinal Legal Research in Legal Research
Methodology. Indian Law Institute.
47
Myneni, S. (2006). Legal Research Methodology. India: Allahabad Law Agenccy.
48
Ali, S. I., Yusoff, Z. M., & Ayub, Z. A. (2017). Legal Research of Doctrinal and Non-
doctrinal. International Journal of Trend in Research and Development.
such theories that, at some point, have been assumed as valid and
appropriate are still valid and relevant.49
Even though the term socio-legal methodology has been defined by
several academics, most of them conclude that it is a research which
moves away from the traditional legal instruments and closer to societal
applications, as compared to doctrinal legal research.
The main premise of non-doctrinal legal research or socio-legal
research is that the law does not operate in a vacuum. 50 Because of this,
the doctrinal legal research which only provides what the law provides was
viewed by socio-legal researchers as insufficient. Roger Cotterrell 51
expressed that legal research should be able to exceed traditional black-
letter approach.
This study applies both doctrinal and non-doctrinal research
methods by analyzing U.S. court decisions regarding several music
copyright issues and applying them in the Philippine music scene.
3.2. Research Instrument
49
See footnote Error: Reference source not found
50
Salter, M., & Mason, J. (2007). Chapter 5. In An Introduction and Guide to the Conduct
of Legal Research. Pearson Education.
51
Cotterrell, R. (1997). Law's Community. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
The researcher will make use of primary and secondary sources in
making this research. The researcher will utilize existing copyright laws of
the Philippines and the United States as well as court decisions on
disputes regarding copyrights over songs.
The U.S. court decisions will be summarized in this study
explaining the facts, the issues and the decisions made on each case
cited. The doctrine enunciated by each case will then be applied in a
recent Philippine issue involving similar details. It is admitted that the
copyright laws of the Philippines and the United States have similarities
and differences which may cause some discrepancies in the application of
US case law in the Philippines. However, the premise of this study is that
copyright law itself is vague and it has been common practice to adopt
several doctrines held by other jurisdictions to which Philippine laws have
been patterned to.
The author also admits that one flaw of this thesis is the fact that
the cases studied are not cases decided by U.S. Supreme Court which
serves as jurisprudence. Since most cases do not reach the Supreme
Court, music copyright law is deprived of jurisprudence which makes
deciding cases far difficult. Studying the cases decided by lower courts
would show, at the very least, the trend in deciding cases regarding music
copyright, if not provide a guideline as to how music copyright cases could
be decided in the future.

3.3. Data Gathering Procedure
The procedure in gathering of data that will be employed by the
researcher is through collection and reading of laws, jurisprudence, as
well as other relevant articles.
3.4. Mode of Analysis
Qualitative type of research will be employed by the researcher in
this paper. The researcher aims to apply the concepts held in
jurisprudence in the United States in the music scene in the Philippines to
determine whether such concepts could hold.

Chapter 4
4.1. Sampling
One of the methods used in music as regards copying or using
another person’s work is through sampling. Sampling is the process of
taking audio from a pre-existing source and using it as compositional
material within a new work. 52 Because of the emergence of digital
technology in music, sound recordings can be copied or reproduced
without any decrease in the quality of the sound. This led to the
proliferation of sampling since the quality of the sound recording sampled
would be as perfect as the source sound recording. The practice of
sampling which was common amongst underground musicians in the
1970s developed into a technique used even by mainstream musicians
and artists in the 1980s and 1990s.53
In the Philippines, there are several Filipino artists who also engage
in sampling. Similar to the United States, sampling is most common in the
rap industry. Several Filipino rappers have sampled local and international
songs. One of the most notable Filipino rappers is Andrew Ford Valentino
Espiritu, better known as Andrew E. His fame began in 1990 when he
52
Radcliffe, R. (2014). A Proposed Typology of Sampled Material within Electronic Dance Music.
Dancecult: Journal of Electronic Dance Music Culture, 6(1), 97-122.
53
Mckenna, T. B. (2000). Where Digital Music Technology and Law Collide - Contemporary
Issues of Digital Sampling, Appropriation and Copyright Law. Journal of Information, Law &
Technology.
released his first rap to the mainstream “Humanap ka ng Panget”. 54 Most
of his songs are sampled from other international songs.
As of the writing of this thesis, no case has been filed not settled
out of court against Andrew E., or any other Filipino artists for that matter,
that were alleged to have sampled a song.
This research used one of Andrew E.’s songs and studied the
potential copyright issues that may exist but overlooked, supposing U.S.
jurisprudences would be applied in the Philippines.
4.2. Composition Copyright vs. Sound Recording Copyright
Sound recording has been defined as “the fixation of the sounds of
a performance or of other sounds, or representation of sound, other than
in the form of a fixation incorporated in a cinematographic or other
audiovisual work.”55 Compared to a musical composition to which only the
composer possess the rights for the copyright, there are several persons
who have rights over the sound recordings. These rights are enumerated
in Chapter XII56.
Rights of the Performer
54
Loftus, J. (n.d.). Artist Biography: Andrew E. Retrieved from AllMusic:
https://www.allmusic.com/artist/andrew-e-mn0001624622
55
56
Ibid
Section 203. Scope of Performers' Rights. - Subject

to the provisions of Section 212, performers shall
enjoy the following exclusive rights:
203.1. 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.
203.2. The right of authorizing the direct or

indirect reproduction of their performances fixed
in sound recordings, in any manner or form;
203.3. 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;
203.4. 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
203.5. 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. (Sec. 42, P.D. No. 49a)
Section 204. Moral Rights of Performers. - 204.1.

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.
204.2. 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. (Sec. 43,
P.D. No. 49)
Rights of the Producer
Section 208. Scope of Right. - Subject to the

provisions of Section 212, producers of sound
recordings shall enjoy the following exclusive rights:
208.1. 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;
208.2. 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
208.3. 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.
(Sec. 46, P.D. No. 49a)
Section 209. Communication to the Public. - If a

sound recording published for commercial purposes,
or a reproduction of such sound recording, is used

directly for broadcasting or for other communication to
the public, or is publicly performed with the intention
of making and enhancing profit, a single equitable
remuneration for the performer or performers, and the
producer of the sound recording shall be paid by the
user to both the performers and the producer, who, in
the absence of any agreement shall share equally.
(Sec. 47, P.D. No. 49a)
Based in the foregoing provisions, the rights over the sound
recordings are shared by both the performer and the producer. And these
rights over the sound recordings are distinct from the rights of the
composer.
The distinction between musical works and sound recordings have
been sufficiently explained in a journal article written by Hartman. A
musical work consists of the instrumental work, tune or notes, and the
lyrics created by the composer. On the other hand, a sound recording is
the work that resulted from the fixation of a series of musical, spoken or
other sounds, excluding audiovisual work, regardless of the nature of
material object.57 The song “Mabagal”, the winner of the 2019 Himig
Handog Songwriting Competition, is used in this section to illustrate the
distinctions.
The song was composed by Dan Martel Simon Tañedo as an entry
to the songwriting competition, performed by Daniel Padilla and Moira
57
Dela Torre, and produced by ABS-CBN Film Productions, Inc.as the
official publisher of the Himig Handog 2019. 58 The work which constitutes
the melody and lyrics of the song, created by Tañedo, is protected by
copyright since it is a musical composition. In the exercise of his economic
rights, he joined Himig Handog 2019 and allowed Padilla and Dela Torre
to interpret the song. The performance done by Padilla and Dela Torre
was digitally recorded and was produced by ABS-CBN Film Production,
Inc. The song was then released, in exercise of the rights of performers
and producers, on Spotify and Youtube for the voting.
Over the sound recording of the song, both performers Padilla and
Dela Torre and ABS-CBN Film Production, Inc. have rights. Meaning, any
unauthorized reproduction of the song (burning of the song in a CD to sell)
would be tantamount to a violation of their rights under Sections 203 and
208, respectively. However, they do not own the copyright of the song
itself. Thus, they cannot preclude any person from performing the same
song. Such right remains with Tañedo since the right to authorize or
prevent public performance of his work is granted to him under Section
177.
Because of this distinction, the ways of infringing copyright could be
divided among them. First, the copying of the song, or parts thereof, or
58
ABS-CBN Corporate Newsroom. (2019, October 13). List: Himig Handog 2019 winners.
Retrieved from ABS-CBNNewsroom: https://www.abs-cbn.com/newsroom/news-
releases/2019/10/13/list-himig-handog-2019-winners?lang=en
public performance without consent, would be infringement of the
composer’s copyright. Second, the unauthorized reproduction of the
sound recording would be a infringement of the economic rights of the
composer, and the rights of the performer and producer.
4.3. Applicable Provisions of the Intellectual Property Code to
Sampling
Section 172 of the Intellectual Property Code provides that:
“Section 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. [Emphasis supplied]
Based on the above-cited provision, songs fall under musical
compositions which are protected by the Intellectual Property Code. The
protection granted to these musical compositions attaches from the

moment of creation. Furthermore, Section 173 59 of the same Code also
provides copyright protection to derivative works.
Section 173. Derivative Works. - 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 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) [Emphasis supplied]
The derivative works are, from the word itself, derived from another
original work. The Intellectual Property Code treats the work as a new
work and granted the same rights available to an original work, subjected
to limitations imposed by the copyright of the original work to which the
new work was derived. A more precise definition of a derivative work is
that it is a “subsequent intellectual creation that displays some degree of
59
distinguishable variation from a prior work and, at the same time, is
nonetheless substantially similar to the original” 60. In Alva Studios Inc. vs.
Winninger (1959)61, the U.S. District Court held that “a combination of
existing materials in the public domain is sufficiently original to come
within the copyright protection. However, to be entitled to copyright, the
work must be original in the sense that the author has created it by his
own skill, labor and judgment without directly copying or evasively
imitating the work of another”.
In music, there are several works that fall within the concept of
derivative work. Sampling, parody, covers all fall within the definition of
derivative work since they are created as an adaptation, abridgement,
arrangement or alteration of a prior original composition.
The Intellectual Property Code also provides for works that are not
subject to copyright protection. Section 175 provides that:
Section 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
60
Nimmer M. B., & Nimmer D., (2002). Nimmer on Copyright (Vol. 3.01). Matthew Bender Elite
Products
61
Alva Studios Inc. vs. Winninger, 177 F. Supp. 265 (U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, October 16, 1959)
a legislative, administrative or legal nature, as well as

any official translation thereof. [Emphasis supplied] 62
Those enumerated under Section 175 are not covered by copyright
protection, meaning anyone can use the same idea of another and adopt
them in their works without infringing on another author’s right. Because of
this, the concept of idea-expression dichotomy became relevant. In the
United States, the idea-expression dichotomy was founded on two
constitutional foundations: The Copyright Clause and the First
Amendment. As regards the copyright laws, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
that the “primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of
authors, but to promote the progress of science and useful arts” 63. Since
the purpose of copyright law is to promote science and art, ideas are not
copyrightable to allow people to utilize the same.
Section 175 is vague when applied in music. It is unclear what is an
idea, procedure, system, method or operation, concept, principle or
discovery in music. Since there is only a limited number of notes and
chords that could be arranged in a specific way, it is safe to assume that
those notes and chords, by themselves, are not copyrightable. However,
problem arises when they are arranged in a way that resembles a
previous work.
62
63
Feist Publications Inc. vs. Rural Telephone Service Co., No. 89-1909 (U.S. Supreme Court
March 27, 1991).
When a musical composition, or other work, becomes protected by
copyright law, the composer has rights enumerated in Section 177. These
rights are called economic rights which are limited by Section 184. For
convenience, the following sections are cited, and emphasis supplied on
parts which this study involves.
Section 177. Copyright or Economic Rights. - 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:
177.1. Reproduction of the work or substantial

portion of the work;
177.2. Dramatization, translation, adaptation,

abridgment, arrangement or other transformation
of the work;
177.3. The first public distribution of the original

and each copy of the work by sale or other forms
of transfer of ownership;
177.4. 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)
177.5. Public display of the original or a copy of the

work;
177.6. Public performance of the work; and
177.7. Other communication to the public of the work.

(Sec. 5, P. D. No. 49a)
Section 184. Limitations on Copyright. - 184.1.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter V, the
following acts shall not constitute infringement of
copyright:
(a) The recitation or performance of a work, once it

has been lawfully made accessible to the public, if
done privately and free of charge or if made
strictly for a charitable or religious institution or
society; (Sec. 10(1), P.D. No. 49)
(b) The making of quotations from a published

work if they are compatible with fair use and only
to the extent justified for the purpose, including
quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in
the form of press summaries: Provided, That the
source and the name of the author, if appearing on
the work, are mentioned; (Sec. 11, third par., P.D. No.
49)
(c) The reproduction or communication to the public

by mass media of articles on current political, social,
economic, scientific or religious topic, lectures,
addresses and other works of the same nature, which
are delivered in public if such use is for information
purposes and has not been expressly reserved:
Provided, That the source is clearly indicated; (Sec.
11, P.D. No. 49)
(d) The reproduction and communication to the public

of literary, scientific or artistic works as part of reports
of current events by means of photography,
cinematography or broadcasting to the extent
necessary for the purpose; (Sec. 12, P.D. No. 49)
(e) The inclusion of a work in a publication,
broadcast, or other communication to the public,
sound recording or film, if such inclusion is made by
way of illustration for teaching purposes and is
compatible with fair use: Provided, That the source
and of the name of the author, if appearing in the
work, are mentioned;
(f) The recording made in schools, universities, or

educational institutions of a work included in a
broadcast for the use of such schools, universities or
educational institutions: Provided, That such
recording must be deleted within a reasonable period
after they were first broadcast: Provided, further, That
such recording may not be made from audiovisual
works which are part of the general cinema repertoire
of feature films except for brief excerpts of the work;
(g) The making of ephemeral recordings by a

broadcasting organization by means of its own
facilities and for use in its own broadcast;
(h) The use made of a work by or under the direction

or control of the Government, by the National Library
or by educational, scientific or professional institutions
where such use is in the public interest and is
compatible with fair use;
(i) The public performance or the communication to

the public of a work, in a place where no admission
fee is charged in respect of such public
performance or communication, by a club or
institution for charitable or educational purpose
only, whose aim is not profit making, subject to
such other limitations as may be provided in the
Regulations; (n)
(j) Public display of the original or a copy of the work

not made by means of a film, slide, television image
or otherwise on screen or by means of any other
device or process: Provided, That either the work has
been published, or, that the original or the copy
displayed has been sold, given away or otherwise
transferred to another person by the author or his
successor in title; and
(k) Any use made of a work for the purpose of any

judicial proceedings or for the giving of professional
advice by a legal practitioner.
184.2. The provisions of this section shall be

interpreted in such a way as to allow the work to be
used in a manner which does not conflict with the
normal exploitation of the work and does not
unreasonably prejudice the right holder's legitimate
interests.64 [Emphasis supplied]
In terms of music copyright, there can be infringement when a
composer copies the work of another with respect to the tune, melody, or
64
sound of the composition; or when an unauthorized person reproduces or
performs a composition without the consent of the copyright holders of the
sound recording.
4.4. U.S. Jurisprudence on Sampling
U.S. jurisprudence have had several instances in settling the issue
on whether sampling constitutes infringement. However, these cases were
decided inconsistently with one another causing more confusion than
clarification.
4.4.1. Grand Upright vs. Warner Bros. Inc.
In Grand Upright vs. Warner Bros. Inc.65 the court was strict as
regards sampling. The decision greatly impacted the hip-hop culture, as it
is the genre that mostly uses sampling. 66 Before discussing the ruling and
its effects, it is only proper to provide a background of the case.
The case was between a song made by singer-songwriter
Raymond “Gilbert” O’Sullivan entitled “Alone Again (Naturally)” and a rap
song written and performed by Biz Markie entitled “Alone Again”. The
defendants admitted that the Biz Markie song included three words taken
from O’Sullivan’s composition and a portion of the recording of the
65
Grand Upright Music, Ltd v. Warner Bros. Records Inc., 780 F. Supp. 182 (United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York 1991)
66
Lindenbaum, J. (1999). Music Sampling and Copyright Law. Princeton University Center for
the Arts and Cultural Studies.
O’Sullivan song on loop. The judge in this case, Judge Kevin Thomas
Duffy, viewed that the only issue present in the case was the ownership of
the copyright of the song “Along Again (Naturally)”. 67
To conclude that ownership of the copyright of the song is with
Grand Upright, the judge accepted three categories of proof namely: the
copies of original copyrights and the deeds that transferred such right from
NAM Music, Inc. to O’Sullivan, then to Grand Upright; the testimony of
Gilbert O’Sullivan, the acknowledged writer of the song “Alone Again”, and
the actions of Warner Bros. Inc. which constituted admittance of valid
copyright of Grand Upright.68
With respect to the original copyrights and the deeds transferring
such copyrights, Judge Duffy held that the documents are of public record
and no authentication is required, as argued by the defense. The
testimony of O’Sullivan was accepted by the judge because he believed
that the O’Sullivan is a credible and believable witness since even the
defendant acknowledged that O’Sullivan was the true composer of the
song. And lastly, Judge Duffy gave weight on the fact that before and after
the release of the song, the defendants discussed the need to obtain a
license to use the composition and the sound recording of the song. The
attorney of Cold Chillin’ Records, the recording company owned by
Warner Bros. Inc. that recorded the Biz Markie song, wrote to Gilbert
67
68
Ibid.
O’Sullivan stating that Biz Markie would like to obtain the consent to use
O’Sullivan’s “Alone Again”.
Upon finding that Grand Upright and O’Sullivan had copyrights to
the song and no consent was given to Biz Markie to use the song for its
own composition, Judge Duffy issued an injunction and referred the matter
to the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York for consideration
of criminal prosecution. Judge Duffy also called for sterner measures. 69
In the case above, the court condemned the use of sampling.
However, there was failure on the part of the court to determine whether
there was any credit for the work done by Biz Markie. Upon determining
that Biz Markie sampled O’Sullivan’s work, the court prevented him to use
his rap song. Instead of giving credit to O’Sullivan for the portions used in
the Biz Markie song, the latter was prevented from being sold.
The researcher listened to both “Alone Again (Naturally)” of Gilbert
O’Sullivan and “Alone Again” by Biz Markie. While it is true that the Biz
Markie song did include the words “alone again, naturally” repeatedly, and
the piano accompaniment of the sound recording of “Alone Again
(Naturally)”, Biz Markie wrote the lyrics of the rap verses and included a
drum beat which was different from the O’Sullivan song.
In “Alone Again (Naturally)”, O’Sullivan sings the lyrics while a
piano is played. A drum beat of a constant hit of hi-hat and a snare hit on
69
Ibid
the 2nd and 4th count of the beat exists. On the other hand, Biz Markie’s
“Alone Again” had an entirely different verse, a hook that says “Alone
again, naturally”, and a drum beat of which had a kick drum at the 1 st and
3rd count, an open hi-hat at the last count. Although admittedly, there was
appropriation done by Biz Markie, there were parts which constitutes Biz
Markie’s own creation.
4.4.2. Tuff ‘N’ Rumble vs. Profile Records
The case of Tuff ‘N’ Rumble vs. Profile Records 70 involves two
record companies that sell rap music: Tuff City Records and Profile
Records arguing over copyright infringement of drum beats and loops.
“Impeach the President” was a single by the Honeydrippers
released in 1973 under Alaga Records.71 The song was released at the
height of the Watergate scandal involving then President Richard Nixon. It
was a protest song that advocated for the impeachment of President
Nixon.72 Tuff City Records claimed that the author of the song was Roy C.
Hammond and that the copyright was transferred to them through a
written agreement. The copyright remained unregistered until November
25, 199173.
70
Tuff ‘N’ Rumble v. Profile Records, 42 U.S.P.Q.2d 1398 (United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York 1997)
71
Metcalf, J. (2015). African American Culture and Society After Rodney King: Provocations and
Protests, Progression and Post-racialism. Ashgate Publishing. p. 182. ISBN 9781472455390.
72
Mlynar, P. (n.d.). "Hive Five: Great Moments in Hip-Hop Inspired by Presidents". MTV.
73
Profile Records was accused of infringing on the acquired copyright
of Tuff City because of two rap songs that Profile Records released,
namely “Back from Hell” and “Dana Dane with Fame”. Tuff City alleged
that the two songs were sampled or copied from a phonorecord containing
the sound recording and musical composition “Impeach the President” 74
The court discussed the requirements on how to succeed in a
copyright infringement claim. First, the plaintiff must demonstrate the
ownership of a valid copyright. Second, the defendant must have actually
copied the plaintiff’s work. And lastly, the copying was illegal because a
substantial similarity exists between the defendant’s work and the
plaintiff’s work.75
As regards the first requirement, Tuff City failed to establish
ownership of a valid copyright. At the time when the case was filed, the
law in effect was the U.S. Code, which required registration before
copyright protection be granted to the work. Title 17 of the said Code
states that:
“[i]n any judicial proceeding the certificate of a

registration made before or within five years after first
publication of the work shall constitute prima facie
evidence of the validity of the copyright and of the
facts stated in the certificate,” but ” [t]he evidentiary
weight to be accorded the certificate of a registration
74
Ibid.
75
Ibid.
made thereafter shall be within the discretion of the

court.”76
Tuff City claimed that it has the presumption of a valid copyright
since it registered the copyright. However, the court held that there was no
prima facie evidence of validity because of the belated registration of the
copyright. It found that the date of first publication of “Impeach the
President” was October 1, 1973 while the registration of the copyright was
on November 25, 1991. The registration was 18 years from the date of
first registration which prevented the presumption of valid copyright.
Absent such presumption, Tuff City had to prove its ownership of a valid
copyright.
The written agreement to which Tuff City acquired the copyright
from Roy C. Hammond was presented. However, there was no evidence
introduced that would prove that Hammond had any rights over the work.
The court also found that the true owner of the copyright was Alaga
records based on the sound recording of the “Impeach the President”
containing the mark “P” in a circle, dated “1973” and named “Alaga”. 77
Absent any proof that Alaga transferred the copyright to Tuff City or to
Hammond.
76
U.S. Code, Title XVII: Copyright, Section 410
77
As regards unauthorized copying, the plaintiff must prove that there
must be actual copying and unlawful appropriation. In order to prove
actual copying, it must be shown that the defendant had access to the
work copied by presenting evidence indicating that the infringed work has
been widely disseminated or a particular chain of events in which
defendant could possibly gain access. Tuff City also failed in this area
because the song “Impeach the President” was released in 1973 and
since then, copies of the single has become rare.
With respect to substantial similarity, the court followed the test as
to whether an average lay observer would recognize the alleged copy as
having been appropriated from the copyrighted work. In doing so, the
courts look at the works as a whole, and not dissect each works and
compare each feature. Based on the assessment of the court, it concluded
that “Back from Hell” and “Dana Dane with Fame” is not substantially
similar to “Impeach the President”. Because Tuff City failed to prove any of
the three requirements, the court dismissed its complaint.
The case was decided on summary judgment as it is clear to the
court that the plaintiff cannot prove the essential elements of the claim. In
essence, the case was decided on the technicalities of the suit. However,
because of the dismissal of the case, “Impeach the President” became
one of the most sampled music in the hip-hop and rap industry. By
avoiding the question as to whether the drum loop was a proper subject of
copyright and whether sampling itself constitutes unauthorized or
authorized copying, the court inevitably opened the gates for several
artists to utilize sampling.
“Impeach the President” became one of the most sampled music
because of its ideal breakbeat, the simple drum pattern which falls eighth
note subdivisions with a swung sixteenth note feel played using a kick
drum and a snare. Prior to the decision of the court in the case, the Force
MCs live performance at Broadway International in 1983 had Dr. Rock, the
group’s DJ, scratching and looping “Impeach the President” on the
background. Marley Marl used the drum sounds of “Impeach the
President” in the production of “The Bridge” performed by MC Shan. 78 Off
all these songs that sampled the drum line of “Impeach the President”,
none of them were sued for copyright infringement.
In comparing the two cases, the court was polarized in their
decisions as regards sampling. In the Grand Upright case, the court was
too strict into determining that Biz Markie is prohibited from using his rap
song. On the other hand, the Tuff ‘N’ Rumble case allowed the sampled
rap song even though it was shown that the drum beat and melody was
taken from another song. Furthermore, the Grand Upright case allowed
that proving the ownership of copyright and the fact that no license or
consent was given to be sufficient ground to hold that copyright
78
infringement has been committed. The Tuff ‘N’ Rumble case required
more than just proving ownership of valid copyright, but also actual
copying and substantial similarities. If the same would be applied to the
former case, there could be no substantial similarities since the two songs
are of different genres, with different lyrics, and performed in entirely
different ways.
Several questions remain unanswered because of the ruling in both
Grand Upright and Tuff ‘N’ Rumble. Does sampling, in itself, constitute
copyright infringement? What about the copyright of the composer, as
compared to the owner of the copyright of the sound recording? What
about in this age where sampling can be done digitally instead of manually
recording a sound? Is a drum loop a proper subject of copyright? Could
the rap song using a drum loop from a pre-existing work constitute a new
work, or at least, a derivative work? All these questions remain answered.
With respect to the copyright of the performer and the producer
over the sound recording, there is a possible way on how to avoid the
potential copyright infringement. A composer who seeks to use a sound,
like a drum beat or guitar melody, made in a different song could simply
play the same tune using the drums or guitar and record the same. That
way, no infringement as regards the sound recording copyright is
committed since there was no usage of the sound recording itself.

The composer, on the other hand, would still have copyright over
the song even if the potential new composer plays the song himself.
Consent of the original composer would still be needed. In the Grand
Upright case, if instead of using the sound recording of the song “Alone
Again Naturally”, Biz Markie chose to record himself or another person
playing the song on a piano, only O’Sullivan’s copyright as the songwriter
would be infringed. The copyright of Grand Upright over the sound
recording would not have been infringed.
This method of reproduction of the recording was explained by the
court in Bridgeport Music vs. Dimension Films, et.al.79 Apart from the court
acknowledging that the composer can just play and record the song to be
sampled as a means to avoid infringing the copyright of sound recordings,
the court also had the opportunity in this case to tackle digital sampling.
The court further stressed that the ruling in Bridgeport Music is only with
respect to sound recording copyright and not to composition copyright as
regards the idea of independently reproducing the supposed song to be
sampled.
4.4.3. Bridgeport Music vs. Dimension Films, et.al.
Since most songs are already in digital, sampling has already
become advanced as well. This makes digital sampling easier since it is
already possible to isolate specific parts of a song to be sampled from its
79
source. As mentioned earlier, the novelty of digital sampling, as opposed
to those sampling done in Grand Upright and Tuff ‘N’ Rumble was
explained by the Bridgeport Music case. However, the court became
sterner as regards sampling in this case.
The case involves the funk song “Get Off Your Ass and Jam” (“Get
Off”) by the group Funkadelic against the rap song “100 Miles and
Runnin’” (“100 Miles”) by the group N.W.A. The song “Get off” starts with a
high-pitched guitar sound playing a solo 80 which resembles a frightening
scene of a horror movie. The first two seconds of the song was sampled
by N.W.A. in the song “100 Miles”. The pitch of the guitar solo was
lowered and looped in a seven-second portion of the song. 8182 This fact
was undisputed by the defense. With respect to the composition copyright,
the defense obtained a license to sample the song. 83 Since there was a
license obtained from the composer, only the sound recording copyright
was discussed by the court.
The district court held that the guitar riff which consisted of three
notes which, although such notes and chords of a riff would not be original
to be copyrightable, are nonetheless copyrightable because of the way the

80
Funkadelic. (1975). Get Off Your Ass and Jam. Let’s Take It to the Stage. A copy of the song is
available on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d1i35T5yAk.The researcher listened to the intro
of the song.
81
Schuster, W. I. (2015). Fair Use, Girl Talk, and Digital Sampling: An Empirical Study of Music
Sampling Effect on the Market for Copyrighted Workd. Oklahoma Law Review, 444 – 518.
82
N.W.A. (1990). 100 Miles and Running. 100 Miles and Running EP. A copy of the song is
available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiDti_Xnnmo. The researcher listened to the
portion of the song. The sampled part can be found at 1:06 of the video.
83
chord is used and memorialized in the song “Get Off”. Because it was
used and memorialized in the song, the sound recording was held as
original and creative, which is entitled to copyright. 84
Furthermore, the district court ruled that as regards de minimis
copying, the sample was so miniscule that it did not ‘rise to the level of a
legally cognizable appropriation’. 85 De minimis copying is done when a
work contains another copyrighted work’s parts which are so small as to
lack import. It essentially serves as a defense to assert lack of substantial
similarity.86 The fragmented literal similarity test was used in this case in
determining the de minimis copying. Fragmented literal similarity test is
the determination of the level of copying done by an infringing work by
analyzing the literal elements that are scattered through the work. 87 As
applied by the district court, the two-second guitar riff sampled by “100
Miles” is considered de minimis.
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth District
reversed the finding of the district court in relation to de minimis copying.
First, the Court of Appeals adopted the definition of digital sampling as it is
commonly accepted within the music industry. 88 Digital sampling has been
84
Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films, 410 F.3d 792 (United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth District 2005)
85
Id.
86
Carter, M. R. (2013). Applying the Fragmented Literal Similarity Test to Musical-Work and
Sound-Recording Infringement: Correcting the Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films
Legacy. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 669-704.
87
Id.
88
Id.
defined in the music industry as the process of digitally copying a portion
of a pre-existing recording and inserting this ‘sample’ into a new
recording.89 It is the process of capturing periodic samples of changing
analog audio waveforms and transforming them into binary code. In effect,
the digital recording device takes snapshots of the analog voltages along
a continuous and fluctuating line, and then assigns a binary code
representing the voltage level at that particular time. 90
As Schuster91 capsulized the ruling of the court, the Sixth District
appeals court premised its ruling on four policy arguments. First, the
concept of “get a license or do not sample” was stated. This is an attempt
to provide a bright-line test which would serve as a standard for digital
sampling of copyrighted sound recordings. The simplicity of the choice
shows that without a license, sampling is prohibited. 92
Second, because the opinion of the court was made specifically for
sound recording copyright only, the court provided that an alternative to
sampling is to mimic the sound recording sought to be sampled. Through
this, the mimicry is considered an independent creation not covered by the
copyright of the original sound recordings. 93
89
Wilson, S. R. (2002). Music Sampling Lawsuits: Does Looping Music Samples Defeat the De
Minimis Defense? Journal of High Technology Law
90
Id.
91
92
See note, citing Bridgeport Music vs. Dimension Films
93
Id.
Third, the price for license fees should be controlled by the market
to the extent that it would not be much more practical to independently
produce the sound recording. The price for the license should be sufficient
enough for the copyright holder and at the same time economically
practicable to sample.94
Lastly, and in this case, most importantly, it was held that digital
sampling requires an overt choice to create an infringing sample. 95 Thus, it
becomes impossible for a person who samples another’s work and claim
inadvertent infringement. The sampler could not be considered as an
innocent party because the fact that he samples a work, he is intentionally
infringing on another’s copyright. 96
4.5. Application of Sampling Cases in the Philippines
Based on the cases decided, sampling, whether digital or analog, is
frowned upon by the courts. As long as the plaintiff proves ownership of
the copyright, the court heavily favors the owner of the copyright. In
essence, sampling is prohibited unless a license has been obtained.
Among several rap hits of Andrew E., one song stands out the most
with respect to sampling. The song “Alabang Girls” was sampled from
“Black Dog”, a song by Led Zeppelin. To provide a similar starting point

94
Id.
95
Id.
96
Id.
with the Grand Upright case and the Tuff ‘N’ Rumble case, it is only proper
to distinguish the owners of the copyrights of “Black Dog”.
“Black Dog” was written by John Paul Jones, Jimmy Page, and
Robert Plant, all members of Led Zeppelin. The song, which referred to a
nameless black Labrador retriever around the studio where the band used
to record songs. According to Jones, the main riff of the song was inspired
by Muddy Waters’ 1968 album Electric Mud. 97 The song was released as
the first song of Led Zeppelin IV, the band’s fourth album, published by
Warner Bros. Music Corporation. Based on the foregoing, the members of
the band: Jones, Page and Plant owns the composition copyright of the
song; while the band Led Zeppelin and Warner Bros. owns the sound
recording copyright.
In 1992, Andrew E. released the song “Alabang Girls”, as part of
the original soundtrack of the movie with the same title, under Viva
Records. The song begins with the main guitar riff of “Black Dog” and a
basic hip hop drumline on the verse. The hook of the song repeats the
guitar riff sampled. Upon listening to the two songs 9899.
Following the ruling in the Grand Upright case, Andrew E. and Viva
Records may have infringed on the copyright of Led Zeppelin and Warner
97
Shadwick, K. (2005). Led Zeppelin: The Story of a Band and their Music. San Francisco:
Backbeat Books.
98
Led Zeppelin. (1971). Black Dog. Led Zeppelin IV. A 2007 remastered version of the song is
available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBuub4Xe1mw
99
Espiritu, A., also known as Andrew E. (1992). Alabang Girls. A copy of the song is available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUZmxZN0-_E
Bros. As held in the Grand Upright case where the use of sound recording
where a portion of the melody was taken, drums were added, and the
lyrics of the rap song is entirely different from the sampled work, the acts
done by Andrew E. in using the “Black Dog” recording to use the main
guitar riff as the hook constitutes copyright infringement. Andrew E. would
not be given any credit for the portions which he himself created, such as
the lyrics of the song and the different drumbeat. No claim for even a
derivative work would be available since even such was not accepted by
the court in Grand Upright. The fact that the owner of the copyright is
known and absent any consent by Led Zeppelin or Warner Bros., Andrew
E. and Viva Records could be sued for copyright infringement, regardless
of how minimal the sample was.
With respect to the Bridgeport case, assuming that the sampling
was done digitally, Andrew E. and Viva Records would still be susceptible
to infringement since, based on the ruling, there is already intent to
infringe on the copyright. As the Bridgeport case suggests, Andrew E. and
Viva Records should have either independently played the riff sought to be
sampled, pay the license fees to Led Zeppelin and Warner Bros., or
refrain from using the guitar riff. Similar to the Grand Upright case, as long
as Led Zeppelin and Warner Bros. prove ownership of the copyright, they
can claim infringement.

The problem arises with respect to composition copyright. In the
Grand Upright case, O’Sullivan exercised his right as a composer and
prohibited Biz Markie from releasing the song. This makes it probable that
Jones, Page, and Plant may also prevent Andrew E. from performing the
same, and deprive an artist of one song instead of crediting the portions
sampled to them. As composers, it is understood that Jones, Page, and
Plant should be credited for the song sampled. There is no dispute about
it. However, the excessiveness of preventing Andrew E. from ever
performing or re-releasing the song “Alabang Girls” would be tantamount
to stifling creativity.
It is the view of this research that such strict ruling should not be
applied in copyright law, especially in the Philippines. According to the
Declaration of State Policy of the Intellectual Property Code:
Sec. 2. Declaration of State Policy. - The State

recognizes that an effective intellectual and
industrial property system is vital to the
development of domestic and creative activity,
facilitates transfer of technology, attracts foreign
investments, and ensures market access for our
products. It 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
periods as provided in this Act.
The use of intellectual property bears a social

function. To this end, the State shall promote the
diffusion of knowledge and information for the

promotion of national development and progress and
the common good.
It is also the policy of the State to streamline

administrative procedures of registering patents,
trademarks and copyright, to liberalize the registration
on the transfer of technology, and to enhance the
enforcement of intellectual property rights in the
Philippines.100
The rulings in the United States would be contrary to the State
policy of the Intellectual Property Code. Instead of promoting the diffusion
of knowledge and information, injunctive reliefs in cases of sampling would
result in preventing an artist or creator to share his work to the public.
Creative activity would be prevented rather than pursued because the
rulings lean towards protection of a person’s work without allowing another
person to utilize the existing work and continue the creative process
through sampling.
100
Chapter 5
5.1. Parody
Musical parody is another mode of using another person’s work.
Parody is defined as “writing in which the language and style of another
author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or ridicule, often with
certain peculiarities greatly heightened or exaggerated.” 101 As Richard
Posner puts it, parody is imitation, which is essentially taking or copying. 102
Weird Al Yankovic is one of the most notable parody artists. He released
several parody recording albums since the 1980’s consisting of
independently recorded sound-alike of original tracks with parody lyrics,
often sung in a style mimicking the original performer. 103 Robin Thicke’s
“Blurred Lines”, the Backstreet Boys’ “I Want It That Way”, Queen’s
“Another One Bites the Dust”, are a few of a plethora of songs that Weird
Al had parodied over the years.
In the Philippines, Beethoven Michael del Valle Bunagan, more
commonly known as Michael V. or Bitoy, is a comedian known for his
parodies of foreign and local songs. Similar to Weird Al, Michael V.
parodied several songs by using the same melody and using lyric parody.
101
Bernstein, R. (1984). Parody and Fair Use in Copyright Law. Copyright Law Symposium
102
Posner, R. (1992). When is Parody Fair Use? The Journal of Legal Studies, 67-78. Retrieved
from https://www.jstor.org/stable/72440
103
Sanders, C. J., & Gordon, S. R. (1990). Stranger in Parodies: Weird Al and the Law of Musical
Satire. Fordham Intellectual Propoerty, Media and Entertainment Law Journal.
Most of his parodies were featured in the GMA network comedy show
“Bubble Gang”.
Foreign songs such as “It’s All Coming Back to Me Now” by Celine
Dion, “Bed of Roses” by Bon Jovi, and “Another One Bites the Dust” by
Queen were parodied by Michael V. by literally interpreting their lyrics in
Filipino. The titles of mentioned parodies were “Bumabalik na sa Akin
Ngayon”, “Kama ni Rossana”, and “May Isa na Namang Kumagat sa
Alikabok”, respectively.104
Several Original Pinoy Music (OPM) songs were also parodied by
Michael V. In making parodies of OPM songs, Michael V. uses lyrics that
have absolutely no relation with the lyrics of the original song while
maintaining the same melody. Up Dharma Down’s “Oo” and “Tadhana”,
Faith Cuneta’s “Pag-ibig Ko’y Pansinin”, and Regine Velasquez’s “Di Na
Mag-iisa” were some of the songs parodied by Michael V. 105
There is no dispute that musical parody is copying of another
author’s creative work. The essential argument that no infringement is
committed in case of parodies is the fair use doctrine.
104
Garcia, C. E. (2019, June 17). In Photos: Michael V's Zaniest Song Parodies. Retrieved from
GMA Entertainment: https://www.gmanetwork.com/entertainment/tv/bubble_gang/10481/in-
photos-michael-vs-zaniest-song-parodies/photo/126819/mag-exorcist-tayo-2006
105
Id
5.2. Applicable Provisions of the Intellectual Property Code to
Parodies
In the Philippines, fair use is embodied in Section 184 106 of the
Intellectual Property Code. Fair use doctrine is defined as “a privilege in
others than the owner of a copyright to use a copyrighted material in a
reasonable manner without the owner’s consent, notwithstanding the
monopoly granted to the owner. To determine whether fair use has been
made of copyrighted material, the quantity and value of material used and
extent to which the use may diminish the value of the original work must
be considered.107
Section 185108 of the Intellectual Property Code specifically provides
for determination of fair use.
185.1. The fair use of a copyrighted work for criticism,

comment, news reporting, teaching including multiple
copies for classroom use, scholarship, research, and
similar purposes is not an infringement of copyright.
Decompilation, which is understood here to be the
reproduction of the code and translation of the forms of
the computer program to achieve the inter-operability of
an independently created computer program with other
programs may also constitute fair use. In determining
whether the use made of a work in any particular case is
fair use, the factors to be considered shall include:
106
107
Fair use, def. Black’s Law Dictionary; 6th ed.
108
(a) The purpose and character of the use, including

whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-
profit education purposes;
(b) The nature of the copyrighted work;
(c) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in

relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(d) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or
value of the copyrighted work.
5.3. Fair Use Jurisprudence in the Philippines
In ABS-CBN vs. Gozon,109 the Supreme Court had the opportunity
to explain the tests to determine whether a copied work constitutes fair
use. The case was about the dispute of ABS-CBN and GMA-7’s coverage
of the homecoming of Angelo Dela Cruz, an overseas Filipino worker who
was kidnapped by Iraqi militants. ABS-CBN conducted a live coverage
and broadcast of Dela Cruz’s arrival at NAIA and the press conference.
Reuters Television Service was allowed by ABS-CBN to air the footages
taken under a special embargo agreement. Under the special embargo
agreement, no other Philippine subscriber of Reuters would be allowed to
use the footages taken by ABS-CBN without its consent.
GMA-7 is a subscriber of Reuters and covered the same event. It
received a live footage of the arrival of Dela Cruz which was immediately
used in its program “Flash Report”. GMA-7 did not know that the footages
109
ABS-CBN vs. Gozon, GR No. 195956 (Supreme Court March 11, 2015)
that Reuters used was taken by ABS-CBN. While broadcasting the
footage, the logo of ABS-CBN appeared on the live coverage prompting
GMA-7 to immediately stop broadcasting the coverage. A complaint for
copyright infringement was filed by ABS-CBN against GMA-7 and its
officers.
One of the defenses presented by GMA-7 was that there was fair
use of the footages of ABS-CBN based on Section 212.4 of the Intellectual
Property Code. The said section provides that the rights enumerated on
Sections 203, 208 and 209 shall not apply in cases of “fair use of the
broadcast subject to the conditions of Section 185” 110
The Supreme Court held that the Intellectual Property Code
provides a four-factor test in determining fair use. The factors that would
determine application of fair use are the purpose and character of the use,
including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit
education purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and
substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a
whole and; the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
the copyrighted work.
As regards the purpose and character of the use, the copyrighted
material must fall within the requirements of Section 185. It should be a
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching including multiple copies for
110
classroom use, scholarship, research, and similar purposes. The Supreme
Court provided a test in reviewing the purpose and character of the usage
of the copyrighted work called “transformative test”. According to the
transformative test, the court should determine whether the copy of the
work adds “new expression, meaning or message” to transform it into
something else.111
As regards the nature of the work, determination of whether the
work is more factual than creative would determine in whose favor the
112
copyright protection would be granted.
In amount and substantiality of the portion, there may be cases
when an exact reproduction, compared to reproduction of a small portion,
would be unfair. However, the Court expressed that the entirety of the
copyrighted work may be used without the authors consent but the use
would still be fair, citing parodies as an example. 113
And as for the effect of the use on copyrighted work’s market,
courts should determine whether there would be a negative impact on the
copyrighted work’s market, is so, the use would be deemed unfair. 114
Even though there is a test provided under the Intellectual Property
Code and further discussed by the Supreme Court in ABS-CBN vs.
111
112
Id
113
Id
114
Id
Gozon, there is no jurisprudence pronounced by the Supreme Court
regarding parodies as proper subject of the fair use doctrine.
5.4. Parodies Falling under Fair Use Doctrine
U.S. Jurisprudence, on the other hand, had several rulings
regarding parodies and its application of the fair use doctrine. The
landmark case with respect to parodies of copyright law is Campbell vs.
Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.
5.4.1. Campbell vs. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.
The case of Campbell vs. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. arose from a
parody rap song of 2 Live Crew entitled “Pretty Woman” which was written
to satirize Roy Orbinson’s “Oh Pretty Woman” through comical lyrics. The
original “Oh Pretty Woman” was written by Roy Orbinson and William
Dees in 1964. They assigned the copyright of the song to Acuff-Rose
Music, Inc. Subsequently, Acuff-Rose Music registered the copyright. 115
Luther Campbell, Christopher Wongwon, and David Hobbs, more
popularly known collectively as 2 Live Crew, wrote the parody song on
1989. The manager of 2 Live Crew approached Acuff-Rose to ask
permission to release the parody, attribute credit to Acuff-Rose Music, and
pay license fees if the latter demands the same. Acuff-Rose did not permit
115
Campbell vs. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 92-1292 (United States Supreme Court March 7, 1994).
the use of the parody. However, 2 Live Crew still released the parody and
a year later, Acuff-Rose Music accused 2 Live Crew of copyright
infringement.
The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of 2 Live
Crew stating that “Pretty Woman” of 2 Live Crew was fair use of the
original Roy Orbinson song. The District Court held that the commercial
purpose of the 2 Live Crew song was not a bar to claim fair use, that the
version was a parody since it substitutes the predictable lyrics of the
original with shocking lyrics, and that the parody took from the original no
more than what was necessary to create the parody. Furthermore, the
District Court held that the 2 Live Crew song could not adversely affect the
market of the Roy Orbinson original song.
When the case was elevated to the Court of Appeals, the decision
was reversed. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth District gave credence to
the presumption that every commercial use of a work is unfair. The first of
the four factors of fair use (the purpose and character of the use, including
whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational
purpose) weighed against 2 Live Crew since the parody was made for
commercial purpose. The Court of Appeals concluded its decision stating
that that blatant commercial purpose of the parody prevented it from being
a fair use.
In a petition for certiorari which brought the case to the Supreme
Court, the United States Supreme Court discussed in detail whether the
commercial parody of 2 Live Crew could be considered fair use or not.
According to Section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act of the United States,
107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and
106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including
such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords
or by any other means specified by that section, for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching (including multiple copies for classroom
use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement
of copyright. In determining whether the use made of
a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors
to be considered shall include -
"(1) the purpose and character of the use, including

whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for
nonprofit educational purposes;
"(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
"(3) the amount and substantiality of the use 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.
"The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar

a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon
consideration of all the above factors."116
116
Id.
The U.S. Supreme Court discussed each factor in relation to
parody. First, it was held that for purposes of copyright law, “the heart of
the parodist’s claim to quote from existing material is the use of some
elements of a prior author’s composition to create a new one, at least in
part, comments on that author’s works.” 117 As held by the Court, the
enquiry is whether the use is for criticism, or comment, or news reporting,
and the like. In the case of parodies, the work is considered a
transformative work that criticizes the original work through a less
ostensible humorous form. And just like other forms of criticism or
comment, parodies fall within fair use in this aspect.
Specifically, in this case, the Supreme Court found that the 2 Live
Crew song comments on the original or criticizes it. In the words of the
Supreme Court, 2 Live Crew “juxtaposes the romantic musings of a man
whose fantasy comes true with degrading taunts, a bawdy demand for
sex, and a sigh of relief from paternal responsibility.” 118 The lyrics are a
comment to the original as a rejection of the latter’s sentiment. The
reference and ridicule constitute comment or criticism of the original
through the use of parody.
Second, the nature of the copyrighted work provides not much help
in determining fair use as regards parodies. The copyright protection of an
original work is given by law for the creative expression for public
117
Id.
118
Id.
dissemination. As consequence, fair use becomes more difficult to
determine when the former work is copied. However, parodies, by its very
nature, is intended to almost invariable copy a publicly known, expressive
work in order to criticize the same. Since copying of the original is an
integral part of parodies, the second factor of serves little purpose in
differentiating fair use from infringement.
Third, as regards the amount and substantiality of the use in
relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, it was held that the enquiry is
to the quantity and value of the material used. As stated by the Supreme
Court in other cases cited in its decision, it is recognized that the extent of
permissible copying varies depending on the purpose and character of the
use. The reproduction of an entire work does not have in its ordinary effect
of militating against finding of fair use. Even substantial quotations may
qualify as fair use in one case, such as review of published work or news
account of a speech, but not in others, like a soon-to-be published
memoir.
Parodies rely heavily in the recognition of the original and presents
itself as a distorted imitation of such. “The art of parody lies in the tension
between the known original and the parody version. For a parody to be
successful, it must be able to ‘conjure up’ at least enough of the original to

make the object of its critical wit recognizable”. 119 Thus, using some
characteristic features of the original could not be avoided.
In the Pretty Woman songs case, the Supreme Court held that the
2 Live Crew song took only what is necessary to create a parody of the
Orbinson song. It did not excessively take from the original despite the
portion taken was the so-called heart of the song. As found by the
Supreme Court, the opening bass riff and the first line of “Oh Pretty
Woman” may be said to be the heart of the song. 120 The parody took such
heart of the song but subsequently departed from the original by providing
lyrics which comments or criticizes the original. The copying done by the 2
Live Crew song was reasonable as to relate it to the original even though
the heart of the original was used. If the parody copied a less substantial
portion of the original, then no relation between the two could have been
made and the purpose of the parody would not be achieved.
Lastly, the “effect of the use upon the potential market for or value
of the copyrighted work” factor requires the courts to consider the extent of
market harm suffered by the original and whether the unrestricted and
widespread conduct would be substantially adverse to the said potential
market of the original. The harm includes not only to the original but also
to the market of derivative works.
119
Id.
120
Id.
In this regard, both Acuff Rose Music and 2 Live Crew failed to
provide evidence as to whether there was harm, actual or potential, to the
market of the original. With 2 Live Crew moving for summary judgment in
the District Court level, they had no opportunity to present evidence with
respect to this factor. However, the Court of Appeals applied an
evidentiary presumption of harm to the potential market because of its
own findings that the parody was commercial in nature. The Supreme
Court declared that the Court of Appeals erred in applying such
presumption. No presumption is available to address market harm and
character and purpose factors.
5.5. Applying U.S. Jurisprudence on Parodies to the Philippine Music
Parody Scene
5.5.1. “It’s All Coming Back to Me Now”
To put the U.S. jurisprudence into Philippine perspective, two
parodies made by Michael V. are used in this paper on the assumption
that Michael V. did not acquire rights nor consent from the original
composers and performers of the songs.
First, the song “It’s All Coming Back to Me Now” by Celine Dion
was parodied by Michael V. entitled “Bumabalik Na sa Akin Ngayon”. 121

121
Del Valle Bunagan, M. more popularly known as Michael V. (2016). Bumabalik Na Sa Akin
Ngayon. Polyeast Records. A copy of the song is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=d3G1vI63a1E
The parody used the music of the original Celine Dion song with the
latter’s lyrics literally translated per line in Filipino. The literal translation of
the lyrics extended even up to the line ‘Baby, Baby, Baby’ being translated
into ‘Sanggol, Sanggol, Sanggol’. A comparison between the two lyrics
would show that the theme of the original and the parody is similar, if not
the same. However, the humor lies in the absurdity of the translation
which makes the parody sound ridiculous and non-sense.
Applying the factors of fair use to “Bumabalik Na Sa Akin Ngayon”,
the first factor (purpose and character of the use) presents a novel
question. Does a literal translation of the original’s lyrics fall within the
purview of comment or criticism making the purpose of the parody to be a
comment or criticism of the original song? This paper submits that the
literal translation should be viewed as a criticism of the original song. It
could be argued that the literal translation does not provide a different
view, perspective, or opinion than the original. The message of the song,
in this case the reminiscing of the past of the speaker of the song, remains
the same. Compared to the 2 Live Crew parody where the beauty of a
woman described in the original was changed to describe a less appealing
picture, the Michael V. parody of the “It’s All Coming Back to Me” does not
give a different picture than its original counterpart.
Unlike a proper translation of the lyrics into Filipino, a literal
translation done by translating each phrase or line of the original English

lyrics into its Filipino meaning creates an absurd almost non-sense
translation. The absurdity created of the literal translation is the criticism or
comment to the original because it presents the lyrics of the original that
had deep meaning into a comical one. The use of literal translation to
trigger humor also falls within the concept of parody in which the parody of
Michael V. pokes fun at the original song. Unlike the 2 Live Crew case
where the lyrics of the parody departed from the original, this parody of
Michael V. does not necessarily depart from the original. However, the
criticism of the original remains and such should be enough to find
compliance of the first factor.
As held by the U.S. Supreme Court, the second factor (nature of
the copyrighted work) presents little purpose in determining whether there
was infringement or fair use when it comes to parodies. By its very nature,
parodies need to copy an original in order to comment or criticize the
same. In this case, there is no doubt that Michael V.’s parody is a copy of
the Celine Dion song. The video of the parody itself included music credit
to Celine Dion.122
As regards the third factor (amount and substantiality of the use in
relation to the copyrighted work as a whole), Michael V.’s parody uses the
entire music of the song and translates the entire lyrics of the original. In
this case, it could be argued that there is infringement since the parody
122
Id. at 0:10
appropriates the entire music into it and literally translates the entire lyrics
of the original. Unlike in the 2 Live Crew case where only bass line and the
opening lyrics was copied, and after establishing the connection with the
original, departed from the original song, the Michael V. parody did not do
the same.
There is no clear cut amount of copying that determines whether or
not a parody copying an original is committing infringement or exempted
by fair use. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, it test is whether the
parody copied only a reasonable amount in order to conjure up the
original. Copying beyond what is necessary would constitute infringement.
In the Michael V. parody case, the question would be whether the copying
of the whole music constitutes copying of only a reasonable amount or did
the parody exceeded in copying only what was necessary.
This paper submits that the copying of the entire music is
necessary and reasonable. The parody did not exceed to copy what was
only needed in order to conjure up the original and establish its
connection. Since the Michael V. parody relies on the absurd literal
translation of the song, it is necessary to copy the entire music of the
original in order to present the translated version of the lyrics. The parody
could not divert from the music of the original as it would depart from the
relationship with the parodied song if a different music was used. No

association with the original would have been made and the comment or
criticism of the parody to the original would be unsuccessful.
Lastly, the fourth factor (effect of the use upon the potential market
for or value of the copyrighted work) is undoubtedly complied with by
Michael V’s parody. The song was released originally on the situation
comedy show Bubble Gang. Subsequently, it was featured in an album
entitled “MTB (Myusik Tagalog Bersyon)” in 1997 which was produced by
PolyEast Records. The album consisted of 6 parody songs. There could
be no damaging effect of the parody being sold in an album since Michael
V’s album was clearly a collection of parody songs from foreign songs.
The main market of his album was Filipinos and it could not be
confused nor reduce the sales of Celine Dion’s original song. Furthermore,
the commercial use, in itself as held by the U.S. Supreme Court, does not
create a presumption of adverse effect to the market of the original work. It
could be said that “Bumabalik Na Sa Akin Ngayon”, being an obvious
parody, would lead the listener to search for the original version, if not
already known.
5.5.2. “Oo”
Another parody made by Michael V. was “Uh-oh” 123, a parody of Up
Dharma Down’s song “Oo”. Similar to the previous parody, Michael V.

123
GMA Network (2019, March 1). Bubble Gang: “Uh-oh” Ay Karma Yan by Bitoy (“Oo” UDD
Parody) (with English subtitles). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=8Tim0eelMHs
uses the same music as the original song it parodies but uses different
lyrics. However, unlike the parody of the Celine Dion song, this parody
departed from the meaning or message of the original song.
Up Dharma Down’s “Oo” speaks of the unrequited love of the
speaker of the song towards his/her friend. The song goes on with giving a
picture of the pain that the speaker of the song feels as he/she watches
his/her loved one with someone else. Throughout the song, the pain is
vividly explained. On the other hand, Michael V’s parody speaks of the
lack of stove in the kitchen. The speaker of the song describes how
several cooking methods could not be made because of the lack of stove.
Throughout the song, the speaker enumerates several dishes sought to
be cooked but, since there was no stove, there was nothing he/she can
do. The song ends with a statement to discontinue the restaurant business
unless a stove is acquired.
Unlike “Bumabalik Na Sa Akin Ngayon”, “Uh-oh” has more
similarities with the 2 Live Crew case. “Uh-oh” departed from the meaning
of the original song just like “Pretty Woman”. The lyrics of this Michael V.
parody and the original has no connection whatsoever. However, as
compared to “Pretty Woman” which lyrics depicted a contradiction of the
original Orbinson song, “Uh-oh” parodied the song by downplaying its
meaning into a shallow problem.

With respect to the first factor of fair use, this method or parody
presents an issue. The 2 Live Crew parody was ruled as fair use because
it comments on the original. The criticism of the 2 Live Crew parody was
that, unlike the Orbinson song which presents a beautiful image, the 2
Live Crew presented the other side of the coin which involved disturbing
and unappealing reality. In this Michael V. parody, there appears to be no
comment or criticism of the original. What was done was the use of a
copyrighted work, in this case, the work was “Oo” by Up Dharma Down,
appropriating the entire music and only changing the lyrics of the song.
There was no comment or criticism to base the finding of fair use. Rather,
a new song was made using the same melody.
With respect to the second and third factor, “Uh-oh” stands at the
same level with “Bumabalik Na Sa Akin Ngayon”. Since the song is a
parody, the second factor remains of little significance. As regards the
third factor, the use of the entire music, just like the previously cited
Michael V. parody, was required in order to establish a connection
between the original song of Up Dharma Down and the parody. And lastly,
the fourth factor is also complied with. “Uh-oh” was only released in a
situation comedy called Bubble Gang. Unlike the previous parody, this
Michael V. parody was not recorded in an album nor sold to the market. It
was made only for the segment of Bubble Gang.

Chapter 6
Conclusion and Recommendation
6.1. The Balance Between Copyright Protection and Support for
Songwriting
Between sampling and parodies, the former has more stringent
rules than the latter. Because of such, sampling becomes more prone to
being viewed as copyright infringement, as compared to parodies. In
effect, the artists who sampled a song would be prohibited to utilize his
composition just because of using portion of another song. The problem
has extremely grown in the recent years with the influx of copyrights claim
cases alleging infringement by several well-known artists for minute
portions in their songs which could be considered as sampling.
In an effort to balance copyright protection and allowing composers
to build upon previous compositions, this paper proposes methods in
analyzing songs and determining whether there was copyright
infringement or an allowable use of a song. These methods can be used
in infringement disputes with respect to similarities to the song.
6.2. Allowable Sampling vs. Infringing Sampling

6.2.1. Adopting the Three Requisites held in Tuff ‘n’ Rumble vs.
Profile Records
One way to allow sampling to some extend without prejudicing the
copyright of a previous song would be to apply the requisites enunciated
in the Tuff ‘n’ Rumble case, to wit: first, the plaintiff must demonstrate the
ownership of a valid copyright. Second, the defendant must have actually
copied the plaintiff’s work. And lastly, the copying was illegal because a
substantial similarity exists between the defendant’s work and the
plaintiff’s work.124
First, the demonstration of the ownership of valid copyright
establishes the right of the plaintiff over the song and to claim
infringement. This fact should be established for in order to determine
whether the plaintiff has cause of action to file the infringement case.
Second, the fact that the defendant actually copied the plaintiff’s
work must be established. This should be impliedly admitted in sampling.
The fact that a song sampled another song constitutes copying already. If
the defendant opts to argue allowable sampling, then there is already an
admission that a portion of the previous song was used in writing the
subsequent song.
Third, the substantial similarity test between the two songs must be
made as a whole. This factor will determine whether the sampling made is
124
allowable or not. The two songs should not be dissected and matched with
each other. For example, an intro or a bass drum of a sampling song and
the sampled song should not be compared alone. Rather, the entirety of
the both songs should be compared and substantial similarity be judged
based on its totality. Through this, copyright holders cannot abuse their
rights into preventing other from using the same chord progression, note
arrangements, or a simple drum beat, much less the vibe or feel of a song.
At the same time, songwriters who plan to sample a song could not
copy a substantial amount from the song since it would result in a
substantial similarity with the sampled song. To do so would mean that
there already is copyright infringement. The melody or lyrics of the
sampling song should be different enough from the sampled song in order
to be an allowable sampling.
6.2.2. De minimis principle in Sampling
The de minimis principle is another possible way for sampling to be
allowed under copyright laws. The de minimis principle, as discussed
earlier in Chapter 4 of this research, is a copying of another’s work that is
so small that it lacks import. De minimis copying would constitute the
appropriation of another’s work into one’s own in a way that the copied
portion is so miniscule that it is negligible.

Such principle should be applied in determining infringement cases
involving sampling. A song which sampled a two-second beat that is
looped throughout the song should be considered allowable because of
the de minimis principle. On the other hand, a song which sampled the
entire melody or at least a substantial portion from another song would not
fall within the de minimis principle and thus could still be held as an
infringement of the sampled song’s copyright.
In this scenario, a certain amount of copying would be allowed but
the rights of the copyright holders of a sampled song remains protected
from others who would dare to appropriate their original songs. Similar to
the substantial similarity mentioned above, the key point of applying de
minimis principle in sampling is to provide a leeway for an allowable
sampling.
6.3. Expanding the Scope of Fair Use in Parodies
Parodies, as compared to sampling, has more lenient rules.
However, the fair use doctrine requires one crucial element that, applied in
music, constraints the creation of parodies.
For a parody to be considered subject to fair use, the parody is
required to comment of criticize the original. As discussed in Chapter 5, a
parody song like “Uh-oh” would not fall under the limits of fair use doctrine
because it does not comment or criticize the original version “Oo”. The
same principle would apply to internationally known parodist Weird Al
Yankovic who also creates parodies by using the same melody and
applying an entirely different, frequently nonsensical, lyrics.
This research proposes that, with respect only to parodies, the
requirement of comment or criticism of the original should at least include
the use of nonsensical and ridiculous lyrics even without comment or
criticism from the original. As the aim of parody is to provide humor,
comment or criticism to the original would only limit parodies to talk about
the original. The use of nonsensical and ridiculous lyrics when applied to
the melody of an original song should be considered satirical already.
Understandably, this proposal could potentially be abused by
writers of commercial and election jingles as a way to avoid infringement
claims because they would be using another song’s melody and applying
lyrics that does not relate to the original.
As a safeguard from this, the other elements of fair use could
prevent the abuse. For one, the purpose and character of the use in
parodies against jingles differ. Parodies, like satire, are made to cause
ridicule, laughter, and humor; whereas jingles are made to entice an
audience either to buy a particular product or to solicit a vote for a
candidate.
SAN SEBASTIAN COLLEGE- RECOLETOS, MANILA a
Bibliography
ABS-CBN Corporate Newsroom. (2019, October 13). List: Himig Handog 2019
winners. Retrieved from ABS-CBN Newsroom: https://www.abs-
cbn.com/newsroom/news-releases/2019/10/13/list-himig-handog-2019-
winners?lang=en
ABS-CBN News. (2019, February 1). How song covers can be problematic:.
ABS-CBN News - Entertainment. Retrieved from https://news.abs-
cbn.com/entertainment/02/01/19/how-song-covers-can-be-problematic-
orange-lemons-frontman-explains
ABS-CBN vs. Gozon, GR No. 195956 (Supreme Court March 11, 2015).
Ali, S. I., Yusoff, Z. M., & Ayub, Z. A. (2017). Legal Research of Doctrinal and
Non-doctrinal. International Journal of Trend in Research and
Development.
Bernstein, R. (1984). Parody and Fair Use in Copyright Law. Copyright Law
Symposium.
Blacc, A., Manta, I. D., & Olson, D. S. (2015). A Sustainable Music Industry for
the 21st Century. Cornell Law Review Online.
Campbell vs. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 92-1292 (United States Supreme Court
March 7, 1994).
Carrier, M. (2012). Copyright and Innovation: The Untold Story. Wisconsin Law
Review.
SAN SEBASTIAN COLLEGE- RECOLETOS, MANILA b
Carter, M. R. (2013). Applying the Fragmented Literal Similarity Test to Musical-
Work and Sound-Recording Infringement: Correcting the Bridgeport
Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films Legacy. Minnesota Journal of Law,
Science & Technology, 669-704.
Committee on the Impact of Copyright Policy on Innovation in the Digital Era.
(2013). Copyright in the Digital Era: Building Evidence for Policy. (S. A.
Merrill, & W. J. Raduchel, Eds.) National Academies Press. Retrieved
September 2019, from https://www.nap.edu/search/?
term=copyright+in+the+digital+area
Cotterrell, R. (1997). Law's Community. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Dobinson, I., & Johns, F. (2007). Qualitative Legal Research. Research Methods
for Law, 18-19.
Fallore, R. (2018, January 4). Look: Ex Battalion Releases Official Statement
Regarding "Hayaan Mo Sila" Copyright Issue! Myx Articles. Retrieved
from https://myx.abs-cbn.com/features/13793/look-ex-battalion-releases-
statement-regarding-h
Filipino Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers, Inc. vs. Benjamin Tan,
G.R. No. L-36402 (Supreme Court 1987).
Gaba, J. P. (2004, March 30). A Survey of Philippine Copyright Cases. Point of
Law. Retrieved from
https://www.philstar.com/business/2004/03/30/244584/survey-philippine-
copyright-cases
SAN SEBASTIAN COLLEGE- RECOLETOS, MANILA c
Gabinete, J. (2018, January 19). Ex-Battalion Embroiled in Copyright Issue Over
Monster Hit "Hayaan Mo Sila. PEPph News. Retrieved from
https://www.pep.ph/news/local/69290/ex-battalion-embroiled-in-copyright-
issue-over-monster-hit-hayaan-mo-sila
Garcia, C. E. (2019, June 17). In Photos: Michael V's Zaniest Song Parodies.
Retrieved from GMA Entertainment:
https://www.gmanetwork.com/entertainment/tv/bubble_gang/10481/in-
photos-michael-vs-zaniest-song-parodies/photo/126819/mag-exorcist-
tayo-2006
Gong, Y. (2005). Indentifying P@P users using traffic analysis. Symantec.
Hartman, A. (1996). Don't Worry, Be Happy! Music Performance and Distribution
on the Internet is Protected after the Digital Performance Rights in Sound
Recordings Act of 1995. DePaul Journal of Art, Technology, & Intellectual
Property Law.
Jain, S. N. (2006). Doctrinal and Non-Doctrinal Legal Research in Legal
Research Methodology. Indian Law Institute.
Kaminsky, M. (2017, December 30). Bruno Mars and Mark Ronson's 'Uptown
Funk' Faces (Yet Another) Copyright Infringement Suit. Forbes -
Hollywood & Entertainment. Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michellefabio/2017/12/30/bruno-mars-and-
mark-ronsons-uptown-funk-faces-yet-another-copyright-infringement-
suit/#4a1fdff770c0
SAN SEBASTIAN COLLEGE- RECOLETOS, MANILA d
Lacson, M. C. (2019, April 8). Lacson: On campaign jingles and copyright
infringement. SunStar Pampanga. Retrieved from
https://www.sunstar.com.ph/article/1800604
Lastrada Entertainment vs. Mark Ronson, et al., CV-6937 (United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York September 12, 2017).
Lessig, L. (2008). Remix. Great Britain: Bloomsbury Publishing PLC.
Lim, C. L. (2001). The Development of Philippine Copyright Law. Ateneo Law
Journal.
Lindenbaum, J. (1999). Music Sampling and Copyright Law. Princeton University
Center for the Arts and Cultural Sciences.
Marcus Grey et al. vs. Katy Perry, CV-05642 (United States District Court for the
Central District of California April 3, 2017).
Mckenna, T. B. (2000). Where Digital Music Technology and Law Collide -
Contemporary Issues of Digital Sampling, Appropriation and Copyright
Law. Journal of Information, Law & Technology.
Music Copyright Infringement Resource. (n.d.). Cases of Music Copyright
Infrigement. Retrieved from GW Law:
https://blogs.law.gwu.edu/mcir/cases/
Myneni, S. (2006). Legal Research Methodology. India: Allahabad Law Agenccy.
Pinter, D. (2015). Plagiarism or Inspiration? Soundscape Journal on Media
Culture, 18.
SAN SEBASTIAN COLLEGE- RECOLETOS, MANILA e
Posner, R. (1992). When is Parody Fair Use? The Journal of Legal Studies, 67-
78. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/724401
Radcliffe, R. (2014). A Proposed Typology of Sampled Material within Electronic
Dance Music. Dancecult: Journal of Electronic Dance Music Culture, 6(1),
97-122.
Salter, M., & Mason, J. (2007). Chapter 5. In An Introduction and Guide to the
Conduct of Legal Research. Pearson Education.
Sanders, C. J., & Gordon, S. R. (1990). Stranger in Parodies: Weird Al and the
Law of Musical Satire. Fordham Intellectual Propoerty, Media and
Entertainment Law Journal.
Schuster, W. I. (2015). Fair Use, Girl Talk, and Digital Sampling: An Empirical
Study of Music Sampling Effect on the Market for Copyrighted Workd.
Oklahoma Law Review, 444 - 518.
Shadwick, K. (2005). Led Zeppelin: The Story of a Band and their Music. San
Francisco: Backbeat Books.
Siwek, S. E. (2014). Copyright Industries in the U.S. Economy: The 2014 Report.
California: International Intellectual Property Alliance.
Stav, I. (2014). Musical Plagiarism: A True Challenge for the Copyright Law.
DePaul Journal of Art, Technology, & Intellectual Property.
Street, J., Zhang, L., Simuniak, M., & Wang, Q. (2015). Copyright and Music
Policy in China: A Literature Review. Create Working Paper Series.
doi:10.5281/zenodo.29125
SAN SEBASTIAN COLLEGE- RECOLETOS, MANILA f
Tada, Y. (1998). The Internet and Musical Copyright Law. Harvard University.
Retrieved from
https://cyber.harvard.edu/fallsem98/final_papers/Tada.html
Tuff ‘N’ Rumble v. Profile Records, 42 U.S.P.Q.2d 1398 (United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York 1997).
Twain, M. (2010). Mark Twain's Own Autobiography: The Chapters from the
North American Review. University of Wisconsin Press.
Vibhute, K., & Aynalem, F. (2009). Legal Research Methods: Teaching Material.
Justice and Legal System Research Institute, 70.
VMG Salsoul, LLC vs. Madonna Louise Ciccone, 13-57104, 14-55837 (U.S.
Court of Appeals, Ninth Distrct 2016).
Wilson, S. R. (2002). Music Sampling Lawsuits: Does Looping Music Samples
Defeat the De Minimis Defense? Journal of High Technology Law.
World Intellectual Property Organization. (2008). The Economic Contribution of
Copyright-Based Industries in the Philippines. The Economic
Performance of Copyright-Based Industries. Retrieved from
https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/copyright/en/performance/pdf/econ
_contribution_cr_ph.pdf
World Intellectual Property Organization. (2009). The Economic Contribution of
Copyright-based Industries in China.
Yours, Mine & Ours vs. Sony et al., 2:2016cv08056 (US District Court for the
Central District of California October 28, 2016).

Zacarias - First Draft of Thesis

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Zacarias - First Draft of Thesis

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SAN SEBASTIAN COLLEGE- RECOLETOS, MANILA 1

TYPE YOUR TITLE HERE. THE APA RECOMMENDATION

This section is limited to 100-150 words (approximately 12-15 lines), singly

Keywords: law, education, justice, equality

1.0 Problem Rationale 1

2.0 The Research Literature

2.2 Theoretical Framework

3.0 Research Methods

3.1 Research Designs (…example for mix methods)

3.1.5 Data Gathering Procedure

3.2.1 Descriptive-Correlational (…for example)

Examples only! (remove those not applicable)

Appendix VI: The Interview Protocol 44

Appendix XI: Timetable for Research 50

THE PROBLEM RATIONALE

citizens to their intellectual property and creations, particularly when

beneficial to the people, for such period as may be provided by law.” 1

The embodiment of Article XIV, Section 13, is the Intellectual

Property Code2 which provides protection to the scientists, inventors,

artists, and other gifted citizens stated in the constitutional provision.

Patents, trademarks, and copyrights are the intellectual properties

protected by the law.

Intellectual property rights over music fall within the scope of

a person’s rights are punishable. The most common act of infringing an

artist’s or composer’s copyright is the illegal reproduction and sale of

reproducing them for commercial purpose has become easy.

Another form of infringement that is easily committed is through

that offer downloadable copies of songs without payment or credit to the

owners of the songs’ copyright. Several softwares are also available

files that are illegally shared online are songs.

Philippine music scene is when an artist or composer appropriates a song

or portions of the song of made by another. Although there are no cases

filed as regards this issue in the Philippines, there remains to be a

violation of the Intellectual Property Code. This act is common in Filipino

rap music, jingles of politicians during election campaigns and of products

for advertising, and cover songs performed by local bands.

Ex-battalion, a rap group which took the spotlight in late 2017,

became the subject of allegations of copyright infringement over the song

issue of copyright infringement arose. Diamond Style composed a beat

license. According to Diamond Style, Ex Battalion paid for the license

music video of “Hayaan Mo Sila” reached millions, Diamond style

exceeded the lease.5 No lawsuits were filed.

Raymund Marasigan, lead singer of Sandwich and former member

of Eraserheads, tweeted6 not to support candidates of the 2019 elections

who use “unauthorized bastardized version of a popular song as an

election jingle” and further stated that “Di pa na-elect, nagnakaw na

A conflict between two popular OPM 8 bands arose from covering

songs. December Avenue frontman Zel Bautista posted a tweet stating

that to be famous, copying another person’s work would lead to earning

Castro, a member of another popular OPM band called Orange and

Lemons, posted a series of tweets stating how the conflict between

December Avenue and Agsunta “sets a precedent for intellectual property

1.2. Statement of the Problem

the furtherance of music writing by building on the foundations made by

other artists. Particularly, this will answer the following questions.

1.2.1. What is sampling?

1.2.2. How is sampling in music characterized under the Philippine

1.2.3. What is a parody?

1.2.4. How is parody used in music, characterized in Philippine

copyright infringement as regards sampling and parodies?

1.2.6. What would be the status of the Philippine music industry if

the U.S. jurisprudences were to be adopted in the Philippines?

1.2.7. Aside from obtaining consent, how would artists be allowed