FRANCISCO G. JOAQUIN, JR. and BJ PRODUCTIONS, INC. vs. HONORABLE RANKLIN M. DRILON, GABRIEL ZOSA, WILLIAM ESPOSO, FELIPE MEDINA,

JR., and CASEY FRANCISCO

FACTS:

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

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

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

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

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

            Petitioner Joaquin filed motion for reconsideration but such was denied.

ISSUE:

            Whether the format or mechanics or petitioner’s television show is entitled to copyright protection.

HELD:

            The Court ruled that the format of the show is not copyrightable. Sec. 2 of PD No. 49, otherwise known as the Decree on Intellectual Property, enumerates the classes of work entitled to copyright protection. The provision is substantially

the same as Sec. 172 of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (RA 8293). The format or mechanics of a television show is not included in the list of protected works in Sec. 2 of PD No. 49. For this reason, the protection afforded by the law cannot be extended to cover them.

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

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

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

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

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

0 0 0 2 0 0 2

SPONSORED ADS 

Intellectual Property – Law on Copyright – Must-Carry RulePhilippine Multi-Media System Inc (PMSI) is a signal provider which has cable and satellite services. It is providing its satellite services through Dream Broadcasting System. PMSI has its “Free TV” and “Premium Channels”. The Free TV includes ABS-CBN, GMA-7 and other local networks. The premium channels include AXN, Jack TV, etc which are paid by subscribers before such channels can be transmitted as feeds to a subscriber’s TV set which has been installed with a Dream satellite.ABS-CBN is a television and broadcasting corporation. It broadcasts television programs by wireless means to Metro Manila and nearby provinces, and by satellite to provincial stations through Channel 2 and Channel 23. The programs aired over Channels 2 and 23 are either produced by ABS-CBN or purchased from or licensed by other producers. ABS-CBN also owns regional television stations which pattern their programming in accordance with perceived demands of the region. Thus, television programs shown in Metro Manila and nearby provinces are not necessarily shown in other provinces.In May 2002, ABS-CBN sued PMSI for allegedly engaging in rebroadcasting and thereby infringing on ABS-CBN’s copyrights; that the transmission of Channels 2 and 23 to the provinces where these two channels are not usually shown altered ABS-CBN’s programming for the said provinces. PMSI argued that it is not infringing upon ABS-CBN’s copyrights because it is operating under the “Must-Carry Rule” outlined in NTC (National Telecommunications Commission) Circular No. 4-08-88.ISSUE: Whether or not PMSI infringed upon the copyrights of ABS-CBN.HELD: No.  The “Must-Carry Rule” under NTC Circular No. 4-08-88 falls under the limitations on copyright. The Filipino people must be given wider access to more sources of news, information, education, sports event and entertainment programs other than those provided for by mass media and afforded television programs to attain a well informed, well-versed and culturally refined citizenry and enhance their socio-economic growth. The very intent and spirit of the NTC Circular will prevent a situation whereby station owners and a few networks would have unfettered power to make time available only to the highest bidders, to communicate only their own views on public issues, people, and to permit on the air only those with whom they agreed – contrary to the state policy that the (franchise) grantee like ABS-CBN, and other TV station owners and even the likes of PMSI, shall provide at all times sound and balanced programming and assist in the functions of public information and education.PMSI was likewise granted a legislative franchise under Republic Act No. 8630, Section 4 of which similarly states that it “shall provide adequate public service time to enable the government, through the said broadcasting stations, to reach the population on important public issues; provide at all times sound and balanced programming; promote public participation such as in community programming; assist in the functions of public information and education.

The “Must-Carry Rule” favors both broadcasting organizations and the public. It prevents cable television companies from excluding broadcasting organization especially in those places not reached by signal. Also, the rule prevents cable television companies from depriving viewers in far-flung areas the enjoyment of programs available to city viewers.

ABS-CBN vs. PMSI, G.R. No. 175769-70 (19 Jan 2009)Post under case digests, Political Law at Wednesday, January 25, 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind

Facts: ABS-CBN is engaged in television and radio broadcasting through wireless and satellite means while Philippine Multi-Media Systems Inc. (“PMSI” for brevity), the operator of DreamBroadcasting System provides direct-to-home (DTH) television via satellite to its subscribers all over the Philippines. 

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

ABS-CBN filed a complaint with Intellectual Property Office (IPO) for violation of laws involving property rights. It alleged that PMSI’s unauthorized rebroadcasting of Channels 2 and 23 infringed on its broadcasting rights and copyright and that the

NTC circular only covers cable television system operators and not DTH satellite television operators. Moreover, NTC Circular 4-08-88 violates Sec. 9 of Art. III of the Constitution because it allows the taking of property for public use without payment of just compensation. 

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

IPO and Court of Appeals ruled in favor of PMSI. 

Issues: 

(1) w/n PMSI infringed on ABS-CBN’s broadcasting rights and copyright 

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

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

Held: 

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

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

(3) The carriage of ABS-CBN’s signals by virtue of the must-carry rule in Memorandum Circular No. 04-08-88 is under the direction and control of the government though the NTC which is vested with exclusive jurisdiction to supervise, regulate and control telecommunications and

broadcast services/facilities in the Philippines. The imposition of the must-carry rule is within the NTC’s power to promulgate rules and regulations, as public safety and interest may require, to encourage a larger and more effective use of communications, radio and television broadcasting facilities, and to maintain effective competition among private entities.

PACITA I. HABANA, ALICIA L. CINCO and JOVITA N. FERNANDO vs. FELICIDAD C. ROBLES and GOODWILL TRADING CO., INC.

G.R. No. 131522, July 19, 1999

FACTS: Pacita Habana et al., are authors and copyright owners of duly issued of the book, College English For Today (CET). Respondent Felicidad Robles was the author of the book Developing English Proficiency (DEP). Petitioners found that several pages of the respondent's book are similar, if not all together a copy of petitioners' book. Habana et al. filed an action for damages and injunction, alleging respondent’s infringement of copyrights, in violation of P.D. 49. They allege respondent Felicidad C. Robles being substantially familiar with the contents of petitioners' works, and without securing their permission, lifted, copied, plagiarized and/or transposed certain portions of their book CET.

On the other hand, Robles contends that the book DEP is the product of her own intellectual creation, and was not a copy of any existing valid copyrighted book

and that the similarities may be due to the authors' exercise of the "right to fair use of copyrighted materials, as guides."

The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, absolving them of any liability.  Later, the Court of Appeals rendered judgment in favor of respondents Robles and Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. In this appeal, petitioners submit that the appellate court erred in affirming the trial court's decision.

ISSUE: Whether Robles committed infringement in the production of DEP.

HELD: A perusal of the records yields several pages of the book DEP that are similar if not identical with the text of CET. The court finds that respondent Robles' act of lifting from the book of petitioners substantial portions of discussions and examples, and her failure to acknowledge the same in her book is an infringement of petitioners' copyrights.

In the case at bar, the least that respondent Robles could have done was to acknowledge petitioners Habana et. al. as the source of the portions of DEP. The final product of an author's toil is her book. To allow another to copy the book without appropriate acknowledgment is injury enough.