The list of unprotected subject matter include the following: According to Section 176 of Republic Act 8293,[4] no copyright shall be applied in any work of the Government of the Philippines.
It is not required to seek prior approval or conditions for the use for any purpose of statutes, rules and regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons, addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative assemblies and in meetings of public character.
The court may consider the following factors in awarding statutory damages: The following acts shall not constitute infringement of copyright: The provisions under this shall not be interpreted in a way that exploit the works and does not harm the interest of the right holder.
[4] The Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines does not have a freedom of panorama provision, concerning the right to shoot artistic works permanently found in public spaces and use the resulting images for any purposes without the need to secure permission from the authors of the said works; for instance, taking a video of a cityscape with a building authored by a National Artist found in the background and selling the said reproduction to Netflix.
The permission granted here shall not extend to: Any library or archive with non-profit purposes may make a single copy of the work without the authorization of the author given that: The reproduction of one back-up copy of a computer program shall be allowed without the permission of the copyright owner given that the reproduction is for the following uses: The first known intellectual property law in the Philippines was the Spanish Law on Intellectual Property, which became effective in 1880.
The Treaty of Paris which gave the Philippines to the United States has a mention on intellectual property rights: "The rights of property secured by copyrights and patents acquired by Spaniards in the Island of Cuba and in Porto Rico, the Philippines and other ceded territories, at the time of the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty, shall continue to be respected...." In 1924, Act No.
[11] The Philippines was removed from Special 301 Report of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in 2014, citing "significant legislative and regulatory reforms" in the area of intellectual property.
[14] Former Senator Manny Villar in his 2011 press statement called for amending the Intellectual Property Code, as he expressed concerns that the artists were not sufficiently protected, citing a 2001 copyright complaint filed by a music publisher against Freddie Aguilar over Anak which he himself originally composed.
Villar also opined that Levi Celerio would not have died poor had his works like Ang Pasko ay Sumapit were given protection earlier.
[16] Various stakeholders, including CitizenWatch Philippines,[17] Stratbase ADR Institute,[18] and various Filipino entertainers like Edu Manzano and Shaina Magdayao,[19] supported the proposed site blocking provision and called for its immediate passage.
In July 2024, IPOPHL Director General Rowel Barba and Secretary Alfredo E. Pascual submitted proposed amendments to modernize the IP Code, Republic Act 8293.
The revisions include measures to combat online piracy, the authority for a site-blocking order, increase in penalties, copyright infringement enforcements and changes to trademark regulations.
Maria Catabijan was issued 608,450.00 pesos in damages from La Concepcion College, who he claimed directly copied his work books in order to sell to students.
[24][25] The latter court said that while Fujian is a foreign company, "its act constitute copyright infringement pursuant to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works," of which the Philippines and China are signatories.
Anrey, Inc. responded to FILSCAP's letters of request to secure proper licensing by claiming their restaurants were playing "whatever was being broadcasted on the radio they were tuned in."
[28] However, the high court stressed that denying FILSCAP's petition would cause great harm to the economic rights of the copyright holders in which the users "use free radio reception" instead of paying royalties.
This was a result of the restaurant found by FILSCAP representatives to have played copyrighted music between February 3, 2005 and January 13, 2006, which according to the Court "was not done privately, and the establishment is not a charitable or religious institution or society."
The restaurant's distribution of music was also commercial, giving harm to the legitimate interests of the copyright holders, and therefore no longer protected by fair use doctrine.
[31] ABS-CBN listed 5 acts of plagiarism allegedly committed by Willing Willie in their complaint as follows:[31] A 25-page ruling later on dated May 22, 2015, junked the case against Revillame, declaring it moot.
[31] After the Quezon City RTC demanded a 400 million peso bond from Revillame to answer any further damage the network might sustain, it was later discharged.
Joaquin filed a case against IXL Productions, headed by Gabriel Zosa and RPN 9 before Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
[32] The Supreme Court ruled on January 28, 1999, that the format or mechanics of a television show is not included in the list of the protected work provided by Presidential Decree no.
It further state that copyright, in the strict sense of the term, is purely a statutory right and does not extend to an idea, procedure, process, system, method or operation, concept, principles or discovery regardless of the form to which it is described, explained, and illustrated or embodied in the work.
SM on its part maintained that it independently developed its poster panels using commonly known techniques and available technology, without notice of or reference to Pearl and Dean's copyright.