FACTS: On August
13, 2004, petitioner ABS-CBN filed a criminal complaint against respondent GMA
for (alleged) act of copyright infringement under Sections 177 and 211 of the
Intellectual Property Code (RA 8293, as
amended), because the respondent aired footage of the arrival and homecoming
of OFW Angelo dela Cruz at NAIA from Iraq without the petitioner's consent.
ABS-CBN stated that it has an agreement with Reuter's that the petition will
contribute news and content that it owns and makes to Reuters in exchange of
the latter's news and video material, and Reuters will ensure that ABS-CBN's
materials cannot be aired in the country.
The respondent was a subscriber of Reuter's and CNN live
feeds. After it received the live feed of Angelo Dela Cruz's arrival and
homecoming from Reuter's, it immediately aired the video from that news feed.
The respondent alleged that its news staff was not aware that there was (a news
embargo) agreement between ABSCBN and Reuters. Respondent alleged that it was
not also aware that it aired petitioner's footage.
Assistant City Prosecutor Dindo Venturanza issued
resolution on 3 December 2004 which found probable cause to indict Dela
Peña-Reyes and Manalastas. The respondents appealed the Prosccutor's resolution
before DOJ. DOJ Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez ruled in favor of respondents in his
resolution dated 1 August 2005 and held that good faith may be raised as a
defense in the case.
Meanwhile, DOJ Acting Secretary Alberto C. Agra issued a
resolution on 29 June 2010 which reversed Sec. Gonzalez's resolution and found
probable cause to charge Dela Peña-Reyes, Manalastas, as well as to indict
Gozon, Duavit, Jr., Flores, and Soho for violation of the Intellectual Property
Code (due to copyright infringement).
The Court of Appeals rendered a decision on 9 November
2010, which granted the Petition for Certiorari to reverse and set aside DOJ
Sec. Alberto Agra's resolution and a prayer for issuance of a temporary
restraining order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
The appellate court stated that the petitioner has
copyright of its news coverage, but respondents’ act of airing five (5) seconds
of the homecoming footage without notice
of the “No Access Philippines” restriction of the live Reuter's video feed,
was undeniably attended by good
faith and thus, serves to exculpate from criminal liability under the Intellectual Property Code.
ISSUE: Whether or
not there is probable cause to find respondents to be held liable criminally
for the case of copyright infringement under the Intellectual Property Law (RA
8293, as amended).
HELD: The
Supreme Court PARTIALLY GRANTED ABS-CBN’s petition and ordered RTC
Q.C. Branch 93 to continue with the criminal proceedings
against Grace Dela Peña- Reyes and John Oliver Manalastas due to copyright
infringement.
The other respondents, Atty. Felipe Gozon, Gilberto Duavit
Jr., Marissa L. Flores, and
Jessica A. Soho were held not liable for the (criminal) act
of copyright infringement. The Court held that their mere membership in GMA7's
Board of Directors does not mean that they have knowledge, approval, or
participation in the criminal act of copyright infringement., as there is a
need for their direct/active participation in such act. Also, there was lack of
proof that they actively participated or exercised moral ascendancy over
Manalastas and Dela Cruz-Pena.
Contrary to GMA’s contention, the Supreme Court deemed
GMA's mere act of rebroadcast of ABS-CBN’s news footage (arrival and homecoming
of OFW Angelo dela Cruz at NAIA from Iraq last 22 July 2004) for 2 mins and 40
secs. without the latter's authority creates probable cause to find GMA's news
personnel Manalastas and Dela Peña-Reyes criminally liable for violating
provisions of Intellectual Property Code (Section
216217 of RA 8293, as amended) that imposes strict liability for copyright
infringement, since they have not been diligent in their functions to prevent
that footage from being aired on television. They knew that there would be
consequences in carrying ABS-CBN’s footage in their broadcast – which is why
they allegedly cut the feed from Reuters upon seeing ABS-CBN’s logo and reporter.
The difference of an act mala in se and mala prohibita was
stated in the present case. Acts mala in se requires presence of criminal
intent and the person's knowledge of the nature of his/her act, while in acts
mala prohibita, presence of criminal intent and the person's knowledge is not
necessary. The Court also stated that Philippine laws on copyright infringement
does not require criminal intent (mens rea) and does not support good faith as
a defense. analogous to cinematography or any process for making audiovisual
recordings.” It also stated that news or the event itself is not copyrightable.
The Court differentiated idea and expression – idea meant as “a form, the look
or appearance of a thing” while expression is its reality or the “external, perceptible
world of articulate sounds and visible written symbols that others can understand.”
Thus, the Supreme Court stated that “only the expression of an idea is
protected by copyright, not the idea itself”, citing the US Supreme Court's
decision in Baker vs Selden (101 U.S.
99). In the present case, expression applies to the event captured and
presented in a specific medium via cinematography or processes analogous to it.
The Court also gave the four-fold test under the Fair Use
Doctrine (stated in section 185 of RA 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code,
as amended) to determine fair use:
a. The purpose and character of the use, including whether
such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational 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.
Fair use, which is an exception to copyright owner’s
monopoly of the work's usage, was defined by the Supreme Court as privilege to
use the copyrighted material in a reasonable manner without the copyright
owner's consent or by copying the material's theme or idea rather than its
expression.
It also said that determination of whether the Angelo dela
Cruz footage is subject to fair use is better left to the trial court where the
proceedings are currently pending. infringement and not the intent is the one
that causes the damage.
It held that ABS-CBN's video footage is copyrightable
because it is under “audiovisual works and cinematographic works and works
produced by a process.
Comments
Post a Comment