Joaquin Vs Drilon

Joaquin vs Drilon
FACTS:
Petitioner BJ Productions, Inc. (BJPI) is the holder/grantee of Certificate of C
opyright No. M922, dated January 28, 1971, of Rhoda and Me, a dating game show a
ired from 1970 to 1977.On June 28, 1973, it submitted to the National Library an
addendum to its certificate of copyright specifying the show's format and style
of presentation.
On July 14, 1991, while watching television, petitioner Francisco Joaquin, Jr.,
president of BJPI, saw on RPN Channel 9 an episode of It's a Date, which was pro
duced by IXL Productions, Inc. (IXL).
On July 18, 1991, he wrote a letter to private respondent Gabriel M. Zosa, presi
dent and general manager of IXL, informing Zosa that BJPI had a copyright to Rho
da and Me and demanding that IXL discontinue airing It's a Date.
Meanwhile, private respondent Zosa sought to register IXL's copyright to the fir
st episode of It's a Date for which it was issued by the National Library a cert
ificate of copyright August 14, 1991.
Upon complaint of petitioners, an information for violation of P.D. No. 49 was f
iled against private respondent Zosa together with certain officers of RPN Chann
el 9. However, private respondent Zosa sought a 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 dismis
sal of the case against private respondents.
Petitioner Joaquin filed a motion for reconsideration, but his motion denied by
respondent Secretary of Justice on December 3, 1992. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner s TV show is entitled to copyright protection
HELD: No.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
Petitioners assert that the format of Rhoda and Me is a product of ingenuity and
skill and is thus entitled to copyright protection. It is their position that t
he presentation of a point-by-point comparison of the formats of the two shows c
learly demonstrates the nexus between the shows and hence establishes the existe
nce of probable cause for copyright infringement. Such being the case, they did
not have to produce the master tape.
To begin with the format of a show is not copyrightable. Section 2 of P.D. No. 4
9, otherwise known as the DECREE ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, enumerates the classe
s of work entitled to copyright protection.
This provision is substantially the same as 172 of the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE
OF PHILIPPINES (R.A. No. 8293). The format or mechanics of a television show is
not included in the list of protected works in 2 of P.D. No. 49. For this reason
, the protection afforded by the law cannot be extended to cover them.
P.D. No. 49, 2, in enumerating what are subject to copyright, refers to finished
works and not to concepts. The copyright does not extend to an idea, procedure,
process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardle
ss of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in
such work.
The new INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES provides:
Sec. 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 suc
h, even if they are expressed, explained, illustrated or embodied in a work; new
s of the day and other miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of
press information; or any official text of a legislative, administrative or leg
al nature, as well as any official translation thereof.
What then is the subject matter of petitioners' copyright? This 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 P.D.
49, 2(M), to wit:

Cinematographic works and works produced by a process analogous to cinematograph
y or any process for making audio-visual recordings;
The copyright does not extend to the general concept or format of its dating gam
e show. Accordingly, by the very nature of the subject of petitioner BJPI's copy
right, the investigating prosecutor should have the opportunity to compare the v
ideotapes of the two shows.
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 indispens
able to the determination of the existence of probable cause.

Joaquin Vs Drilon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Joaquin Vs Drilon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Joaquin Vs Drilon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Joaquin vs Drilon

49, 2(M), to wit:

You might also like