Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 96 views

    Memorandum TO: Atty. Marcelino Maxino FROM: Rowtir John L. Banquerigo DATE: March 27, 2015

    Uploaded by

    sulawbatch2016
    Atty. Bravo delivered a lecture that he intended to later publish and copyright. Without permission, Mr. Damolmog recorded the lecture and later delivered it as his own. Philippine copyright law gives authors exclusive rights over the reproduction and public performance of their original works. By copying and claiming Atty. Bravo's lecture as his own, Mr. Damolmog violated Atty. Bravo's copyright and committed infringement under the law. As the original author, Atty. Bravo's lecture was protected from the moment of its creation and delivery, regardless of being fixed in writing. Mr. Damolmog's unauthorized use of the work caused injury to Atty. Bravo and he should be held liable for damages.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Memorandum TO: Atty. Marcelino Maxino FROM: Rowtir John L. Banquerigo DATE: March 27, 2015

    Uploaded by

    sulawbatch2016
    96 views3 pages
    Atty. Bravo delivered a lecture that he intended to later publish and copyright. Without permission, Mr. Damolmog recorded the lecture and later delivered it as his own. Philippine copyright law gives authors exclusive rights over the reproduction and public performance of their original works. By copying and claiming Atty. Bravo's lecture as his own, Mr. Damolmog violated Atty. Bravo's copyright and committed infringement under the law. As the original author, Atty. Bravo's lecture was protected from the moment of its creation and delivery, regardless of being fixed in writing. Mr. Damolmog's unauthorized use of the work caused injury to Atty. Bravo and he should be held liable for damages.

    Original Title

    3.Memorandum.doc

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Atty. Bravo delivered a lecture that he intended to later publish and copyright. Without permission, Mr. Damolmog recorded the lecture and later delivered it as his own. Philippine copyright law gives authors exclusive rights over the reproduction and public performance of their original works. By copying and claiming Atty. Bravo's lecture as his own, Mr. Damolmog violated Atty. Bravo's copyright and committed infringement under the law. As the original author, Atty. Bravo's lecture was protected from the moment of its creation and delivery, regardless of being fixed in writing. Mr. Damolmog's unauthorized use of the work caused injury to Atty. Bravo and he should be held liable for damages.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    96 views3 pages

    Memorandum TO: Atty. Marcelino Maxino FROM: Rowtir John L. Banquerigo DATE: March 27, 2015

    Uploaded by

    sulawbatch2016
    Atty. Bravo delivered a lecture that he intended to later publish and copyright. Without permission, Mr. Damolmog recorded the lecture and later delivered it as his own. Philippine copyright law gives authors exclusive rights over the reproduction and public performance of their original works. By copying and claiming Atty. Bravo's lecture as his own, Mr. Damolmog violated Atty. Bravo's copyright and committed infringement under the law. As the original author, Atty. Bravo's lecture was protected from the moment of its creation and delivery, regardless of being fixed in writing. Mr. Damolmog's unauthorized use of the work caused injury to Atty. Bravo and he should be held liable for damages.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    MEMORANDUM

    TO: Atty. Marcelino Maxino


    FROM: Rowtir John L. Banquerigo
    DATE: March 27, 2015
    RE: Intellectual Property Law: Copyright

    QUESTION PRESENTED
    On March 3, 2015, Atty. Edilberto Bravo with the intent to publish and copyright in the future
    made a lecture entitled The Relationship between the Discipline of law and the Discipline of
    Business and the Challenges of the Graduates of Law. Among those invited in the lecture was
    Mr. Damolmog, a Law professor in Baroque Law School. Atty. Damolmog with the intent to
    injure Atty. Bravo fraudulently recorded Atty. Bravos lecture and subsequently delivered it as his
    own in the school where he is teaching. Hence, the question presented is whether or not Atty.
    Damolmogs actions constituted copyright infringement?
    SHORT ANSWER
    Yes. Atty. Bravo as an original author of his lecture has the right to reproduce and authorize
    further adaptions of his work. In the case presented, Mr. Damolmog without consent and
    authority from Atty. Bravo copied and delivered as his own the latters own lecture is a violation
    of our Intellectual Property Law.
    DISCUSSION
    A. Atty. Damolmogs lecture is his copyrighted work
    The rights conferred by the Intellectual Property Code in terms of copyright exist from
    the moment of creation.1 Under Philippine law, a copyrightable work is created when there is
    originality and expression.2 Originality simply means that the work owes its origin to the author
    or an independent creation of the author.3 In the case at bar, Atty. Bravo is considered as the
    author of his lecture because the contents of it are the product of his own mind and imagination
    being the sole creator of his work. For a work to qualify the requirement of expression, it must be
    fixed or must at least be expressed in such a way as to leave no doubt that there is an intellectual
    creation.4 Additionally, Sections 172.1 and 172.2 of the Intellectual Property Code provides that
    lectures, sermons, addresses, dissertations prepared for oral delivery, whether or not reduced in
    writing or other material form are original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain
    1
    2
    3
    4

    Section 171.1 of Republic Act No. 8293


    Ranhilo Callangan Aquino, Intellectual Property Law 9(1998)
    Id. at 13
    Id. at 14

    protected from the moment of their creation. The phrase whether or not reduced in writing or
    other material form tells us that the lecture Mr. Bravo, by the mere fact of its delivery, is entitled
    to copyright protection even if it is not made into writing. Hence, based on the foregoing
    discussions, it can be inferred that the lecture of Atty. Bravo is a copyrighted work.
    B. The acts of Mr. Damolmog constitutes copyright infringement
    The copyright owner have the right to carry out, authorize or prevent the acts of
    production of his work, adaptation or other transformation, public performance of the work or
    other communication to the public of the work and violation of which constitutes copyright
    infringement.5 In the case presented, Mr. Damolmog reproduced the work of Atty. Bravo without
    the latters consent and authority. Reproduction is defined as the making of (one) or more copies
    of a work or a sound recording in any manner or form.6 Mr. Damolmog violated the provision by
    recording Mr. Bravos lecture without his permission and consent and subsequently claims it as
    his own. In addition, Mr. Damolmogs copying of the lecture and delivery to the school where he
    is teaching constitutes unauthorized public performance and communication to the public of the
    copyrighted work of Mr. Bravo which is a violation of Section 177 (6) and (7) respectively. Thus,
    based on the foregoing laws and jurisprudence, it can be inferred that Mr. Damolmogs
    unauthorized reproduction, delivery and subsequently claiming it as his own constitutes
    copyright infringement.
    In addition, the failure to acknowledge the original author produces injurious effects. In
    cases of infringement, copying alone is not what is prohibited. The copying must produce an
    injurious effect. 7 In the case at bar, the injury consists is that of Mr. unauthorized recording
    and subsequent delivery of the lecture of Atty. Bravo. Mr. Damolmog presented the work as his
    own in the school where he is teaching and did not acknowledge Atty. Bravo as the source is also
    a violation of the moral rights of Atty. Bravo. Hence, there is a clear case of appropriation of
    copyrighted work. Thus, Mr. Damolmog should indemnify Atty. Bravo for the damages he have
    caused.
    CONCLUSION
    Through the analysis of the aforementioned laws and jurisprudence, it can be inferred that Mr.
    Damolmogs acts of unauthorized reproduction, performance, communication and subsequently
    claiming as his own the lecture of Atty. Bravo constitutes copyright infringement. Thus, Atty.
    Damolmog is liable for damages.

    Section 177 of Republic Act No. 8293


    Section 171.9 of Republic Act No. 8293
    7
    Pacita I. Habana, et. Al. v. Felicidad Robles and Goodwill Trading, G. R. No. 131522, July 19,
    1999
    6

    You might also like