ABS-CBN vs. Gozon

1. ABS-CBN vs.
GOZON produced by a process analogous to cinematography or any process for making audiovisual
G.R. No. 195956/MARCH 11 2015/INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY/FEVIDAL 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”
PETITIONERS ABS-CBN Corporation while expression is its reality or the “external, perceptible world of articulate sounds and visible
RESPONDENTS Felipe Gozon et al written symbols that others can understand.”
DOCTRINE. Video footage of a certain event is copyrightable because it is under “audiovisual Thus, the Supreme Court stated that “only the expression of an idea is protected by copyright,
works and cinematographic works and works produced by a process analogous to not the idea itself”, citing the US Supreme Court's decision in Baker vs Selden (101 U.S. 99). In the
cinematography or any process for making audiovisual recordings.” The news or the event present case, expression applies to the event captured and presented in a specific medium via
itself is not copyrightable. cinematography or processes analogous to it.
FACTS. The Court also gave the four-fold test under the Fair Use Doctrine (stated in section 185 of RA
 ABS-CBN had an agreement with the news company Reuter's that ABS-CBN will contribute 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code, as amended) to determine fair use:
news and content that it owns and makes to Reuters in exchange of the latter's news and a. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial
video material, and Reuters will ensure that ABS-CBN's materials cannot be aired in the nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;
country. 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
 Gozon, a journalist from GMA, was a subscriber of Reuter's and CNN live feeds. After it
d. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
received the live feed of Angelo Dela Cruz's arrival and homecoming from Reuter's, it
immediately aired the video from that news feed.
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
 Gozon alleged that its news staff was not aware that there was (a news embargo) without the copyright owner's consent or by copying the material's theme or idea rather than its
agreement between ABSCBN and Reuters, Gozon also alleged that it was not also aware expression.
that it aired ABSCBN’s footage.
 The lower courts ruled that the act of GMA airing 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.
ISSUES & RATIO.

1. WON 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) –
YES.
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. Thus, the act of 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

ABS-CBN vs. Gozon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ABS-CBN vs. Gozon

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

ABS-CBN vs. Gozon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1. ABS-CBN vs.

ISSUES & RATIO.

You might also like