ABS-CBN vs. GOZON, ET AL.

Certainly, the arrival of Angelo, which aroused public attention

G.R. No. 195956 | March 11, 2015 and the consciousness of the Filipino people with regard to
their countrymen, OFWs working in foreign countries and how
FACTS: the Philippine government responds to the issues concerning
The controversy arose from GMA-7’s news coverage on the them, is "news". There is no ingenuity or inventiveness added
homecoming of Filipino overseas worker and hostage victim in the said news footage. The video footage of this "news" is
Angelo dela Cruz. not copyrightable by any legal standard as facts of everyday
life depicted in the news and items of press information is part
Angelo dela Cruz, an OFW, Cruz was kidnapped by Iraqi of the public domain.
militants and as a condition for his release, a demand was
made for the withdrawal of Filipino troops in Iraq. After ISSUES:
negotiations, he was released by his captors and was scheduled Whether the ABS-CBN’s news footage of Angelo’s arrival is
to return to the country. Occasioned by said homecoming and copyrightable
the public interest it generated, both the GMA Network and YES, it is copyrightable
ABS-CBN made their respective broadcasts and coverage of
the live event. RULING:
The news footage is copyrightable
ABS-CBN conducted their coverage Angelo’s arrival at the
Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) as well as a To be clear, it is the event itself or the arrival of Angelo which is
subsequent press conference. ABS-CBN allowed Reuters not copyrightable because that is the newsworthy event.
Television Service (Reuters) to air the footages it had taken However, any footage created from the event itself, in this case
earlier under a special embargo agreement. the arrival of Angelo, are intellectual creations which are
copyrightable.
ABS-CBN alleged that under the special embargo agreement,
any of the footages it took would be for the "use of Reuter’s Thus, the footage created by ABS-CBN during the arrival of
international subscribers only, and shall be considered and Angelo dela Cruz, which includes the statements of Dindo
treated by Reuters under ‘embargo’ against use by other Amparo, are copyrightable and protected by the laws on
subscribers in the Philippines. No other Philippine subscriber of copyright.
Reuters would be allowed to use ABS-CBN footage without the
latter’s consent. The Intellectual Property Code is clear about the rights
afforded to authors of various kinds of work. Under the Code,
GMA-7, to which Gozon, et al. are connected, assigned and "works are protected by the sole fact of their creation,
stationed news reporters and technical men at the NAIA for its irrespective of their mode or form of expression, as well as of
coverage Angelo’s arrival. GMA-7 subscribes to both Reuters their content, quality and purpose." These include "audiovisual
and Cable News Network (CNN). It received a live video feed of works and cinematographic works and works produced by a
the coverage of Angelo dela Cruz’s arrival from Reuters. process analogous to cinematography or any process for
making audiovisual recordings."
GMA-7 immediately carried the live news feed in its program
"Flash Report," together with its live broadcast. Allegedly, Copyright laws provide that copyright for a work is acquired by
GMA-7 did not receive any notice or was not aware that an intellectual creator from the moment of creation.
Reuters was airing footages of ABS-CBN. GMA-7’s news control
room staff saw neither the "No Access Philippines" notice nor a It is true that under Section 175 of the Intellectual Property
notice that the video feed was under embargo in favor of ABS- Code, "news of the day and other miscellaneous facts having
CBN. the character of mere items of press information" are
considered unprotected subject matter. However, the Code
ABS-CBN then filed the Complaint for copyright infringement does not state that expression of the news of the day,
against GMA-7, under Sections 177 and 211 of the IP Code. particularly when it underwent a creative process, is not
entitled to protection.
ABS-CBN’s contention:
ABS-CBN claims that news footage is subject to copyright and News or the event itself is not copyrightable. However, an
prohibited use of copyrighted material is punishable under the event can be captured and presented in a specific medium. As
Intellectual Property Code. It argues that the new footage is recognized by this court in Joaquin Jr. vs. Drilon, television
not a "newsworthy event" but merely an account of the arrival "involves a whole spectrum of visuals and effects, video and
of Angelo in the Philippines, the latter being the newsworthy audio." News coverage in television involves framing shots,
event. using images, graphics, and sound effects. It involves creative
process and originality. Television news footage is an
GMA’s defense: expression of the news.
Gozon et al. argue that ABS-CBN’s news footage of Angelo’s
arrival is not copyrightable or subject to protection. In the United States, a line of cases dwelt on the possibility of
television newscasts to be copyrighted. Noteworthy, is the
District Court’s pronouncement in Pacific & Southern Co. v. importance with copyright as established in the different
Duncan, which involves a News Monitoring Service’s conventions covering both kinds of rights.
videotaping and sale of WXIA-TV’s news broadcasts:
It is axiomatic that copyright protection does not extend to news Several treaties deal with neighboring or related rights of
"events" or the facts or ideas which are the subject of news reports. copyright. The most prominent of these is the "International
But it is equally well-settled that copyright protection does extend Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of
to the reports themselves, as distinguished from the substance of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations" (Rome
the information contained in the reports. Copyright protects the Convention).
manner of expression of news reports, "the particular form or
collocation of words in which the writer has communicated it ." Such Article 13 of the Rome Convention. Minimum Rights for
protection extends to electronic news reports as well as written Broadcasting Organizations
reports. Broadcasting organisations shall enjoy the right to authorize or
prohibit:
In this case, however, Gozon et al. admitted that the material
(a) the rebroadcasting of their broadcasts;
under review, which is the subject of the controversy, is an
(b) the fixation of their broadcasts;
exact copy of the original. Gozon et al. did not subject ABS-
(c) the reproduction:
CBN’s footage to any editing of their own. The news footage
(i) of fixations, made without their consent, of their
did not undergo any transformation where there is a need to
broadcasts;
track elements of the original.
(ii) of fixations, made in accordance with the provisions
Copyright rights in relation to broadcasting of Article 15, of their broadcasts, if the reproduction is
made for purposes different from those referred to in
Section 211. Scope of Right. — Subject to the provisions of those provisions;
Section 212, broadcasting organizations shall enjoy the exclusive (d) the communication to the public of their television
right to carry out, authorize or prevent any of the following acts: broadcasts if such communication is made in places
211.1. The rebroadcasting of their broadcasts; accessible to the public against payment of an entrance fee; it
shall be a matter for the domestic law of the State where
211.2. The recording in any manner, including the making of
protection of this right is claimed to determine the conditions
films or the use of video tape, of their broadcasts for the
under which it may be exercised.
purpose of communication to the public of television
broadcasts of the same; and
Broadcasting vs. Rebroadcasting
211.3. The use of such records for fresh transmissions or for
fresh recording. With regard to the neighboring rights of a broadcasting
organization in this jurisdiction, this court has discussed the
Section 212. Limitations on Rights. - Sections 203, 208 and 209
difference between broadcasting and rebroadcasting.
shall not apply where the acts referred to in those Sections are
related to:
Section 202.7 of the IP Code defines broadcasting as "the
212.1. The use by a natural person exclusively for his own
transmission by wireless means for the public reception of
personal purposes;
sounds or of images or of representations thereof; such
212.2. Using short excerpts for reporting current events;
transmission by satellite is also ‘broadcasting’ where the means
212.3. Use solely for the purpose of teaching or for scientific for decrypting are provided to the public by the broadcasting
research; and organization or with its consent."
212.4. Fair use of the broadcast subject to the conditions
under Section 185. On the other hand, under the Rome Convention,
The Code defines what broadcasting is and who broadcasting rebroadcasting is "the simultaneous broadcasting by one
organizations include: broadcasting organization of the broadcast of another
broadcasting organization." The Working Paper prepared by
202.7. "Broadcasting" means the transmission by wireless
means for the public reception of sounds or of images or of the Secretariat of the Standing Committee on Copyright and
representations thereof; such transmission by satellite is also Related Rights defines broadcasting organizations as "entities
"broadcasting" where the means for decrypting are provided that take the financial and editorial responsibility for the
to the public by the broadcasting organization or with its selection and arrangement of, and investment in, the
consent; transmitted content."
202.8. "Broadcasting organization" shall include a natural
person or a juridical entity duly authorized to engage in Broadcasting organizations are entitled to several rights and to
broadcasting. the protection of these rights under the Intellectual Property
Code.
Developments in technology, including the process of
preserving once ephemeral works and disseminating them, Clearly, ABS-CBN’s has copyright over the subject news
resulted in the need to provide a new kind of protection as footage. News as expressed in a video footage is entitled to
distinguished from copyright. The designation "neighboring copyright protection. Broadcasting organizations have not only
rights" was abbreviated from the phrase "rights neighboring to copyright on but also neighboring rights over their broadcasts.
copyright." Neighboring or related rights are of equal
Copyrightability of a work is different from fair use of a work portion of it, can result in the conclusion that its use is not fair.
for purposes of news reporting. There may also be cases where, though the entirety of the
copyrighted work is used without consent, its purpose
GMA-7’s rebroadcast of ABS-CBN’s news footage without the determines that the usage is still fair. For example, a parody
latter’s consent is not an issue. The mere act of using a substantial amount of copyrighted work may be
rebroadcasting without authority from the owner of the permissible as fair use as opposed to a copy of a work
broadcast gives rise to the probability that a crime was produced purely for economic gain. Lastly, the effect of the use
committed under the Intellectual Property Code. on the copyrighted work’s market is also weighed for or
against the user. If this court finds that the use had or will have
The use of Angelo’s footage by GMA a negative impact on the copyrighted work’s market, then the
does not fall under “fair use” use is deemed unfair.
The Intellectual Property Code provides that fair use negates
infringement. However, the Angelo dela Cruz footage does not In the business of television news reporting, the nature of the
fall under the rule on fair use of the broadcast. copyrighted work or the video footages, are such that, footage
created, must be a novelty to be a good report. Thus, when
This court defined fair use as "a privilege to use the the Angelo dela Cruz footage was used by Gozon et al., the
copyrighted material in a reasonable manner without the novelty of the footage was clearly affected.
consent of the copyright owner or as copying the theme or
ideas rather than their expression." Fair use is an exception to Moreover, given that a substantial portion of the Angelo dela
the copyright owner’s monopoly of the use of the work to Cruz footage was utilized by GMA-7 for its own, its use can
avoid stifling "the very creativity which that law is designed to hardly be classified as fair use. Hence, Gozon et al. could not be
foster." considered as having used the Angelo dela Cruz footage
following the provisions on fair use.
Determining fair use requires application of the four-factor test.
Section 185 of the Intellectual Property Code lists four (4) Infringement under the IP Code is malum prohibitum
factors to determine if there was fair use of a copyrighted work: Gozon et al. point out that upon seeing ABS-CBN’s reporter
a) The purpose and character of the use, including whether Dindo Amparo on the footage, GMA-7 immediately shut off
such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit the broadcast. Only five (5) seconds passed before the footage
educational purposes; was cut. They argue that this shows that GMA-7 had no prior
b) The nature of the copyrighted work; knowledge of ABS-CBN’s ownership of the footage or was
c) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in notified of it.
relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
d) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or Infringement under the Intellectual Property Code is malum
value of the copyrighted work. prohibitum. The Intellectual Property Code is a special law.
Copyright is a statutory creation. The general rule is that acts
First, the purpose and character of the use of the copyrighted punished under a special law are malum prohibitum. "An act
material must fall under those listed in Section 185, thus: which is declared malum prohibitum, malice or criminal intent
"criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching including is completely immaterial."
multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, research, and
similar purposes." The purpose and character requirement is Unlike other jurisdictions that require intent for a criminal
important in view of copyright’s goal to promote creativity and prosecution of copyright infringement, the Philippines does not
encourage creation of works. Hence, commercial use of the statutorily support good faith as a defense.
copyrighted work can be weighed against fair use.
Knowledge of the infringement is presumed when the
The "transformative test" is generally used in reviewing the infringer commits the prohibited act. One does not need to
purpose and character of the usage of the copyrighted work. know that he or she is copying a work without consent to
This court must look into whether the copy of the work adds violate copyright law. Notice of fact of the embargo from
"new expression, meaning or message" to transform it into Reuters or CNN is not material to find probable cause that
something else. "Meta-use" can also occur without necessarily Gozon et al. committed infringement. Knowledge of
transforming the copyrighted work used. infringement is only material when the person is charged of
aiding and abetting a copyright infringement under Section
Second, the nature of the copyrighted work is significant in 217 of the Intellectual Property Code.
deciding whether its use was fair. If the nature of the work is
more factual than creative, then fair use will be weighed in CONCLUSION:
favor of the user. News should be differentiated from expression of the news,
particularly when the issue involves rebroadcast of news
Third, the amount and substantiality of the portion used is footage.
important to determine whether usage falls under fair use. An
exact reproduction of a copyrighted work, compared to a small
Good faith, lack of knowledge of the copyright, or lack of intent 2) selling, leasing, distributing, circulating, publicly exhibiting, or
to infringe is not a defense against copyright infringement. offering for sale, lease, distribution, or possessing for the
Copyright, however, is subject to the rules of fair use and will purpose of sale, lease, distribution, circulation or public
exhibition any of the abovementioned articles, without the
be judged on a case-to-case basis.
written consent of the owner or his assignee; and
3) directly or indirectly offering or making available for a fee, rental,
As to the criminal liability Gozon et al. for copyright or any other form of compensation any equipment, machinery,
infringement, the RTC was ordered to continue with the paraphernalia or any material with the knowledge that such
criminal proceedings to determine whether Gozon et al. are equipment, machinery, paraphernalia or material will be used by
guilty beyond reasonable doubt. another to reproduce, without the consent of the owner, any
phonograph record, disc, wire, tape, film or other article on
which sounds, motion pictures or other audio-visual recordings
may be transferred, and which provide distinct bases for criminal
prosecution, being crimes independently punishable under
Presidential Decree No. 49, aside from the act of infringing or
COLUMBIA PRICTURES, ET AL. vs. CA, SUNSHINE HOME aiding or abetting such infringement under Section 29.
VIDEO & DANILO A. PELINDARIO
G.R. No. 110318 | August 28, 1996 Infringement of a copyright is a trespass on a private
domain owned and occupied by the owner of the
FACTS: copyright, and, therefore, protected by law, and infringement
Columbia Pictures, et al. lodged a formal complaint with the of copyright, or piracy, which is a synonymous term in this
NBI for violation of PD No. 49, and sought its assistance in their connection, consists in the doing by any person, without the
anti-film piracy drive. Agents of the NBI then made discreet consent of the owner of the copyright, of anything the sole
surveillance on various video establishments in Metro Manila right to do which is conferred by statute on the owner of the
including Sunshine Home Video Inc. (Sunshine for brevity), copyright.
owned and operated by Danilo A. Pelindario.
A copy of a piracy is an infringement of the original, and it
A search warrant was then issued for the seizure, among is no defense that the pirate, in such cases, did not know what
others, of pirated video tapes of copyrighted films all of which works he was indirectly copying, or did not know whether or
were enumerated in a list attached to the application; and, not he was infringing any copyright; he at least knew that what
television sets, video cassettes and/or laser disc recordings he was copying was not his, and he copied at his peril.
equipment and other machines and paraphernalia used or
intended to be used in the unlawful exhibition, showing, In determining the question of infringement, the amount of
reproduction, sale, lease or disposition of videogram tapes. matter copied from the copyrighted work is an important
consideration. To constitute infringement, it is not necessary
The search warrant was served to Sunshine. In the course of the that the whole or even a large portion of the work shall
search of the premises indicated in the search warrant, the NBI have been copied. If so much is taken that the value of the
Agents found and seized various video tapes of duly original is sensibly diminished, or the labors of the original
copyrighted motion pictures/films owned or exclusively author are substantially and to an injurious extent appropriated
distributed by Columbia Pictures, et al. and machines, by another, that is sufficient in point of law to constitute a
equipment, television sets, paraphernalia, materials and piracy.
accessories.
Prior registration is not necessary for
ISSUE: an action for copyright infringement
Whether registration is necessary before an action for
It is pointless for Sunshine Home to insist on compliance with
copyright infringement may be filed
the registration and deposit requirements under Presidential
NO, prior registration is not necessary
Decree No. 49 as prerequisites for invoking the court's
protective mantle in copyright infringement cases.
RULING:
Piracy (as a form of infringement) Sunshine Home contends that PD 49 covers only producers
The amendment to Section 56 of Presidential Decree No. 49 who have complied with the requirements of deposit and
brought about the revision of its penalty structure and notice (in other words registration) under Sections 49 and 50
enumerated additional acts considered violative of said decree thereof. Absent such registration, as in this case, there was no
on intellectual property, namely: right created, hence, no infringement under PD 49. This is not
1) directly or indirectly transferring or causing to be transferred any well-taken.
sound recording or motion picture or other audio-visual works
so recorded with intent to sell, lease, publicly exhibit or cause to Entitled to weight and respect is the opinion of DOJ Secretary
be sold, leased or publicly exhibited, or to use or cause to be of Justice Vicente Abad Santos in this wise:
used for profit such articles on which sounds, motion pictures, or
Sections 26 and 50 do not apply to cinematographic works and PD
other audio-visual works are so transferred without the written
No. 49 "had done away with the registration and deposit of
consent of the owner or his assignee;
cinematographic works" and that "even without prior registration
 and deposit of a work which may be entitled to protection under the
Decree, the creator can file action for infringement of its rights".
He cannot demand, however, payment of damages arising from
infringement. The same opinion stressed that "the requirements of
registration and deposit are thus retained under the Decree, not as
conditions for the acquisition of copyright and other rights, but as
prerequisites to a suit for damages".

Furthermore, a closer review of Presidential Decree No. 49

reveals that even with respect to works which are required
under Section 26 thereof to be registered and with copies to
deposited with the National Library, such as books, including
composite and cyclopedic works, manuscripts, directories and HABANA, ET AL. vs. ROBLES & GOODWILL TRADING
gazetteers; and periodicals, including pamphlets and G.R. No. 131522 | July 19, 1999
newspapers; lectures, sermons, addresses, dissertations
prepared for oral delivery; and letters, the failure to comply FACTS:
with said requirements does not deprive the copyright Habana, et al. are authors and copyright owners of duly issued
owner of the right to sue for infringement. Such non- certificates of copyright registration covering their published
compliance merely limits the remedies available to him and works, produced through their combined resources and efforts,
subjects him to the corresponding sanction. entitled COLLEGE ENGLISH FOR TODAY (CET for brevity),
Books 1 and 2, and WORKBOOK FOR COLLEGE FRESHMAN
The reason for this is expressed in Section 2 of the decree ENGLISH, Series 1.
which prefaces its enumeration of copyrightable works with the
explicit statement that "the rights granted under this Decree Felicidad Robles and Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. are the
shall, from the moment of creation, subsist with respect to any author/publisher and distributor/seller of another published
of the following classes of works." This means that under the work entitled "DEVELOPING ENGLISH PROFICIENCY" (DEP for
present state of the law, the copyright for a work is acquired brevity), Books 1 and 2 (1985 edition) which book was covered
by an intellectual creator from the moment of creation by copyrights issued to them.
even in the absence of registration and deposit.
In the course of revising their published works, Habana, et al.
CONCLUSION: scouted and looked around various bookstores to check on
The fact that Sunshine Home could not show proof of their other textbooks dealing with the same subject matter. By
authority or that there was consent from the copyright owners chance they came upon the book of Robles and upon perusal
for them to sell, lease, distribute or circulate Columbia Pictures, of said book they were surprised to see that the book was
et al’s copyrighted films immeasurably bolsters the lower strikingly similar to the contents, scheme of presentation,
court's initial finding of probable cause for copyright illustrations and illustrative examples in their own book, CET.
infringement.
After an itemized examination and comparison of the two
That Sunshine Home is licensed by the Videogram Regulatory books (CET and DEP), Habana, et al. found that several pages of
Board does not insulate them from criminal and civil liability for the respondent's book are similar, if not all together a copy of
their unlawful business practices. petitioners' book, which is a case of plagiarism and copyright
infringement.
What is more deplorable is that the reprehensible acts of some
unscrupulous characters have stigmatized the Philippines with Habana, et al. then made demands for damages as well as to
an unsavory reputation as a hub for intellectual piracy in this cease and desist from further selling and distributing to the
part of the globe, formerly in the records of the General general public the infringed copies of Robles' works. These
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and, now, of the World Trade demands were left unheeded hence, Habana, et al. filed a
Organization. Such acts must not be glossed over but should complaint for "Infringement and/or unfair competition with
be denounced and repressed lest the Philippines become an damages".
international pariah in the global intellectual community.
Robles’ defenses:
(note: No findings yet as to whether Sunshine Home is guilty of  the book DEP is the product of her independent
copyright infringement as the case discusses more about the quashal of researches, studies and experiences, and was not a copy
the Search Warrant. One of the grounds raised for the quashal is the of any existing valid copyrighted book
absence of prior registration.)  DEP followed the scope and sequence or syllabus which
are common to all English grammar writers as
recommended by the Association of Philippine Colleges
of Arts and Sciences (APCAS), so any similarity between
Robles’ book and that of Habana, et al. was due to the
orientation of the authors to both works and standards
and syllabus
  the similarities may be due to the authors' exercise of the segment about the "Author Card". However, the numerous
"right to fair use of copyrigthed materials, as guides." pages that Habana et al. presented showing similarity in the
style and the manner the books were presented and the
ISSUE: identical examples cannot pass as similarities merely because
Whether there was copyright infringement in this case of technical consideration.
YES, there was
Robles claims that their similarity in style can be attributed to
RULING: the fact that both of them were exposed to the APCAS syllabus
When is there a substantial reproduction of a book? and their respective academic experience, teaching approach
and methodology are almost identical because they were of
the same background.
When is there a substantial reproduction of a book? It does
not necessarily require that the entire copyrighted work, or However, we believe that even if Habana, et al. and Robles
even a large portion of it, be copied. If so much is taken that were of the same background in terms of teaching experience
the value of the original work is substantially diminished, there and orientation, it is not an excuse for them to be identical
is an infringement of copyright and to an injurious extent, the even in examples contained in their books. The similarities in
work is appropriated. examples and material contents are so obviously present in this
case. How can similar/identical examples not be considered as
Infringement of a copyright is a trespass on a private domain a mark of copying?
owned and occupied by the owner of the copyright, and,
therefore, protected by law, and infringement of copyright, or We consider as an indicia of guilt or wrongdoing the act of
piracy, which is a synonymous term in this connection, consists Robles of pulling out from Goodwill bookstores the book DEP
in the doing by any person, without the consent of the owner upon learning of Habana, et al’s complaint while pharisaically
of the copyright, of anything the sole right to do which is denying Habana, et al’s demand. It was further noted that
conferred by statute on the owner of the copyright. when the book DEP was re-issued as a revised version, all the
pages cited by Habana, et al to contain portion of their book
IN THE CASE AT BAR: College English for Today were eliminated.
Robles’ claim that the copied portions of the book CET are also
found in foreign books and other grammar books, and that the In cases of infringement, copying alone is not what is
similarity between her style and that of Habana, et al. cannot prohibited. The copying must produce an "injurious effect".
be avoided since they come from the same background and Here, the injury consists in that Robles lifted from Habana et
orientation may be true. However, in this jurisdiction under Sec al’s book materials that were the result of the latter's research
184 of Republic Act 8293 it is provided that: work and compilation and misrepresented them as her own.
Limitations on Copyright. Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter She circulated the book DEP for commercial use did not
V, the following shall not constitute infringement of copyright: acknowledged petitioners as her source.
(c) The making of quotations from a published work if they are
compatible with fair use and only to the extent justified for the IN THE CASE AT BAR:
purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and Hence, there is a clear case of appropriation of copyrighted
periodicals in the form of press summaries: Provided, That the work for her benefit that Robles committed. Habana, et al’s'
source and the name of the author, if appearing on the work,
work as authors is the product of their long and assiduous
are mentioned.
research and for another to represent it as her own is injury
enough.
A perusal of the records yields several pages of the book DEP
that are similar if not identical with the text of CET. In several
In copyrighting books, the purpose is to give protection to the
other pages, the treatment and manner of presentation of the
intellectual product of an author. This is precisely what the law
topics of DEP are similar if not a rehash of that contained in
on copyright protected, under Section 184.1 (b). Quotations
CET.
from a published work if they are compatible with fair use and
only to the extent justified by the purpose, including
We believe that Robles' act of lifting from the book of Habana,
quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form
et al. substantial portions of discussions and examples, and her
of press summaries are allowed provided that the source and
failure to acknowledge the same in her book is an infringement
the name of the author, if appearing on the work, are
of Habana, et al’s copyrights.
mentioned.
To what extent can copying be injurious
In the case at bar, the least that respondent Robles could have
to the author of the book being copied?
done was to acknowledge Habana et al. as the source of the
In the case at bar, there is no question that Habana et al. portions of DEP. The final product of an author's toil is her
presented several pages of the books CET and DEP that more book. To allow another to copy the book without appropriate
or less had the same contents. It may be correct that the books acknowledgment is injury enough.
being grammar books may contain materials similar as to some
technical contents with other grammar books, such as the