Idea vs.

Expression

Baker v Selden

Doctrine:

A claim to the exclusive property in a peculiar system of bookkeeping

cannot, under the law of copyright, be maintained by the author of a treatise
in which that system is exhibited and explained

Facts:

Charles Selden took the steps for obtraining copyright of a book which
exhibited and explained a system of bookkeeping. In later years he took the
copyright of several other cases which expanded on the system.

Selden sued author Charles Baker copyright infringement alleging that Baker
“makes and uses account books arranged on substantially the same system”

(Finish later)

Joaquin v. Drilon

Doctrine:

The essence of copyright infringement is the copying, in whole or in part, of

copyrightable materials as defined and enumerated in Section 2 of PD. No.
49. Apart from the manner in which it is actually expressed, however, the
idea of a dating game show is, in the opinion of this Office, a non-
copyrightable material. Ideas, concepts, formats, or schemes in
their abstract form clearly do not fall within the class of works or
materials susceptible of copyright registration as provided in PD. No.
49.

Facts:

BJPI Productions holds copyright over Rhoda and Me a dating show. It

submitted to the National Library an addendum to its certificate of copyright
specifying the show's format and style of presentation.

Bikram Yoga

Doctrine:
“any idea,procedure, process, system, method of
operation,concept,principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it
isdescribed, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.” –
uncopyrightable

Facts:

Republic v. Tupaz

Doctrine:

Furthermore, a creator or an author pertains to someone who transforms an

abstract idea into a tangible form of expression through the application of
skill or labor. Here, the extent of PNP's participation in developing the new
designs was limited to instructing Tupaz on how the designs should appear in
general and what specific elements should be incorporated. They merely
supplied ideas and concepts. It was Tupaz who used his skill and labor to
concretize what PNP had envisioned. Therefore, PNP cannot be considered as
an author of the new designs either in whole or in part

The copyright of a derivative work solely belongs to the person who fixes an
idea into a tangible medium of expression. The law on copyright only
protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. Thus, one who merely
contributes concepts or ideas is not deemed an author.

Facts:

PNP collaborated with Tupaz IV to create the new designs of the PNP cap
device and badge. The new design was approved for production. In the public
bidding for the procurement of the new PNP cap devices and badges, El Oro,
Tupaz’s company, submitted the second highest bid price but was still
awarded the contract after they presented certificates of copyright
registration over the PNP cap device and badge issued in favor of Tupaz. No
other manufacturer attempted to produce the PNP cap device and badge
bearing the new designs for fear of copyright infringement. PNP then
requested the National Library, and later on the RTC, to cancel said
certificates of copyright. El Oro and Tupaz alleged that El Oro is the exclusive
and official engraver of Philippine heraldry items since 1953 and that Tupaz's
ancestor, Jose T. Tupaz, Jr., developed the original designs on which said
present designs were based. Hence, El Oro owned the copyright over the
new designs and was allegedly the only qualified bidde

Art and Utility

Mazer v. Stein

Doctrine:

Intended or actual use in industry of an article eligible for copyright does not
bar or invalidate its registration.

Facts:

Stein is engaged in the manufacture and sale of Electric Lamps. They

created original works of sculpture in the form of human figures by
traditional clay-model technique. From this model, a production mold for
casting copies was made. The resulting statuettes, without any lamp
components added, were submitted by the respondents to the Copyright
Office for registration as "works of art"

Mazer without authorization, they copied the statuettes, embodied them in

lamps, and sold them.

Issue:

Can statuettes be protected in the United States by copyright when the

copyright applicant intended primarily to use the statuettes in the form of
lamp

Held:

(a) The successive Copyright Acts, the legislative history of the 1909 Act, and
the practice of the Copyright Office show that "works of art" and
"reproductions of works of art" were intended by Congress to include the
authority to copyright such statuettes. Pp. 347 U. S. 208-214.

(b) That the statuettes, fitted as lamps or unfitted, may be patentable does
not bar their copyright as works of art. Pp. 347 U. S. 215-217.

(c) The intended or actual use in industry of an article eligible for copyright
does not bar or invalidate its registration. P. 347 U. S. 218.

Brandir

Doctrine

Facts
Olano v. Eng Co

Doctrine:
The only instance when a useful article may be the subject of copyright
protection is when it incorporates a design element that is physically or
conceptually separable from the underlying product. This means that the
utilitarian article can function without the design element. In such an
instance, the design element is eligible for copyright protection.

Facts:
Issue:
Is the hatch door copyrightable

Ruling:

A hatch door, by its nature is an object of utility. It is defined as a small door,

small gate or an opening that resembles a window equipped with an escape
for use in case of fire or emergency.64 It is thus by nature, functional and
utilitarian serving as egress access during emergency. It is not primarily an
artistic creation but rather an object of utility designed to have aesthetic
appeal. It is intrinsically a useful article, which, as a whole, is not eligible for
copyright.

A "useful article" defined as an article "having an intrinsic utilitarian function

that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey
information" is excluded from copyright eligibility.65

The only instance when a useful article may be the subject of copyright
protection is when it incorporates a design element that is physically or
conceptually separable from the underlying product. This means that the
utilitarian article can function without the design element. In such an
instance, the design element is eligible for copyright protection

EC's hatch doors bore no design elements that are physically and
conceptually separable, independent and distinguishable from the hatch
door itself. The allegedly distinct set of hinges and distinct jamb, were
related and necessary hence, not physically or conceptually separable from
the hatch door's utilitarian function as an apparatus for emergency egress.
Without them, the hatch door will not function.

Star Athletica:

he Court explained that for a design feature to qualify for copyright

protection, it must be possible to perceive it separately from the utilitarian
aspects of the article. The feature must also exist independently as an
artistic work, meaning that it could hypothetically be removed from the
useful article and placed in another medium without losing its artistic
essence. This test ensures that copyright protection is extended only to
features that are distinct from the functional elements of the useful article

The U.S. Supreme Court reasoned that a feature incorporated into the design
of a useful article is eligible for copyright protection if the feature can be
perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the
useful article and would qualify as a protectable work if imagined
independently.
Facts:

Varsity Brands designed and sold cheerleading uniforms and held copyrights
for two-dimensional designs on these uniforms. Varsity sued Star Athletica
for copyright infringement, claiming that Star Athletica copied their designs.
The District Court granted summary judgment for Star Athletica, ruling that
the designs were not copyrightable because they could not be separated
from the functional aspects of the uniforms. The Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed the decision, holding that the designs were separable and
therefore eligible for copyright protection because they could exist
independently as art. The case was then brought before the U.S. Supreme
Court to resolve the issue of separability in copyright law and determine
whether Varsity's designs were eligible for copyright protection.

Issue

The main issue was whether the designs on Varsity Brands' cheerleading
uniforms could be identified separately from, and are capable of existing
independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the uniforms, thus making them
eligible for copyright protection

Derivative Works, Alva v. Winniger

Facts

 The plaintiff, Alva Studios, a New York corporation, sought an injunction

against the defendants for copyright infringement.

 Alva Studios specialized in reproducing three-dimensional works of art

with permission from various museums, paying royalties for this
privilege.

 They collaborated closely with museum staff to ensure quality in their

reproductions, which included a piece titled "Hand of God," a scaled-
down version of Rodin's original sculpture.
  The defendant, Austin Productions, claimed that its product was an
original interpretation of the sculpture.

 The original Rodin sculpture had been in the public domain prior to
Alva Studios obtaining a copyright for its reproduction.

 The plaintiff alleged that the defendants copied its work and marketed
it through retail operations.

 The court found that the plaintiff had established a valid copyright
based on the originality and skill involved in its reproduction process.

 The case's procedural history involved the plaintiff's request for a

preliminary injunction against the defendants.

Issue

 The issue was whether the defendants infringed on the plaintiff's

copyright by copying its work and marketing it as their own.

Holding — Ryan, C.J.

 The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
held that the plaintiff was entitled to the injunctive relief it sought.

Rule

 Copyright infringement occurs when a defendant copies a plaintiff's

work without permission, even if the original work is in the public
domain.

Reasoning

 The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
reasoned that the plaintiff successfully demonstrated originality in its
reproduction of Rodin's "Hand of God," which involved significant skill
in reducing the size without losing the original's detail.

 The court noted that the defendants had engaged in actual copying of
the plaintiff’s work, which did not constitute an original interpretation.

 Although the original sculptures were in the public domain, the

defendants could not infringe on the plaintiff's copyright if they had
copied its specific reproduction.

 The court emphasized that the plaintiff had a valid copyright due to the
artistic and skilled process involved in creating its work.
  The evidence presented indicated that the defendants' product was a
servile copy of the plaintiff's work, and it lacked the necessary original
treatment to avoid infringement.

 Furthermore, the court highlighted that the defendants had advertised

their product as derived from a different source, which further
indicated an intent to mislead consumers.

 Given the likelihood of irreparable harm to the plaintiff, the court

granted the injunction.

Originality and Skill in Reproduction

The court reasoned that the plaintiff, Alva Studios, successfully

demonstrated the originality of its reproduction of Rodin's "Hand of God."
This originality stemmed from the significant skill and labor involved in
creating a scaled-down version of the original sculpture. The court
highlighted that the process of reducing the size of a complex work of art like
Rodin's required precise attention to detail and artistic judgment. The
plaintiff's claim rested upon the assertion that even minor discrepancies in
the scaled reproduction could alter the overall appearance of the work, which
required an adept sculptor to execute accurately. The court acknowledged
the challenges involved in translating the intricate designs and features of
the original sculpture into a smaller format, emphasizing that this
transformation necessitated a high degree of craftsmanship and creativity.
Furthermore, the court found that the artistic process employed by the
plaintiff in producing its work was sufficient to establish a valid copyright.
This copyright was supported by a registration certificate issued to the
plaintiff, affirming the uniqueness of its reproduction technique and the
artistic merit of its work.

Evidence of Infringement

The court assessed the evidence presented regarding the alleged copyright
infringement by the defendants. It noted that the test for infringement is not
merely the presence of similarity between two works but whether the
defendant's work constituted a copy of the plaintiff's copyrighted work. The
court determined that the defendants had engaged in actual copying of the
plaintiff's reproduction, which disqualified their claims of originality. The court
pointed to credible evidence, including expert testimony and comparison of
the works, which indicated that the defendants' product was a servile copy of
the plaintiff's work. The defendants had reportedly sanded down and altered
the plaintiff's reproduction, attempting to create a new version by modifying
its features. The court concluded that these actions constituted infringement
since the defendants did not create an original treatment of the subject but
rather derived their product from the plaintiff's work. Thus, the evidence
strongly supported the plaintiff's claims of copyright infringement.

Public Domain Considerations

The court acknowledged that both the original Rodin sculpture and the
version at the Metropolitan Museum of Art were in the public domain.
However, it clarified that the existence of the public domain status of the
original did not grant the defendants the right to infringe upon the plaintiff's
copyright. The court emphasized that copyright law protects the particular
expression of an idea, even if the underlying idea or work is not protected
due to public domain status. Therefore, the defendants could not escape
liability by claiming their work was based on a public domain source if it was
directly copied from the plaintiff's copyrighted reproduction. The court
maintained that the plaintiff's exclusive rights derived from its authorized
reproduction were distinct from the public domain status of the original work.
This principle reinforced the notion that the plaintiff's skill and labor in
creating its reproduction warranted protection against unauthorized copying,
irrespective of the original's public domain status.

Intent to Mislead Consumers

The court also evaluated the defendants' marketing practices and their
potential to mislead consumers. It noted that the defendants had advertised
their product as being derived from the work on display at the Metropolitan
Museum of Art, which suggested an attempt to misrepresent the source of
their sculpture. This misrepresentation was significant, as it indicated that
the defendants intended to capitalize on the reputation of the plaintiff's
authorized reproductions. The court observed that the plaintiff's work bore a
label indicating its authenticity and the origin of its production, which was
absent in the defendants' product. The lack of proper attribution and the use
of misleading advertising were critical factors in the court's decision, as they
suggested an intent to confuse consumers regarding the provenance of the
sculptures. This deceptive practice contributed to the court's conclusion that
the plaintiff was entitled to injunctive relief to prevent further infringement
and consumer deception.

Irreparable Harm and Injunctive Relief

Lastly, the court considered the potential harm to the plaintiff if injunctive
relief was not granted. It found that the plaintiff would likely suffer
irreparable harm due to the defendants' infringement, as the unauthorized
copying could damage the plaintiff's reputation and financial standing in the
market. The court highlighted that the defendants' financial statements
provided no assurance that they could compensate the plaintiff for damages
if the plaintiff ultimately prevailed in the lawsuit. This uncertainty regarding
the defendants' ability to respond in damages heightened the risk of
irreparable harm to the plaintiff. Consequently, the court determined that
granting the injunction was necessary to protect the plaintiff's rights and
interests until a final judgment could be reached. The court concluded that
the plaintiff had met the burden of proof for obtaining a preliminary
injunction, thereby justifying the relief sought.

Republic v. Tupaz

Doctrine:

The copyright of a derivative work solely belongs to the person who fixes an
idea into a tangible medium of expression. The law on copyright only
protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. Thus, one who merely
contributes concepts or ideas is not deemed an author.

Facts:

Assignment

Bayanihan v. BMG

Doctrine:

MY

Doctrine:

Copyright registration does not vest ownership of the copyright. Failure to

register does not remove copyright protection under the law, but this does
make the owner liable to pay a fine.

Registration of copyright only serves as a notice, but it does not confer

rightsA forged Deed of Assignment does not confer rights to the assignee for
lack of consent of the copyright owner. Notwithstanding its registration
before the National Library, the Deed does not operate as a valid transfer of
the exclusive economic rights which belong to the copyright owner.
Unauthorized importing, marketing, and selling of books constitute copyright
infringement

Joint work

Rappler vs Bautista

Doctrine:

Neighboring Righs

FILSCA v TAN

D:

F:
FILSCA is a NP association of composers. They own certain songs relevant
here are “Dahil Sayo” “Sapagkat Ikaw ay Akin” etc

Tan is the operator of ASF Restaurant. ASF hires singers to play musical
compisitions without license/permission
FILSCA demanded payment of royalties

Issue:

Did the performance constitute “public performance for priofit?”

YES

"The playing of music in dine and dance establishment which was paid for
by the public in purchases of food and drink constituted "performance for
profit" within a Copyright Law." Thus, it has been explained that while it is
possible in such establishments for the patrons to purchase their food and
drinks and at the same time dance to the music of the orchestra, the music
is furnished and used by the orchestra for the purpose of inducing the public
to patronize the establishment and pay for the entertainment in the
purchase of food and drinks. The defendant conducts his place of business
for profit, and it is public; and the music is performed for profit.

Infringement

Harpr

Fair use does not encompass unauthorized prepublication use of

verbatim excerpts from a copyrighted work, especially when it
undermines the copyright holder’s right of first publication and has
a substantial effect on the market for the work.

In Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, former President

Gerald Ford contracted with Harper & Row Publishers in 1977 to publish his
memoirs, granting them exclusive first serial rights for prepublication
excerpts. Harper & Row then negotiated with Time Magazine for an exclusive
excerpt, agreeing to a $25,000 payment. Before Time's article was published,
The Nation Magazine received an unauthorized copy of the manuscript and
published an article using verbatim

The main issue was whether The Nation's use of verbatim excerpts
from President Ford's unpublished manuscript constituted a "fair
use" under the Copyright Ac

The U.S. Supreme Court held that The Nation's use of verbatim excerpts from
President Ford's unpublished manuscript did not constitute a "fair use" under
§ 107 of the Copyright Act, thereby reversing the decision of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circui

First, the purpose and character of the use were commercial and intended to
supplant the copyright holder's right of first publication. The unpublished
nature of the manuscript was significant, as the author retained the right to
control its first public appearance. Additionally, the portions used were
qualitatively significant, involving expressive elements that were key to the
work. Lastly, the effect of The Nation's use on the market for the copyrighted
work was substantial, as it led to the cancellation of Time's article and could
harm the potential market for first serialization rights.

Campbell vs Acuff

Parody may qualify as fair use under the Copyright Act if it is

transformative and does not serve as a substitute for the original
work, even if it is used for commercial purposes.

In Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., the respondent,

filed a lawsuit against the members of the rap music group 2 Live Crew and
their record company, claiming that 2 Live Crew's song, "Pretty Woman,"
infringed on the copyright of Roy Orbison's song "Oh, Pretty Woman."

he District Court granted summary judgment for 2 Live Crew, holding that
their song was a parody and thus made fair use of the original song
The main issue was whether 2 Live Crew's commercial parody of
"Oh, Pretty Woman" constituted fair use under the Copyright Act of
1976.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that 2 Live Crew's commercial parody may be
considered fair use under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107, and
that the Court of Appeals erred in its analysis, particularly by giving too much
weight to the commercial nature of the parody.

. The Court emphasized that a parody can claim fair use if it adds new
expression or meaning to the original work and does not merely substitute
for i