Photo from Pexels | Pixabay
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
The doctrine of fair use allows the courts to deviate from strictly applying the copyright laws when their rigid application would stifle the creativity that they are designed to foster and when it would frustrate the State’s function to promote the diffusion of knowledge and information.
FILSCAP is an aggrupation of copyright owners in the Philippines. Its members executed individual deeds of assignment authorizing FILSCAP to grant permission or licenses to third persons who intend to perform, mechanically reproduce, or synchronize their musical works.
Meanwhile, Wolfpac markets and promotes mobile phone applications and aggregates a collection of third-party content and mobile applications for distribution by its partner-operator, like Smart Communications, Inc.
Sometime in 2004, FILSCAP came across an advertisement in the Lifestyle Section of the May 28, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer. The advertisement promoted the downloading of ringback tones for mobile phones from the website. The website also allows a prospective consumer to listen to a 20-second portion of a song. When FILSCAP discovered that Wolfpac operated the website, they demanded Wolfpac to secure the necessary performance licenses and pay the appropriate royalties since some of the ringback tones are part of their repertoire of copyrighted works. Wolfpac did not secure the licenses and refused to pay royalties because pre-listening function of their website does not constitute public performance.
Consequently, FILSCAP filed a Complaint for copyright infringement and damages against Wolfpac, and alleged that Wolfpac must secure a performance license and pay the royalties for the use of copyrighted musical works. Wolfpac argued that there is no public performance. First, the pre-listening service is free. Second, it is intended to be performed privately by potential consumers using their computers. Third, the samples have no independent commercial value. Fourth, Wolfpac neither performs the samples nor makes the sample audible to the public since the samples are only available to potential consumers.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in Wolfpac’s favor, saying that the 20-second ringtone preview did not count as public performance. It also said the preview was allowed under the fair use doctrine, which permits limited use of copyrighted material without needing the owner’s permission. The RTC explained that it is normal for consumers to sample a product before deciding to buy it. Since Wolfpac was using the short clip for promotional purposes and had agreements with the composers, it did not need a separate performance license
Issue: Whether or not there was violation of the copyright laws
The Supreme Court Decision
Copyright is violated when someone uses a protected work without permission in ways that go against the owner’s rights, such as performing, copying, or distributing it for profit. However, the Intellectual Property (IP) Code allows certain exceptions. These include private performance done for free or use of the work for teaching, information, charity, or religious purposes.
There is also no copyright infringement if the use qualifies as fair use. This is determined by looking at four factors: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether it is for profit or non-profit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the work; (3) how much of the work is used; and (4) the effect of the use on the value of the work.
In this case, the SC found that Wolfpac’s agreements with the composers did not specifically cover the use of song samples for previews. However, it ruled there was no copyright infringement because the previews qualified as fair use.
The 20-second previews help potential customers make informed decisions before downloading a ringtone. While the SC found the sample length to be substantial, it considered it reasonable and necessary to achieve Wolfpac’s goal of informing users about the ringtones.
The SC also said the previews do not harm the composers or replace the value of the copyrighted work. The samples are not meant to entertain and cannot be downloaded, so they do not substitute for the paid ringtones.
The SC emphasized that the fair use doctrine “allows the courts to deviate from strictly applying copyright laws when their rigid application would stifle the creativity that they are designed to foster and when it would frustrate the State’s function to promote the diffusion of knowledge and information. . . . The courts must weigh the factors with great care and in consideration of the interests of both the creators and the public.”
The SC also clarified that ringtone previews are not considered public performances but rather a form of communication to the public. Under the IP Code, public performance means playing recorded sounds in a place where people outside a private group can hear them. In contrast, communication to the public refers to making works accessible through broadcasting, cable, satellite, or the internet, allowing people to access them anytime and anywhere.
A person infringes on the right to public performance if they play or perform a copyrighted work in public without permission. Meanwhile, the right to communication to the public is violated when someone makes the work available to the public by transmitting it through wire or wireless means.
In this case, the SC found that the preview is a form of communication to the public because it allows users to access the song samples online, at a time and place of their choice.
Case:
Filipino Society of Composers and Publishers vs. Wolfpac Communications, Inc.
G.R. No. 184661 | February 25, 2025
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.