GR 108946 Jan 28

GR 108946 jan 28, 1999 Joaquin v Drilon
Facts:
Petitioner BJ Productions, Inc. (BJPI) is the holder/grantee of Certificate of Copyright No. M922,
dated January 28, 1971, of Rhoda and Me, a dating game show aired from 1970 to 1977.
On June 28, 1973, petitioner BJPI submitted to the National Library an addendum to its
certificate of copyright specifying the show's format and style of presentation.
On July 14, 1991, while watching television, petitioner Francisco Joaquin, Jr., president of BJPI,
saw on RPN Channel 9 an episode of It's a Date, which was produced by IXL Productions, Inc.
(IXL). On July 18, 1991, he wrote a letter to private respondent Gabriel M. Zosa, president and
general manager of IXL, informing Zosa that BJPI had a copyright to Rhoda and Me and
demanding that IXL discontinue airing It's a Date.
In a letter, dated July 19, 1991, private respondent Zosa apologized to petitioner Joaquin and
requested a meeting to discuss a possible settlement. IXL, however, continued airing It's a Date,
prompting petitioner Joaquin to send a second letter on July 25, 1991 in which he reiterated his
demand and warned that, if IXL did not comply, he would endorse the matter to his attorneys for
proper legal action.
Meanwhile, private respondent Zosa sought to register IXL's copyright to the first episode of It's a
Date for which it was issued by the National Library a certificate of copyright August 14, 1991.
Upon complaint of petitioners, an information for violation of P.D. No. 49 was filed against private
respondent Zosa together with certain officers of RPN Channel 9.
Issue:
Petitioners contend, however, that the determination of the question whether the format or
mechanics of a show is entitled to copyright protection is for the court, and not the Secretary of
Justice, to make.
As may [be] gleaned from the evidence on record, the substance of the television
productions complainant's "RHODA AND ME" and Zosa's "IT'S A DATE" is that
two matches are made between a male and a female, both single, and the two
couples are treated to a night or two of dining and/or dancing at the expense of
the show. The major concepts of both shows is the same. Any difference appear
mere variations of the major concepts.
That there is an infringement on the copyright of the show "RHODA AND ME"
both in content and in the execution of the video presentation are established
because respondent's "IT'S A DATE" is practically an exact copy of complainant's
"RHODA AND ME" because of substantial similarities as follows, to wit:
Ruling:
Petitioners assert that the format of Rhoda and Me is a product of ingenuity and skill and is thus
entitled to copyright protection. It is their position that the presentation of a point-by-point
comparison of the formats of the two shows clearly demonstrates the nexus between the shows
and hence establishes the existence of probable cause for copyright infringement. Such being
the case, they did not have to produce the master tape.
otherwise
To begin with the format of a show is not copyrightable. Section 2 of P.D. No. 49,
10
known as the DECREE ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, enumerates the

classes of work entitled to copyright protection, to wit:
Sec. 2. The rights granted by this Decree shall, from the moment of creation,
subsist with respect to any of the following classes of works:
(A) Books, including composite and cyclopedic works, manuscripts, directories,

and gazetteers:
(B) Periodicals, including pamphlets and newspapers;
(C) Lectures, sermons, addresses, dissertations prepared for oral delivery;
(D) Letters;
(E) Dramatic or dramatico-musical compositions; choreographic works and

entertainments in dumb shows, the acting form of which is fixed in writing or
otherwise;
(F) Musical compositions, with or without words;
(G) Works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving, lithography,

and other works of art; models or designs for works of art;
(H) Reproductions of a work of art;
(I) Original ornamental designs or models for articles of manufacture, whether or

not patentable, and other works of applied art;
(J) Maps, plans, sketches, and charts;
(K) Drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical character;
(I) Photographic works and works produced by a process analogous to

photography lantern slides;
(M) Cinematographic works and works produced by a process analogous to

cinematography or any process for making audio-visual recordings;
(N) Computer programs;
(O) Prints, pictorial illustrations advertising copies, labels tags, and box wraps;
(P) Dramatizations, translations, adaptations, abridgements, arrangements and
other alterations of literary, musical or artistic works or of works of the Philippine
government as herein defined, which shall be protected as provided in Section 8
of this Decree.
(Q) Collections of literary, scholarly, or artistic works or of works referred to in

Section 9 of this Decree which by reason of the selection and arrangement of
their contents constitute intellectual creations, the same to be protected as such
in accordance with Section 8 of this Decree.
(R) Other literary, scholarly, scientific and artistic works.
This provision is substantially the same as §172 of the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF
PHILIPPINES (R.A. No. 8293). The format or mechanics of a television show is
11
not included in the list of protected works in §2 of P.D. No. 49. For this
reason, the protection afforded by the law cannot be extended to cover
them.
Copyright, in the strict sense of the term, is purely a statutory right. It is a new or
independent right granted by the statute, and not simply a pre-existing right
regulated by the statute. Being a statutory grant, the rights are only such as the
statute confers, and may be obtained and enjoyed only with respect to the
subjects and by the persons and on terms and conditions specified in the
12
statute.
Since . . . copyright in published works is purely a statutory

creation, a copyright may be obtained only for a work falling
within the statutory enumeration or description. 13
Regardless of the historical viewpoint, it is authoritatively

settled in the United States that there is no copyright except
that which is both created and secured by act of Congress . . . .
. 14
P.D. No. 49, §2, in enumerating what are subject to copyright, refers to
finished works and not to concepts. The copyright does not extend to an
idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle,
or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained,
illustrated, or embodied in such work. 15 Thus, the new INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE
PHILIPPINES provides:
Sec. 175. Unprotected Subject Matter. — Notwithstanding the provisions of

Sections 172 and 173, no protection shall extend, under this law, to any idea,
procedure, system, method or operation, concept, principle, discovery or mere
data as such, even if they are expressed, explained, illustrated or embodied in a
work; news of the day and other miscellaneous facts having the character of
mere items of press information; or any official text of a legislative, administrative
or legal nature, as well as any official translation thereof.
What then is the subject matter of petitioners' copyright? This Court is of the opinion that
petitioner BJPI's copyright covers audio-visual recordings of each episode of Rhoda and Me, as
falling within the class of works mentioned in P.D. 49, §2(M), to wit:
Cinematographic works and works produced by a process analogous to

cinematography or any process for making audio-visual recordings;
The copyright does not extend to the general concept or format of its dating game show.
Accordingly, by the very nature of the subject of petitioner BJPI's copyright, the
investigating prosecutor should have the opportunity to compare the videotapes of the
two shows.
Mere description by words of the general format of the two dating game shows is insufficient; the
presentation of the master videotape in evidence was indispensable to the determination of the
existence of probable cause. As aptly observed by respondent Secretary of Justice:
A television show includes more than mere words can describe because it
involves a whole spectrum of visuals and effects, video and audio, such that no
similarity or dissimilarity may be found by merely describing the general
copyright/format of both dating game shows.

GR 108946 Jan 28

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GR 108946 Jan 28

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

GR 108946 Jan 28

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GR 108946 jan 28, 1999 Joaquin v Drilon

known as the DECREE ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, enumerates the

(A) Books, including composite and cyclopedic works, manuscripts, directories,

(B) Periodicals, including pamphlets and newspapers;

(C) Lectures, sermons, addresses, dissertations prepared for oral delivery;

(E) Dramatic or dramatico-musical compositions; choreographic works and

(F) Musical compositions, with or without words;

(G) Works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving, lithography,

(H) Reproductions of a work of art;

(I) Original ornamental designs or models for articles of manufacture, whether or

(J) Maps, plans, sketches, and charts;

(K) Drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical character;

(I) Photographic works and works produced by a process analogous to

(M) Cinematographic works and works produced by a process analogous to

(N) Computer programs;

(Q) Collections of literary, scholarly, or artistic works or of works referred to in

(R) Other literary, scholarly, scientific and artistic works.

Since . . . copyright in published works is purely a statutory

Regardless of the historical viewpoint, it is authoritatively

Sec. 175. Unprotected Subject Matter. — Notwithstanding the provisions of

Cinematographic works and works produced by a process analogous to

You might also like