MEMORANDUM

TO: Atty. Marcelino Maxino

FROM: Rowtir John L. Banquerigo
DATE: March 27, 2015
RE: Intellectual Property Law: Copyright

QUESTION PRESENTED
On March 3, 2015, Atty. Edilberto Bravo with the intent to publish and copyright in the future
made a lecture entitled The Relationship between the Discipline of law and the Discipline of
Business and the Challenges of the Graduates of Law. Among those invited in the lecture was
Mr. Damolmog, a Law professor in Baroque Law School. Atty. Damolmog with the intent to
injure Atty. Bravo fraudulently recorded Atty. Bravos lecture and subsequently delivered it as his
own in the school where he is teaching. Hence, the question presented is whether or not Atty.
Damolmogs actions constituted copyright infringement?
SHORT ANSWER
Yes. Atty. Bravo as an original author of his lecture has the right to reproduce and authorize
further adaptions of his work. In the case presented, Mr. Damolmog without consent and
authority from Atty. Bravo copied and delivered as his own the latters own lecture is a violation
of our Intellectual Property Law.
DISCUSSION
A. Atty. Damolmogs lecture is his copyrighted work
The rights conferred by the Intellectual Property Code in terms of copyright exist from
the moment of creation.1 Under Philippine law, a copyrightable work is created when there is
originality and expression.2 Originality simply means that the work owes its origin to the author
or an independent creation of the author.3 In the case at bar, Atty. Bravo is considered as the
author of his lecture because the contents of it are the product of his own mind and imagination
being the sole creator of his work. For a work to qualify the requirement of expression, it must be
fixed or must at least be expressed in such a way as to leave no doubt that there is an intellectual
creation.4 Additionally, Sections 172.1 and 172.2 of the Intellectual Property Code provides that
lectures, sermons, addresses, dissertations prepared for oral delivery, whether or not reduced in
writing or other material form are original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain
1
2
3
4

Section 171.1 of Republic Act No. 8293

Ranhilo Callangan Aquino, Intellectual Property Law 9(1998)
Id. at 13
Id. at 14

protected from the moment of their creation. The phrase whether or not reduced in writing or
other material form tells us that the lecture Mr. Bravo, by the mere fact of its delivery, is entitled
to copyright protection even if it is not made into writing. Hence, based on the foregoing
discussions, it can be inferred that the lecture of Atty. Bravo is a copyrighted work.
B. The acts of Mr. Damolmog constitutes copyright infringement
The copyright owner have the right to carry out, authorize or prevent the acts of
production of his work, adaptation or other transformation, public performance of the work or
other communication to the public of the work and violation of which constitutes copyright
infringement.5 In the case presented, Mr. Damolmog reproduced the work of Atty. Bravo without
the latters consent and authority. Reproduction is defined as the making of (one) or more copies
of a work or a sound recording in any manner or form.6 Mr. Damolmog violated the provision by
recording Mr. Bravos lecture without his permission and consent and subsequently claims it as
his own. In addition, Mr. Damolmogs copying of the lecture and delivery to the school where he
is teaching constitutes unauthorized public performance and communication to the public of the
copyrighted work of Mr. Bravo which is a violation of Section 177 (6) and (7) respectively. Thus,
based on the foregoing laws and jurisprudence, it can be inferred that Mr. Damolmogs
unauthorized reproduction, delivery and subsequently claiming it as his own constitutes
copyright infringement.
In addition, the failure to acknowledge the original author produces injurious effects. In
cases of infringement, copying alone is not what is prohibited. The copying must produce an
injurious effect. 7 In the case at bar, the injury consists is that of Mr. unauthorized recording
and subsequent delivery of the lecture of Atty. Bravo. Mr. Damolmog presented the work as his
own in the school where he is teaching and did not acknowledge Atty. Bravo as the source is also
a violation of the moral rights of Atty. Bravo. Hence, there is a clear case of appropriation of
copyrighted work. Thus, Mr. Damolmog should indemnify Atty. Bravo for the damages he have
caused.
CONCLUSION
Through the analysis of the aforementioned laws and jurisprudence, it can be inferred that Mr.
Damolmogs acts of unauthorized reproduction, performance, communication and subsequently
claiming as his own the lecture of Atty. Bravo constitutes copyright infringement. Thus, Atty.
Damolmog is liable for damages.

Section 177 of Republic Act No. 8293

Section 171.9 of Republic Act No. 8293
7
Pacita I. Habana, et. Al. v. Felicidad Robles and Goodwill Trading, G. R. No. 131522, July 19,
1999
6