One
of the most wonderful gifts given to man other than life is intelligence and
the human mind. It is the rationality and intelligence of man that
distinguishes man from animals and brutes. Among the thousand species in the
world only man is capable of rational thinking that is why we are called the
“rational beings.” Over a million years already that man has shown its marvels
and greatness transcribed in the world’s history. The human intelligence has
come up with millions of great inventions and ideas since time immemorial that
changed and affected the world. Most of these were useful to man but some
brings death and destruction. From the most simple inventions and ideas to the
most complex and intricate ones, all of these are the products of the brilliance
of the human mind.
The
Filipino people were never left behind when it comes to the contributions to
the ideas and inventions to the human history. Several Filipinos has invented
several inventions that were recognized in the whole world. There are also several Filipinos that made
their legacy and mark in the world’s history because of their brilliant ideas.
It
has been said that there should not be a monopoly of ideas. Ideas should be
shared to the whole world in order that others, who might find such ideas
useful in their lives, may utilize them. This is same with inventions. But on
the other hand the people where these inventions and ideas came from should
also be protected with their rights as the inventors and the authors.
In
order to protect the rights of the Filipino authors and the inventors the
Philippine legislature has made the Philippine copyright law enshrined in the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, officially known
as Republic Act No. 8293
which was approved on June 6, 1997 and took effect on January 1, 1998. The law is partly based on United
States copyright law and
the principles of the Berne Convention for the
Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.
In order to ensure the effective
implementation of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, the
Intellectual Property Office or the IPO was also established and also its
several branches. The primary reason or purpose of the establishment of the IPO
and its several branches is that to ensure the effective implementation of the
law. So the there would be an office whose only obligation is to focus on the
implementation of the intellectual property law. Copyright implementation is
done with the coordination of the IPO and the Copyright Division of the National Library of the Philippines.
The intellectual
property code has divided the copyrighted works into 17 classes, namely: Literature (books, pamphlets, etc.), Periodicals (newspapers, tabloids, magazines,
etc.), Public speeches and other public speaking works (speeches, lectures,
sermons, etc.), Letters, Television or
movie scripts, choreography, and entertainment in shows, Musical works (lyrics, songs, song
arrangements, etc.), Art products
(drawings, paintings. sculptures, etc.),
Ornamental designs and other forms of applied art (not necessarily
industrial designs), Geographical,
topographical, architectural, and scientific works (maps, charts, plans,
etc.), Scientific and technical
drawings, Photographs and
cinematographic works made in a process similar to photography, Audio-visual works and cinematographic works
made in a process similar to making audio-visual works, Pictures used in
advertising (includes logos), Computer programs, Other works not covered in classes A-N of a
literary, scholarly, scientific, or artistic nature, Sound recordings, Broadcasts.
The intangible rights of the copyright owners had never
escaped the reach of the violators. The law should protect these rights of the
copyright owners. That is why the legislators made the intellectual property
law. However, on the other hand, together with the copyright owners, there are
the public users. There are privileges granted to the public users in using the
copyrighted works. There are times that the rights of the copyright owners overlap
the privileges of the public users. But it is elementary in law that in case of
conflict of between the rights granted and the privileges, the rights would
always prevail because these rights are granted by law but the privileges are
only the opportunities given by law and may be revoked anytime. Because of this,
the public consumers are left the weaker part compared to the copyright owners
whose rights are conferred by law. The law failed to provide clearly the
guidelines and limitations on the use of the public of the copyrighted works.
Since in some of it there are no clear distinctions, it resulted to confusions
and resulted to cases filed in the regular courts.
As to my view, the copyright law of the Philippines is
already obsolete and already does not provide for the needs of time. In the
present time, because of the busyness and lack of materials of the people, most
would tend to use or refer to the ideas of the other people. But beyond their knowledge these ideas are
copyrighted works by the authors. Unknowingly to them, they are already
violating the laws without any malicious intent.
Most of the Filipino people are ignorant when it comes to
laws. That is an ugly truth. People do not now the laws of the country. Unlike
the criminal laws and civil laws which are very popular, intellectual property
laws are not that popular to the public. People are less knowledgeable of
certain special laws in the country. People would only tend to know those laws
that directly affect their lives. But these intellectual property laws are not
known to most of the common people.
The legislature should make a new law regarding
intellectual property rights and compose the wordings of the law in the
simplest terms possible to be understood by the public. Sometimes it is the
wordings of the laws itself that brings ambiguity that gives rise to some
suits. It should be distinct in providing for limitations and guidelines in the
use of the copyrighted works by the public users. It should not bring confusion
to the public. The law should be clear and unambiguous for it to be
administratively feasible.
In making the new intellectual property law, the
lawmakers should take into heavier consideration the using public. On the first
place these copyrighted works are intended primarily to be shared to the public
and to be used by the people other than the author itself. Ideas are to be
shared and not to be kept in one’s self. That is why in making the law, the law
makers should be more liberal in favor of the public users. The legislature
should make a new intellectual property law in a more liberal nature in favor
to the public providing for clear guidelines of the use of the copyrighted
works to avoid unnoticed violations of the public users of the intellectual
property law. The law should provide for
balanced rights between the copryright owners and the using public. If it
should not be possible, it would be better to provide for more rights in favor
of the public users, since the copyrighted works and intended for the public
consumption.
Time is never going backwards or stagnant, it is always
going forward. The laws should always meet the needs of time. As I see right
now, our intellectual property law is stagnant. The legislature should make a
new law to meet the needs of our present time. It should be forward.
Copyright is an almost world-wide legal sys ch regulates
the creation, ownership, control and use by the public of products resulting
from certain specified creative (and not so creative) activities that are
directed by the human brain. Examples include writing books, sculpting metal, developing
computer software, filming a clip fo an online blog, drawing a shape for an
advertisement, composing a short silly e-mai or a paper airplane made by a
sevenyear-old. The resulting products of such activities are called
“expressions” or “works” in the legal terminology of copyright.
There
are two primary international copyright agreements, the Buenos Aires Convention and the Berne Convention for
the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (also referred to as just the Berne
Convention) requires protection for all creative works in a fixed medium be
automatic, and last for at least 50 years after the author's death for any work
except for photographic and cinematographic works. Photographic works are tied
to a minimum of 25 years. Cinematographic works are protected for 50 years
after first showing, or 50 years after creation if it hasn't been shown within
50 years after the creation. The Berne Convention also allows for the rule of
the shorter term, stating that "unless the legislation of that country
otherwise provides, the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of
origin of the work". Not all countries have applied this rule however.[1]
There
are three main consequences of the Berne Convention for individual member
countries, for the copyright goods produced within them, and, of course, for
users:, as well a) there is automatic
world-wide protection for most copyrighted works; b) foreign (non-national) copyright holders
must receive the same level and type of protection as local (national)
copyright holders receive; the technical legal term is “national treatment”; c) copyright laws in all countries must
protect copyrighted expressions at a level above what are called “minimum
standards”.[2]
The Buenos Aires Convention was
a treaty signed by most North and South American countries,
which allows for protection of all creative works as long as they contain a
notice informing that the creator claims copyright on it. The Buenos Aires Convention
also instituted the rule of the shorter term,
where the length of the copyright term for the work in a country was whichever
was shorter - the length of the term in the source country, or the protecting
country of the work.
All Buenos Aires countries are now also
parties to the Berne Convention, but elements from Buenos Aires are still used
in the modern era, such as the rule of the shorter term.
The Berne Convention alone lists more than 30 specific
copyright-protected categories of works which result from a broad spectrum of
activities.35 These copyrightable products include many types of written works,
such as novels, recipes, newspaper articles, e-mails, instruction manuals, bus
schedules, and even the code in a computer program. All of these works are
misleadingly called “literary works” in copyright law, misleading because even
the commonplace phrases found on a tube of toothpaste can be designated as a
“literary work”.
The Berne Convention’s third main requirement is that all
members must establish and enforce a wide number of minimum copyright standards
within their own borders. There are various mandatory minimum standards in the
Berne Convention. They include the follo ing: all countries must include
national treatment protections in its own laws. All countries must protect a
broad variety of expressions and products. All countries must not require any
formal registration requirements for a work to become copyrighted; protection
must commence as soon as a work is created.
All countries must ensure that authors, actually owners,
of copyrighted works get a number of exclusive rights, such as the right to
copy their works and related rights, including those related to translations,
which have just been mentioned in the prev
There is not a definitive or complete list of products
that are unprotected (or more accurately, “unprotectable”) by copyright. As the
reach and power of copyright expands globally, some products that were
generally excluded from protection even a few years ago, such as computer software,
are now often classified as copyrighted works.
There is not a definitive or complete list of products
that are unprotected (or more accurately, “unprotectable”) by copyright. As the
reach and power of copyright expands globally, some products that were
generally excluded from protection even a few years ago, such as computer software,
are now often classified as copyrighted works. The exclusive rights which copyright owners
are awarded gives them what we could call a “lock down” over expressions. Without
any serious legal restrictions, owners alone decide whether and how these
expressions become available, to whom, and at what price. This power and control, both over the
copyrighted property and people, has a global-wide impact.
In a strict legal sense, there is no such thing as
“global copyright law”. National copyright laws, such as the Malaysian
Copyright Act (1987) to take one example, are what lawyers call “national and territorial
in scope. This means that such laws cover a single political unit or territory,
usually a self-governing country. Each national law has sovereignty or jurisdiction
over that sole particular political unit.[3]
