Scribd
Upload
121 views3 pages

Filipino Composers Vs Benjamin Tan

1. The plaintiff association owns the copyright to four musical compositions. They filed a lawsuit against the owner of a restaurant for allowing a combo to play and sing those compositions without permission. 2. The court ruled that playing music in a restaurant constitutes a public performance for profit under copyright law. However, the compositions in question had become popular and widely known before the plaintiff registered the copyright, so they had fallen into the public domain and were no longer protected. Therefore, the restaurant owner could not be held liable for infringement.

Uploaded by

Fer Grace AniñonAcabalcuid Cataylo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
121 views3 pages

Filipino Composers Vs Benjamin Tan

1. The plaintiff association owns the copyright to four musical compositions. They filed a lawsuit against the owner of a restaurant for allowing a combo to play and sing those compositions without permission. 2. The court ruled that playing music in a restaurant constitutes a public performance for profit under copyright law. However, the compositions in question had become popular and widely known before the plaintiff registered the copyright, so they had fallen into the public domain and were no longer protected. Therefore, the restaurant owner could not be held liable for infringement.

Uploaded by

Fer Grace AniñonAcabalcuid Cataylo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

FER GRACE CATAYLO NIAGA JD I

FILIPINO SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND


PUBLISHERS, INC vs BENJAMIN TAN
(G.R. No. L-36402 March 16, 1987)

FACTS:
Plaintiff-appellant is a non-profit association of authors, composers
and publishers duly organized under the Corporation Law of the Philippines
and registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Said
association is the owner of certain musical compositions among which are
the songs entitled: "Dahil Sa Iyo"; "Sapagkat Ikaw Ay Akin"; "Sapagkat;
Kami Ay Tao Lamang" and "The Nearness of You."... defendant-appellee is
the operator of a restaurant known as "Alex Soda Fountain and Restaurant"
where a combo with professional singers, hired to play and sing musical
compositions to entertain and amuse customers therein, were playing and
singing the above mentioned compositions without any license or
permission from the appellant to play or sing the same.

Accordingly, appellant demanded from the appellee payment of the


necessary license fee for the playing and singing of aforesaid compositions
but the demand was ignored. Hence, appellant filed a complaint with the
lower court for infringement of copyright against defendant-appellee for
allowing the playing in defendant-appellee's restaurant of said songs
copyrighted in the name of the former.
Appellant anchors its claim on Section 3(c) of the Copyright Law which
provides:

"SEC. 3. The proprietor of a copyright or his heirs or assigns shall have the
exclusive right:

(c) To exhibit, perform, represent, produce, or reproduce the copyrighted


work in any manner or by any method whatever for profit or otherwise; if
not reproduced in copies for sale, to sell any manuscripts or any record
whatsoever... thereof;

It maintains that playing or singing a musical composition is universally


accepted as performing the musical composition and that playing and
singing of copyrighted music in the soda fountain and restaurant of the
appellee for the entertainment of the customers... although the latter do not
pay for the music but only for the food and drink constitute performance for
profit under the Copyright Law.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the playing and singing of musical compositions
which have been copyrighted under the provisions of the
Copyright Law (Act 3134) inside the establishment of the
defendant-appellee constitute a public performance for profit
within the meaning and contemplation of the Copyright Law of the
Philippines; and assuming that there were indeed public
performances for profit?
2. Whether or not appellee can be held liable therefor?

RULING:
1. Petition is devoid of merit.
We concede that indeed there were "public performances for profit".
In relation thereto, it has been held that "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 Copyright Law."
In the case at bar, it is admitted that the patrons of the restaurant in question
pay only for the food and drinks and apparently not for listening to the
music.
It will be noted that for the playing and singing the musical compositions
involved, the combo was paid as independent contractors by the... appellant
It is therefore obvious that the expenses entailed thereby are added to the
overhead of the restaurant which are either eventually charged in the price of
the food and drinks or to the overall total of additional... income produced
by the bigger volume of business which the entertainment was programmed
to attract. Consequently, it is beyond question that the playing and singing
of the combo in defendant-appellee's restaurant constituted performance for
profit... contemplated by the Copyright Law.

2. Nevertheless, appellee cannot be said to have infringed upon the


Copyright Law.

Appellee's allegation that the composers of the contested musical


compositions waived their right in favor of the general... public when they
allowed their intellectual creations to become property of the public domain
before applying for the corresponding copyrights for the same... is correct.
The Supreme Court has ruled that "Paragraph 33 of Patent Office
Administrative Order No. 3 (as amended, dated September 18, 1947)
entitled 'Rules of Practice in the Philippines Patent Office relating to the
Registration of Copyright Claims' promulgated pursuant... to Republic Act
165, provides among things that an intellectual creation should be
copyrighted thirty (30) days after its publication, if made in Manila, or
within sixty (60) days if made elsewhere, failure of which renders such
creation public property." (Santos v. McCullough Printing Company, 12
SCRA 324-325 [1964].
Indeed, if the general public has made use of the object sought to be
copyrighted for thirty (30) days prior to the copyright application the law
deems the object to have been donated to... the public domain and the same
can no longer be copyrighted.
A careful study of the records reveals that the song "Dahil Sa Iyo" which
was registered on April 20, 1956 (Brief for Appellant, p. 10) became popular
in radios, juke boxes, etc. long before registration (TSN, May 28, 1968, pp.
3-5;
While the song "The Nearness of You" registered on January 14, 1955 (Brief
for Appellant, p. 10) had become popular twenty-five (25) years prior to
1968, (the year of the hearing) or from 1943 (TSN, May 28, 1968, p. 27) and
the songs "Sapagkat Ikaw Ay Akin" and "Sapagkat Kami Ay Tao Lamang"
both registered on July 10, 1966, appear to have been known and sang by the
witnesses as... early as 1965 or three years before the hearing in 1968. The
testimonies of the witnesses at the hearing of this case on this subject were
unrebutted by the appellant.
Under the circumstances, it is clear that the musical compositions in
question had long become public property, and are therefore beyond the
protection of the Copyright Law.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy