BAGUIO CITY – The 14th Division of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision of a local court dismissing the complaint for infringement of copyright by the Filipino Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Inc. (FILSCAP) against a restaurant owner for lack of merit.
In a 13-page decision signed by Associate Justices Leoncia R. Dimagiba, Ramon R. Garcia and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the CA agreed with the ruling of Judge Cecilia Corazon Dulay-Archog of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 6 in Baguio city that the appeal lacks merit considering that under the Intellectual Property code, the scope of a copyright is confined to literary and artistic works which are original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain protected from the moment of their creation and such works include musical compositions with or without words.
The decision added the copyright owner has the exclusive right to carry out, authorize or prevent certain acts, including the public performance of copyrighted musical works, hence, any person infringing a right protected under the IP Code shall be held civil and criminally liable.
“There is no issue with regard to FILSCAP’s right or authority to issue license and collect license fees for the public performance of local musical works of member composers, lyricists and publishers, as well as, the public performance in the Philippines of foreign musical works under the repertoire of its affiliate foreign performing rights societies. It is also undisputed that ADREY Inc., owner of Sizzling Plate, was operating radios in its establishments with speakers which are turned in to local AM stations. The evidence on record also reveals that based on a series of monitoring reports of FILSCAP, some of the copyrighted musical works performed via radio in the said establishments are under its repertoire.,” the decision added.
The CA noted that ADNREY Inc. admitted that it did not obtain any license from FILSCAP for the playing of the radio-over-speakers in its establishments believing that it does not need to secure the same.
The decision pointed ut it is undisputed that FILSCAP was granted authority to collect license fees for the playing of foreign copyrighted musical works by the Broadcast Music Inc (BMI) and American Society of Composers Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) and the foreign societies have their own rules pertaining to those who are required to pay license fees and those who are exempted based on the United States (US) copyright laws.
Based on BMI and ASCAP rules, any food service and drinking establishments that is 3,750 square feet or larger must secure a license for the public performance of musical works via radio and television If the establishment is using television, it must secure a license based on the condition that it has more than 4 television sets, it has more than 1 television set in any room; if any of the television sets has a diagonal screen with size that is greater than 55 inches, if any audio-visual performance is communicated by means of more than 6 loud speakers or 4 loud speakers in any one room or adjoining outdoor space or if there is any cover charge. As to the use of radio sets, it must secure a license of the conditions apply such as if it has more than 6 loud speakers; it has more than 4 loud speakers in any one room and adjoining outdoor space; if there is any cover charge and if there is musical on hold.
As per ANDREY Inc., the CA stated the total area, seating capacity and number of speakers of its restaurants, the same will fall under those exempted from paying license fees and in fact, the three Sizzling |Plate restaurants do not have television sets, but two speakers only per branch. Each branch has also less than 3,750 square feet space with a seating capacity of 100 persons only, thus, the said restaurants are within the exempted establishments which BMI and ASCAP could not collect from in the US pursuant to its own rules and the US copyright laws.
“Concomitantly, FILSCAP’s right to collect license fees as the attorney-in-fact of BMI and ASCAP must also be subject to the rules and limitations imposed by BMI and FILSCAP. It must not go beyond nor deviate from its authority,” the decision stated.
The CA quoted the decision of the US Supreme Court in the case of 20th Century Music Corporation which stated that copyrighted that were received over the radio at a food shop which was turned in at a local station licensed by ASCAP to perform the songs was not an infringement of the company’s copyright act to perform the copyrighted work publicly for profit since the radio reception did not constitute a performance of the copyrighted songs. And to rule otherwise would be tantamount to prohibiting the people from switching on their radios.
The US Supreme court further held that the same is highly inequitable because the alleged infringer would have no way of protecting itself from liability except by keeping its radio turned off and to hold that all of the alleged infringers perform every broadcast of musical compositions would also authorize the sale of an untoled number of licenses for what is basically a single public rendition of a copyrighted work.
By HENT
