Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 24 views

    Phil Composers Vs Tan

    Uploaded by

    JOHN PAULO BLAY
    1. The Supreme Court ruled that musical compositions must be copyrighted within 30 days of publication in Manila or 60 days elsewhere, otherwise they become public property. 2. The plaintiff claimed the defendant's restaurant infringed on the copyright of four songs by playing them without permission. 3. However, the court found the songs had long been in the public domain since they were not copyrighted within the required timeframes, and were therefore beyond the protection of copyright law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Phil Composers Vs Tan

    Uploaded by

    JOHN PAULO BLAY
    24 views1 page
    1. The Supreme Court ruled that musical compositions must be copyrighted within 30 days of publication in Manila or 60 days elsewhere, otherwise they become public property. 2. The plaintiff claimed the defendant's restaurant infringed on the copyright of four songs by playing them without permission. 3. However, the court found the songs had long been in the public domain since they were not copyrighted within the required timeframes, and were therefore beyond the protection of copyright law.

    Original Description:

    TRADEMARK CASE

    Original Title

    phil composers vs tan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The Supreme Court ruled that musical compositions must be copyrighted within 30 days of publication in Manila or 60 days elsewhere, otherwise they become public property. 2. The plaintiff claimed the defendant's restaurant infringed on the copyright of four songs by playing them without permission. 3. However, the court found the songs had long been in the public domain since they were not copyrighted within the required timeframes, and were therefore beyond the protection of copyright law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    24 views1 page

    Phil Composers Vs Tan

    Uploaded by

    JOHN PAULO BLAY
    1. The Supreme Court ruled that musical compositions must be copyrighted within 30 days of publication in Manila or 60 days elsewhere, otherwise they become public property. 2. The plaintiff claimed the defendant's restaurant infringed on the copyright of four songs by playing them without permission. 3. However, the court found the songs had long been in the public domain since they were not copyrighted within the required timeframes, and were therefore beyond the protection of copyright law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    1. G.R. No. L-36402. March 16, 1987.

    ] The Supreme Court has ruled that "Paragraph 33 of Patent Office Administrative
    FILIPINO SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS, INC., Order No. 3 (as amended, dated September 18, 1947) entitled 'Rules of Practice in
    plaintiff-appellant, vs. BENJAMIN TAN, defendant-appellee. the Philippines Patent Office relating to the Registration of Copyright Claims'
    promulgated pursuant to Republic Act 165, provides among other things that an
    Plaintiff-appellant: intellectual creation should be copyrighted thirty (30) days after its publication, if made
    *is the owner of certain musical compositions among which are the songs entitled: in Manila, or within the (60) days if made elsewhere, failure of which renders such
    "Dahil Sa Iyo", "Sapagkat Ikaw Ay Akin," "Sapagkat Kami Ay Tao Lamang" and "The creation public property." Indeed, if the general public has made use of the object
    Nearness Of You." sought to be copyrighted for thirty (30) days prior to the copyright application the law
    *filed a complaint with the lower court for infringement of copyright against defendant- deems the object to have been donated to the public domain and the same can no
    appellee for allowing the playing in defendant-appellee's restaurant of said songs longer be copyrighted.Under the circumstances, it is clear that the musical
    copyrighted in the name of the former. compositions in question had long become public property, and are therefore beyond
    the protection of the Copyright Law.
    Defendant-appellee,
    *countered that the complaint states no cause of action. While not denying the playing
    of said copyrighted compositions in his establishment, appellee maintains that the
    mere singing and playing of songs and popular tunes even if they are copyrighted do
    not constitute an infringement under the provisions of Section 3 of the Copyright Law.

    ISSUE: whether or not the playing and signing 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, whether or not
    appellee can be held liable therefor.

    Held: NO. 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 a Copyright Law." Thus, it has been
    explained that while it is possible in such establishments for the patrons to purchase
    their food and drinks and at the same time dance to the music of the orchestra, the
    music is furnished and used by the orchestra for the purpose of inducing the public to
    patronize the establishment and pay for the entertainment in the purchase of food and
    drinks. The defendant conducts his place of business for profit, and it is public; and
    the music is performed for profit.

    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.

    You might also like