Case Summary (G.R. No. 184661)
Facts of the Case
FILSCAP is a collective management organization that represents various composers in the Philippines, managing and enforcing their rights to receive royalties for the use of their works. Wolfpac operates a mobile application that allows users to download ringtones, where it also offers a "pre-listening function" enabling users to listen to a 20-second sample of songs before making a purchase. FILSCAP asserted that this practice constituted copyright infringement, since Wolfpac did not secure necessary performance licenses for the sampled music.
Legal Proceedings
FILSCAP filed a complaint against Wolfpac, alleging copyright infringement based on the unauthorized use of their works in the pre-listening function. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Wolfpac, stating that the pre-listening service did not constitute public performance and fell under the fair use doctrine.
Issues Presented
The main issues for determination were whether the pre-listening feature constituted public performance or communication to the public, and whether Wolfpac's actions amounted to copyright infringement.
Communication to the Public vs. Public Performance
The Court differentiated between public performance and communication to the public. Public performance refers to making a work audible in a setting where individuals outside a private circle can witness it. Conversely, communication to the public involves making a work available through means that allow access at a time and place chosen by the individual. The pre-listening function allows users to select a time and place for listening, aligning it more closely with communication to the public rather than public performance.
Fair Use Doctrine
The court ruled that even if Wolfpac was not authorized to use the musical works in the pre-listening function, their actions still fell under the fair use provision of copyright law. This finding was based on an assessment of several factors, including the purpose of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount used, and the effect on the market.
Purpose and Character of the Use: The commercial nature of Wolfpac's use did not negate the possibility of fair use if the use served a public interest, such as consumer protection.
Nature of the Copyrighted Work: Musical compositions are recognized as artistic works, typically affording them higher protection. However, the short duration of the sampled material in the pre-listening function diminished its artistic value.
Amount and Substantiality Used: The 20-second samples were minimal and deemed reasonable for their purpose, supporting the fair use claim.
Effect on Market Value: The use of samples was unlikely
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 184661)
Background and Facts
- FILSCAP is an organization of copyright owners who licensed it to grant permissions for public performance, reproduction, and synchronization of musical works.
- Wolfpac Communications, Inc. markets mobile phone applications and provides downloadable ringback tones through a website.
- In 2004, FILSCAP discovered Wolfpac's website provided a "pre-listening" function, allowing consumers to hear a 20-second clip of songs before downloading.
- FILSCAP demanded Wolfe secure the necessary performance licenses and pay royalties, which Wolfpac refused, alleging no public performance occurred.
- FILSCAP filed a complaint for copyright infringement, claiming Wolfpac must secure licenses and pay royalties for the pre-listening function.
Legal Issue
- Whether the pre-listening function of sample ringtones on Wolfpac's website constitutes a "public performance" or "communication to the public" under the Intellectual Property Code.
- Whether Wolfpac's use of these samples constitutes copyright infringement.
Distinction Between Public Performance and Communication to the Public
- Intellectual Property Code defines public performance and communication to the public as separate exclusive rights.
- Public performance: actual performance or making audible a work at a place where persons outside a family circle can be present, where perception is possible without communication under IP Code Section 171.3.
- Communication to the public: making a work available by wire or wireless means such that the public may access it from a place and time individually chosen (Section 171.3).
- Public performance requires actual or potential public perception; communication to the public requires that the public has access at chosen time and place regardless of actual receipt.
Jurisprudential and International Context
- The case references Berne Convention, WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT), and U.S. Copyright laws for definitions and interpretations.
- Clarifies that U.S. cases conflating communication and performance as one right are not fully applicable due to Philippine IP Code distinctions.
- Philippine jurisprudence such as FILSCAP v. Anrey and Philippine Home Cable Holdings cases clarify differences and applications in the local context.
Court's Findings on the Nature of Wolfpac's Pre-Listening Function
- Wolfpac's 20-second pre-listening function is an act of communication to the public, not public performance.
- The act of making the work audible i