View full case

ABS-CBN CORPORATION v. FELIPE GOZON

FACTS:

The case involves a dispute between ABS-CBN Corporation (ABS-CBN) and GMA Network, Inc. (GMA-7) concerning the alleged unauthorized rebroadcasting of news footage. On July 22, 2004, ABS-CBN conducted live audio-video coverage and broadcasted the arrival of Angelo dela Cruz, a Filipino overseas worker and hostage victim, at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport. ABS-CBN had an agreement with Reuters Television Service that restricted the use of its footage to international subscribers only, with an embargo preventing other Philippine subscribers from using the footage without ABS-CBN's consent.

GMA-7, also covering the event, aired a live video feed from Reuters without recognizing it was ABS-CBN's footage and subject to embargo. GMA-7's news control room allegedly saw no notice indicating the footage was restricted. ABS-CBN filed a complaint for copyright infringement. The Assistant City Prosecutor found probable cause against GMA-7 news and program manager officials Grace Dela Peña-Reyes and John Oliver Manalastas but not against higher executives.

On appeal, the Department of Justice initially sided with GMA-7, citing good faith defense, but later Acting Secretary Alberto C. Agra reversed, finding probable cause, including executives such as Felipe Gozon, Gilberto Duavit, Jr., Marissa Flores, and Jessica Soho, arguing that good faith could be a trial defense. The Court of Appeals then overturned Agra's resolution, citing jurisdictional errors and reinstated the earlier DOJ resolution dismissing the case. ABS-CBN challenged the Court of Appeals' decision, leading to the present case for further judicial scrutiny.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether news footage is copyrightable under the law;

  2. Whether there was fair use of the broadcast material;

  3. Whether lack of knowledge that a material is copyrighted is a defense against copyright infringement;

  4. Whether good faith is a defense in a criminal prosecution for violation of the Intellectual Property Code;

  5. Whether the Court of Appeals was correct in overturning Secretary Agra's finding of probable cause.

RULING:

  1. News footage is copyrightable under the law. The expression of news through video footage involves creative processes and originality, differentiating it from the news event itself.

  2. Fair use determination requires further proof. The court emphasized that the defense of fair use raised during preliminary investigation does not automatically negate copyright infringement. This issue should be evaluated based on further evidence by the trial court.

  3. Lack of knowledge that a material is copyrighted is not a valid defense against copyright infringement. The Intellectual Property Code does not require knowledge or intent to infringe on copyright for liability to attach. Infringement under this Code is considered malum prohibitum.

  4. Good faith is not a defense in a criminal prosecution for violation of the Intellectual Property Code. Good faith is immaterial since copyright infringement under the Intellectual Property Code is malum prohibitum, focusing on the act itself rather than the intent of the infringer.

  5. The Court of Appeals erred in overturning Secretary Agra's finding of probable cause. Secretary Agra's decision to find probable cause and include the officers and employees of GMA-7 in the Information was based on their roles and the concept of corporate veil piercing where the infringement was present. The ruling by the Court of Appeals was reversed as to respondents Grace Dela Peña-Reyes and John Oliver T. Manalastas.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Idea/Expression Dichotomy Differentiates between the news as an event (idea) and the broadcast footage (expression), ensuring only the expression is protected by copyright.

  • Neighboring or Related Rights Broadcasting organizations hold specific rights over their broadcasts, including protection against unauthorized rebroadcasting.

  • Malum Prohibitum Nature of Infringement Intellectual Property Code treats copyright infringement as malum prohibitum, meaning criminal intent is immaterial.

  • Strict Liability Legal standards under the Intellectual Property Code focus on the act of infringement itself rather than the knowledge or intent behind it.

  • Fair Use Factor Analysis Involves examining the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and its effect on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.