Finally! After several years of fighting tooth and nail before the Legislative Branch in setting forth the proposed amendments to Republic Act No. 8293, known as the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (IP Code), and tackling constructive critique towards the initiative, March 22, 2013, marked the dawning of a new day for all the lobbyists, supporters, stakeholders, persons-in-interest, and the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) in general. This milestone introduced Notable Amendments in the Philippines as the newly signed Act took effect, now expressed under Republic Act No. 10372, an Act Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 8293, otherwise known as the “Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines.”
Two years ago, I recall having the opportunity to attend one of the many public consultations initiated by IPOPHL, wherein they invited law professors and representatives from Korea to talk about their Copyright Law, its major features, and their best practices in the field. During the activity, the participants underwent a workshop to discuss matters of interest that served as potential areas to consider for amendments to the then Copyright Law. Lo and behold! The sweet efforts of those consultations have come to fruition.
According to this new Act, the IPOPHL is tasked within 180 days from its effective date to promulgate the rules and regulations necessary to effectively implement the law.
Pending the drafting of these rules and regulations, I would like to share noteworthy amendments which I learned from Atty. Louie Calvario, Attorney VI of the IPOPHL-Office of the Director General, when he articulated the new IP Code amendments during the IP Rights Committee Meeting conducted by AmCham Philippines held on April 22, 2013.
One of the Notable Amendments in the Philippines is the requirement for Collective Management Organizations (CMOs) to secure accreditation from the IPOPHL. Back then, the CMO was conceptualized to address the difficulty and impracticability of collecting royalties and ensuring full protection of copyright holders when these activities were done individually. Copyright holders needed to designate a group of artists, writers, composers, and other right-holders to handle the intricate details of protecting their rights. Thus, a group was formed to collectively manage their economic or moral rights on their behalf.
Clearly, both the owners of the copyright and related rights, on one hand, and the users of copyrighted materials, on the other hand, needed a “link” to bridge the gap between them. Hence, the key role of a CMO is to act on behalf of its members who are owners of copyright and related rights. Depending on the type of CMO one belongs to, the organization generally negotiates rates and terms of use for copyrighted material, issues licenses, collects and distributes royalties, maintains proper documentation, and performs other tasks to ensure its members enjoy full legal protection.
The accreditation requirement, a significant component of these Notable Amendments in the Philippines, is now strictly enforced by IPOPHL. Failure to comply results in non-recognition of the concerned CMO, barring it from conducting business with users of copyrighted materials or collecting royalties. This requirement also addresses frequent complaints about double collection from a single entity by separate CMOs. By enforcing accreditation, only legitimate CMOs are empowered to collect royalties, ensuring fairness and proper compensation.
Meanwhile, another interesting addition to the Amendments is the concept on Contributory Infringement which is anchored on secondary liability. To pin down this allegation, the Act requires the need to prove and satisfy the elements on (1) the benefits received by the liable party; (2) notice given to the liable party, and (3) the right and ability of control by the liable party over the activities of the infringer, but that the liable party failed to exercise such right. Atty. Calvario notes that the upcoming implementing rules and regulations (IRR) will identify the type of benefit that the alleged liable party is receiving out of the infringing acts so as to be properly charged with contributory infringement. And maybe, also to include the kind of notice sufficient enough to qualify as official notice to the liable party on the infringing acts. Likewise, we are keen on knowing the procedure to rectify the contributing act of infringement committed by the party secondarily liable.
In Lastly, an amendment which captures the generosity of the drafters and supporters of this Act is the Fair Use of the Blind, Visually-and-Reading Impaired. This provision shed hope for basic education through the accessibility of the copyrighted materials in Braille. It allows the reproduction of such works, provided that it is distributed on a non-profit basis and the copyright owner as well as the date of original publication must be indicated.
“Notable Amendments in the Philippines” have brought significant changes to our IP Code. The countdown begins, and the entire nation is eager to see how this Act will be effectively implemented. At this point, we cross our fingers and hope for clarity and “teeth” in the law through its IRR, soon to be released.
