An owner of a copy right has the exclusive right to carryout, authorize or prevent the ... reproduction of the work or substantial portion of the work (Sec. 177 RA 8293). On the other hand, the inclusion of a work in a publication shall not constitute infringement of copyright if such inclusions made by way of illustration for teaching purposes and is compatible with fair use, provided that the source and name of the author, if appearing in the work, is mentioned (Sec. 184-1 RA 8293). Work has reference to literary and artistic creations and this includes books and other literary, scholarly and scientific works (Sec. 172 RA 8293). These are the rules and principles of law used in this case of three authors and copyright owners, whom we shall call Ana, Patricia and Leonila, against another author/publisher by the name of Rufina.
Ana, Patricia and Leonila are the authors of a book entitled College English For Today (CET for brevity) Books 1 and 2 and Workbook for College Freshman English, Series 1. These books have been copyrighted for which certificates of copyright registration have been duly issued.
In the course of revising their published works, Ana et. al. scouted and looked around various bookstores to check on other textbooks dealing with the same subject matter. By chance they came upon the book of Rufina entitled Developing English Proficiency (DEP for brevity) Books I and II. Upon perusal of said book, they were surprised to see that it was strikingly similar to the contents, scheme of presentation, illustrations and illustrative examples in their own book. They found that several pages of Rufina's books are similar, if not altogether a copy of their book, with the same example, treatment and manner of presentation.
Believing that Rufina had lifted, copied and plagiarized their book without securing their permission, Ana et. al. sued Rufina for copyright infringement plus damages. They asked that Rufina should desist from committing further acts of infringement and to recall all her books from the market and to render an accounting of the proceeds of all sales and profits since the time of its publication and sale. They claimed that Rufina's misrepresentation that her book was her original work and concept adversely affected and substantially diminished the sale of their book.
Rufina denied the allegation in the complaint. She contended that: (1) her book is the product of her independent researches, studies and experiences; (2) that the similarities may be due to author's exercise of the right to fair use of copyrighted materials as guides and to the orientation of the authors to both works, standards and syllabus which are common to all English grammar writers as recommended by the Association of Colleges of Arts and Sciences. Was she correct.
No. Her act of lifting from the book of Ana, Patricia and Leonila, substantial portions of discussions and examples and her failure to acknowledge the same in her book is an infringement of their copyrights. Infringement of a copyright is a trespass on a private domain owned and occupied by the owner of the copyright and therefore, protected by law. It consists in the doing by any person, without the consent of the owner of the copyright, of anything the sole right to do which is conferred by the statute as the owner of the copyright. To constitute infringement, it is not necessary that the whole or even a large portion of the work shall have been copied. If so much is taken that the value of the original is sensibly diminished, or the labors of the original author are substantially or to an injurious extent appropriated by another, that is sufficient in point of law to constitute infringement or piracy which is a synonymous term.
It may be correct that the books being grammar books may contain materials similar as to some technical contents with other grammar books. However, the numerous pages showing similarity in the style and the manner the books were presented and the identical examples cannot pass as similarities merely because of technical consideration. Even if Ana et al. And Rufina were of the same background in terms of teaching experience and orientation, it is not an excuse for them to be identical even in examples contained in their books.
In the case at bar, the least that Rufina could have done was to acknowledge Ana, Patricia and Leonila as the source of the portions of her book. The final product of an author's toll is his book. To allow another to copy the book without appropriate acknowledgment is injury enough (Habana et. al. vs. Robles et. al. G.R. No. 131522 July 19, 1999).
Atty. Sison's e-mail address is: sison@ipaglabanmo.org.