[ad_1]
As we flocked to malls during the holidays, we were once again exposed to familiar songs that warm our Christmas-loving hearts. From Jose Mari Chan’s ‘Christmas in our Hearts’ to Mariah Carey’s ‘All I Want for Christmas Is You’, the store has prepared a holiday girlfriend playlist to welcome Christmas shoppers. This practice of playing songs to attract visitors is not new. After all, research shows that listening to certain songs can influence purchasing behavior. But recent rulings by the Supreme Court may force entrepreneurs to be more mindful of what goes on inside their stores.
The Intellectual Property Code (IP Code) treats a musical work as an original intellectual creation protected by copyright from the moment of its creation. For example, copyright owners such as composers have the exclusive right to publicly perform their works. Therefore, anyone who wants to play her copyrighted songs in public must secure a license or pay royalties. Failure to do so will result in a finding of infringement which could entail her imprisonment of one to three years and the payment of fines ranging from P50,000 to her P150,000 for the first offense alone. There is a possibility. An exception to this is when the demonstration is subject to what is called the fair use exception. That is, when the performance is solely for research, teaching, criticism, etc.
However, performing a song for commercial purposes excludes the act from the scope of fair use. For example, the Supreme Court once held that restaurants that hire bands to play copyrighted music were engaged in acts of public performance for profit, and in this case, the music favored the restaurant to the public. In the recent case of Filscap v. Anrey, the court ruled that the term “performance” under IP law is more broadly defined. shows the interpretation. It ruled that the act of using a loudspeaker to play a radio broadcast containing copyrighted music is itself a performance, and that the establishment is obligated to pay the fee.
In the above cases, the Filipino Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, Inc. (also known as Filscap) is a non-profit organization of composers, authors and publishers who own the public performance rights to their members’ copyrighted musical works. It is a commercial entity and has filed a copyright infringement claim. Her lawsuit against Anrey, a restaurant owner, who allegedly played copyrighted music owned by Filscap without Filscap’s consent. In his one of Anrey’s defenses, the facility only played what was being broadcast on the radio stations they were listening to, and that the stations that broadcast copyrighted music were already out of his Filscap. It was that I was exempt from obtaining a license because I had a license. The court disagreed. Angley ruled that he still owed the fee. It didn’t matter that the radio station itself had already paid Filscap for the song. Perhaps it wouldn’t have mattered if the store owner wasn’t able to pick and choose which songs the radio station played.
The decision seems like a complete win for copyright owners in the music industry. This development made it clear that they could earn income not only from the radio stations that broadcast their songs, but also from establishments that broadcast their songs from the same radio stations. Solo artist Daniel Paringit echoes this sentiment. He believes this decision will benefit artists in the music industry. For some creators, however, the ramifications of the decision are less clear. He says he feels it will lead to less exposure. She feels that recent rulings may discourage entrepreneurs from performing songs at all, resulting in less airtime for up-and-coming artists.
The decision has also had a big impact on entrepreneurs, especially restaurant owners. The restaurant owner is a sector that often uses songs as his background music for his customers. Quezon City restaurateurs have lamented the decision, saying it will only place an additional burden on business owners who already find it difficult to comply with a myriad of government requirements.
As with many landmark decisions, recent judgments have their pros and cons. On the one hand, it pays tribute to talented artists whose work has become increasingly vulnerable to infringement due to the rise of online streaming in recent years. .
On the other hand, the decision could also hold many stakeholders accountable, even those who are not in a position to profit from playing unlicensed music. It should be noted that the IP Code provides for potential criminal sanctions not only for the principal in a copyright infringement case, but also for those who assist or facilitate such infringement. With this in mind, what do we think of the responsibility of the friendly receptionist who turns the TV on to a music channel to distract an anxious patient waiting in line for a checkup? How about the jeepney driver relaxing to his favorite tunes on the radio while at work?
The Supreme Court itself seems to recognize this dilemma. In his press release on the Filscap v. Anrey case, the court said the full judgment, which had not yet been published at the time of writing, suggested possible amendments to the IP code. The decision also risks radio station listeners committing copyright infringement by simply defining what constitutes a public performance, so the very broad definition of public performance is cause for concern. points out.
While we wait for intellectual property laws to be amended, should recent developments be interpreted to mean that entrepreneurs will always have to pay a license fee to play music in their establishments? . It’s important to note that not all songs are copyrighted. The Supreme Court has ruled that there can be no copyright infringement if the songs played are already in the public domain. In the Philippines, copyright protection for works generally extends up to 50 years after the author’s death. After this period, the copyright protection will also expire and the song will enter the public domain. This means that the song can be published for free.
So if you’re an entrepreneur and want to play music for your customers, take a moment before hitting the play button. Ask yourself if you have secured the necessary licenses. If not, it’s wise to choose songs that are already part of the public domain. Better yet, sign up with your favorite local musicians and support their great music!
Mario C. Cerilles, Jr. is co-founder and managing partner of Cerilles and Fernan Intellectual Property Law. He is also a senior lecturer at the UP College of Law, where he teaches real estate law.
Your Daily Dose of Fearless View
[ad_2]
Source link
