[ G.R. No. 30774. January 29, 1929 ] 52 Phil. 680
[ G.R. No. 30774. January 29, 1929 ]
PHILIPPINE EDUCATION COMPANY, INC., PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. VICENTE SOTTO AND V. R. ALINDADA, DEFENDANTS. V. R. ALINDADA, APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
JOHNS, J.:
The question presented involves the legal construction of Act No. 3134 of the Philippine Legislature, which is entitled “An Act to protect intellectual property,” and which is known as the Copyright Law of the Philippine Islands.
Section 2 of the Act defines and enumerates what may be copyrighted which, among other things, includes books, composite and cyclopedic works, manuscripts, commentaries and critical studies.
Section 4 provides:
“For the purpose of this Act articles and other writings published without the names of the authors or under pseudonyms are considered as the property of the publishers.”
And section 5 says:
“Lines, passages, or paragraphs in a book or other copyrighted works may be quoted or cited or reproduced for comment, dissertation, or criticism.
“News items, editorial paragraphs, and articles in periodicals may also be reproduced unless they contain a notice that their publication is reserved or a notice of copyright, but the source of the reproduction or original reproduced shall be cited. In case of musical works parts of little extent may also be reproduced.”
Hence, the real question involved is the construction which should be placed upon the second paragraph of section 5.
It is conceded that neither Professor Craig nor the plaintiff applied for or obtained a copyright of the article in question under the terms and provisions of this Act. The defendant contends that after the article was once published without a copyright in plaintiff’s magazine, it then became public property, and that he had a legal right to publish it in his magazine, without giving “the source of the reproduction.”
It must be conceded that under the Copyright Law of the United States, he would have that legal right. That is the construction which has been placed upon that law by numerous decisions both state and federal of that nation. Be that as it may, we have carefully read and reread the Copyright Law of the United States, and the provisions contained in the second paragraph of section 5 of Act No. 3134 are nowhere to be found in the Copyright Law of the United States. Neither does it contain any similar provision, and for want thereof, the decisions of those courts are not in point on the question involved here, and, as appellant says, the legal question presented on this appeal is one of first impression in this court, and the case is submitted without the citation of the decision of any court under the same or similar statute.
Section 4 specifically provides:
“For the purpose of this Act articles and other writings published without the names of the authors or under pseudonyms are considered as the property of the publishers.”
The first paragraph of section 5 says:
“Lines, passages, or paragraphs in a book or other copyrighted works may be quoted or cited or reproduced for comment, dissertation, or criticism.”
It is very apparent that this paragraph is confined and limited to a book or other copyrighted works, and, hence, that it does not apply to the publication pf the article now in question. The second paragraph of this section is confined to news items, editorial paragraphs and articles in periodicals, which may also be reproduced, “unless they contain a notice that their publication is reserved or a notice of copyright, but the source of the reproduction or original reproduced shall be cited.” It is admitted that the plaintiff notified the defendant “that we reserve all rights, and you infringe on them at your peril,” and that after receipt of the notice, the defendant published the article in question, without giving “the source of the reproduction.”
If it had been the purpose and intent of the Legislature to limit the reproduction of “news items, editorial paragraphs, and articles in periodicals,” to those which have a notice of copyright only, it never would have said if “they contain a notice that their publication is reserved.”
Analyzing the language used, it says, first, that such news items, editorial paragraphs, and articles in periodicals may be reproduced, unless they contain a notice that their publication is reserved, or, second, that they may also be reproduced unless they contain a notice of copyright. But in either event, the law specifically provides that “the source of the reproduction or original reproduced shall be cited,” and is not confined or limited to case in which there is “a notice of copyright,” and specifically says that in either event “the source of the reproduction or original reproduced shall be cited.” To give this section any other construction would be to nullify, eliminate and take from the paragraph the words “they contain a notice that their publication is reserved,” and to say that the Legislature never intended to say what it did say. This court must construe the language found in the act. The language is plain, clear, definite and certain, and this court has no legal right to say that the Legislature did not mean what itsaid when it used those words, which is all the more apparent by the use of the word “or” after the word “reserved”. In the instant case, the plaintiff did not give notice of its copyright, for the simple reason that it did not have a copyright, but it did notify the defendant that in the publication of the article “we reserve all rights/’ which was legally equivalent to a notice “that their publication is reserved.” To give that paragraph any other construction would eliminate, take from it, and wipe out, the words “that their publication is reserved,” and this court has no legal right to do that. It was contended that this construction would nullify the use and value of the whole Copyright Law, but it will be noted that this exception is specifically confined and limited to “news items, editorial paragraphs, and articles in periodicals/’ and hence could not be made to apply to any other provision of the Copyright Law. It will also be noted that in the instant case, the defendant had the legal right to publish the article in question by giving “the source of the reproduction.” The plaintiff bought and paid for the article and published it with a notice that “we reserve all rights,” and the defendant published the article in question without citing “the source of the reproduction” and for aught that appeared in his paper, the article was purchased and paid for by the defendant.
We are clearly of the opinion that the language in question in the Copyright Law of the Philippine Islands, which is not found in the Copyright Law of the United States, was inserted for a specific purpose, and that it was intended to prohibit the doing of the very thing wihich the defendant did in this case; otherwise, the use of all of those words is a nullity. This construction does not in the least impair the Copyright Law, except as to “news items, editorial paragraphs, and articles in periodicals,” and it protects an enterprising newspaper or magazine that invests its money and pays for the right to publish an original article, and that was the reason why the Legislature saw fit to use the language in question.
Above and beyond all this, it would seem that upon the undisputed facts in this case, common courtesy among newspaper men would suggest that the defendant would give “the source of the reproduction” It would have been a very simple and an easy thing to do.
All things considered, we are clearly of the opinion that the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed, with costs. So ordered.
Malcolm, Ostrand, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.