By Siesta-friendly
For writing definitive Filipino masterpieces “Pipit”, “Saan Ka Man Naroroon”, “Ikaw and Mahal ko”, “Dahil Sa Isang Bulaklak”, “Gaano kita Kamahal”, “Sa Ugoy ng Duyan”, “Basta’t Mahal Kita”, and Christmas classics “Ang Pasko ay Sumapit”, “Pasko Na Naman” or “Misa de Gallo”, Levi Celerio spent his end days, not wallowing in wealth (as he deserved) but unable to pay his hospitable bills. He died not in a 1st rate hospital but in a small clinic. Even his death, and that of fellow National Artist Lucio San Pedro who died 2 days earlier, were grossly overshadowed by the then recent death of a mere teen idol.
Despite making music and lyrics, no matter how popular or timeless, the business of a Filipino songwriter has never boomed. This notwithstanding the existence of laws protecting copyright. And long before internet pirates even existed, i.e., downloads and file sharing, which further dilutes the privileges of copyright holders. Everyone wants something for free. But when it comes to local music, this is clearly out of tune with what the law requires.
Copyright Existence and Limits
No copyright registration is even necessary. All one has to do is create and the copyright exists upon creation –
Works are protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their mode or form of expression, as well as of their content, quality and purpose (Sec. 172.2, Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines).[1]
Copyright exists during the author’s lifetime and 50 years thereafter; the copyright owner’s heirs can enforce his rights after his death (Sec. 198.1).
Basically, only performances done privately and free of charge, or made strictly for charitable, religious, educational or news/commentary purposes, do not infringe on copyright (Sec. 184.1 and 185). Meaning, every time OPM is played or performed on tv, radio, concerts, hotels, bars or restaurants, cinemas, singing contests, sports events, even malls, fitness centers, dance schools, elevators, played as soundtracks or theme songs, run as commercial jingles, or in any way performed for the public, the songwriter should be paid a royalty fee.
By way of example, if employees of commercial establishments play music on the radio privately, it is only the radio station liable to pay royalties; however, if the commercial establishment plays radio music over a loudspeaker or public address system, then it is also liable to pay royalties (Sec. 171.6).
If you go to a bakery and help yourself to a piece of their bread and leave without paying, you’re liable for theft. Same goes with helping yourself to someone else’s music for profit and not pay for it.
Copyright Infringement
Last September 2007, Lorrie Ilustre wrote the Philippine Inquirer complaining how ABS-CBN not only used her song (the Hotdogs hit) Panaginip without her permission - for a telenovela and a new Hotdogs cover album and the subsequent promotions for both - but gave credit to someone else as composer.[2]
She has sound legal basis for her complaints. As author, she has exclusive right to authorize or prevent, among others, (a) the reproduction of her work or a substantial portion thereof (Sec.177.1); (b) the arrangement or other transformation of her work (Sec.177.2); and (c) the public performance of her work (Sec.177.6). In addition, she has the right to require that the authorship of her work be attributed to her and that her name be indicated in connection with its public use (Sec. 193.1). Accordingly, as exclusive owner of these rights, she should be compensated for the use of her work. More so when the user profited therefrom. As of the date of her letter, ABS-CBN had still been giving her the runaround.
How do we nourish local talent? And how do we avoid focusing on (listening, watching/viewing, and paying for) foreign artists over home-grown talent? How do we keep our talents at home? Respect them and give them their due. You want to be paid for your work don’t you? Then pay for playing someone’s music as well. It’s only fair.
Postscript
Just recently the National Press Club (NPC) altered several portions of a mural (depicting the history of press freedom) they had commissioned the Neo-Angono Artists Collective to paint. Rightfully, the Neo-Angono complained against the alterations. Under the law, they have a right to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, their work (Sec. 193.3). As the mural is commissioned work, the NPC owns the mural but the copyright remains with Neo-Angono (Sec. 178.4).
Also, we did not tackle the cd/vcd/dvd world as there should be enough notice of such piracy whenever Optical Media Board unleashes their SWAT wannabes during their mall raids.
[2] Taken from http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view_article.php?article_id=90845. Accessed November 4, 2007.
No comments:
Post a Comment