1

UP Law Complex, Sample Bar Q and As for Intellectual Property

1. BR and CT are noted artists whose paintings are highly prized by collectors. Dr. DL
commissioned them to paint a mural at the main lobby of his new hospital for children.
Both agreed to collaborate on the project for a total fee of Php2 Million to be equally
divided between them. It was also agreed that Dr. DL had to provide all the materials for
the painting and pay for the wages of technicians and laborers needed for the work on the
project.

Assume that the project is completed and both BR and CT are fully paid the amount of Php2
Million as artists fee by DL. Under the law on Intellectual Property, who will own the
mural? Who will own the copyright in the mural? Why? Explain. (Bar 2003)

Under Sec. 178.4 of the IP Code, in case of commissioned work, the creator (in the absence
of a written stipulation to the contrary) owns the copyright, but the work itself belongs to the
person who commissioned its creation. Accordingly, the mural belongs to DL. However, BR
and CT own the copyright, since there is no stipulation to the contrary.


2. Juan Xavier wrote and published a story similar to an unpublished copyrighted story of
Manoling Santiago. It was, however, conclusively proven that Juan Xavier was not aware
that the story of Manoling Santiago was protected by copyright. Manoling Santiago sued
Juan Xavier for infringement of copyright. (Bar 1998)

a. Is Juan Xavier liable?

Yes. Juan Xavier is liable for infringement of copyright. It is not necessary that Juan Xavier is
aware that the story of Manoling Santiago was protected by copyright. The work of Manoling
Santiago is protected from the time of its creation.

b. May a person have photocopies of some pages of the book made without violating the
copyright law?

Yes. The private reproduction of a published work in a single copy, where the reproduction is
made by a natural person exclusively for research and private study, is permitted, without
the authorization of the owner of the copyright in the work.

3. In an action for damages on account of an infringement of a copyright, the defendant (the
alleged pirate) raised the defense that he was unaware that what he had copied was a
copyright material. Would this defense be valid? (Bar 1997)

No. An intention to pirate is not an element of infringement. Hence, an honest intention is no
defense to an action for infringement.

 2

Alternative Answer: Yes. The owner of the copyright must make others aware that the material
in question is under or covered by a copyright. This is done by the giving of such notice at a
prominent portion of the copyright material. When the alleged pirate is thus made aware
thereof, his act of pirating the copy material will constitute infringement.