Intellectual Property Law on Copyright Requirements Before a Search Warrant May Be Issued in Copyright Cases Piracy COLUMBIA PICS

ICS VS. CA In 1986, the Video Regulatory Board (VRB) applied for a warrant against Jose Jinco (Jingco), owner of Showtime Enterprises for allegedly pirating movies produced and owned by Columbia Pictures and other motion picturecompanies. Jingco filed a motion to quash the search warrant but the same was denied in 1987. Subsequently, Jinco filed an Urgent Motion to Lift the Search Warrant and Return the Articles Seized. In 1989, the RTC judge granted the motion. The judge ruled that based on the ruling in the 1988 case of 20th Century Fox Film Corporation vs CA, before a search warrant could be issued in copyright cases, the master copy of the films alleged to be pirated must be attached in the application for warrant. ISSUE: Whether or not the 20th Century Fox ruling may be applied retroactively in this case. HELD: No. In 1986, obviously the 1988 case of 20th Century Fox was not yet promulgated. The lower court could not possibly have expected more evidence from the VRB and Columbia Pictures in their application for a search warrant other than what the law and jurisprudence, then existing and judicially accepted, required with respect to the finding of probable cause. The Supreme Court also revisited and clarified the ruling in the 20 th Century Fox Case. It is evidently incorrect to suggest, as the ruling in 20th Century Fox may appear to do, that in copyright infringement cases, the presentation of mastertapes of the copyright films is always necessary to meet the requirement of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant. It is true that such master tapes are object evidence, with the merit that in this class of evidence the ascertainment of the controverted fact is made through demonstration involving the direct use of the senses of the presiding magistrate. Such auxiliary procedure, however, does not rule out the use of testimonial or documentary evidence, depositions, admissions or other classes of evidence tending to prove the factum probandum, especially where the production in court of object evidence would result in delay, inconvenience or expenses out of proportion to is evidentiary value. In fine, the supposed pronouncement in said case regarding the necessity for the presentation of the master tapes of the copy-righted films for the validity of search

warrants should at most be understood to merely serve as a guidepost in determining the existence of probable cause in copy-right infringement cases where there is doubt as to the true nexus between the master tape and the pirated copies. An objective and careful reading of the decision in said case could leadto no other conclusion than that said directive was hardly intended to be a sweeping and inflexible requirement in all or similar copyright infringement cases. Joaquin vs Drilon Intellectual Property Law on Copyright Game Show Ideas and Concepts Not Covered by Copyright BJ Productions Inc. (BJPI) was the holder of copyright over the show Rhoda and Me. It holds rights over the shows format and style of presentation. In 1991, BJPIs president Francisco Joaquin saw on TV RPN 9s show Its a Date, which isbasically the same as Rhoda and Me. He eventually sued Gabriel Zosa, the manager of the show Its a Date. Zosa later sought a review of the prosecutors resolution before the Secretary of Justice (Drilon). Drilon reversed the findings of the fiscal and directed him to dismiss the case against Zosa. ISSUE: Whether or not the decision of Drilon is valid. HELD: Yes. The essence of copyright infringement is the copying, in whole or in part, of copyrightable materials as defined and enumerated in Section 2 of PD. No. 49 (Copyright Law). Apart from the manner in which it is actually expressed, however, the idea of a dating game show is a non-copyrightable material. Ideas, concepts, formats, or schemes in their abstract form clearly do not fall within the class of works or materials susceptible of copyright registrationas provided in PD. No. 49. What is covered by BJPIs copyright is the specific episodes of the show Rhoda and Me. Further, BJPI should have presented the master videotape of the show in order to show the linkage between the copyright show (Rhoda and Me) and the infringing show (Its a Date). This is based on the ruling in 20th Century Fox vs CA (though this has been qualified by Columbia Pictures vs CA, this is still good law). Though BJPI did provide a lot of written evidence and description to show the linkage between the shows, the same were not enough.

A television show includes more than mere words can describe because it involves a whole spectrum of visuals and effects, video and audio, such that no similarity or dissimilarity may be found by merely describing the general copyright/format of both dating game shows

CHING VS SALINAS Claims: maker and manufacturer of a Utility Model, described as Spring Eye Bushing for Automobile made up of plastic. On September 4, 2001, Ching and Joseph Yu were issued by the National Library Certificates of Copyright Registration and Deposit of the said work described therein as Leaf Spring Eye Bushing forAutomobile. On September 20, 2001, Ching requested the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) forpolice/investigative assistance for the apprehension and prosecution of illegal manufacturers, producersand/or distributors of the works. Respondents Claims: Manila against William Salinas, Sr. and the officers and members of the Board of Directors of Wilaware Product Corporation. It was alleged that the respondents therein reproduced anddistributed the said models penalized under Sections 177.1 and 177.3 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8293 The applications sought the seizure of the following Rulings: In this case, the bushing and cushion are not works of art. They are, as the petitioner himself admitted, utility models which may be the subject of a patent. IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The assailedDecision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 70411 are AFFIRMED. Search Warrant Nos. 01-2401 and 01-2402 issued on October 15, 2001 are ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE. Costs against the petitioner