The provisions on “collective works” are in Section 171.2 and Section 196 of Republic Act 8293, to wit:

“(Section) 171.2. A ‘collective work’ is a work which has been created by two (2) or more natural persons at the initiative and under the direction of another with the understanding that it will be disclosed by the latter under his own name and that contributing natural persons will not be identified.”

“Section 196. Contribution to Collective Work. – When an author contributes to a collective work, his right to have his contribution attributed to him is deemed waived unless he expressly reserves it.”

The provision on collective works exacts more than the requirement of having 2 or more persons creating the work. It would be essential IMO to see the agreement between the parties to determine whether their intent encapsulates that which would comprise a collective work.

An argument for the aggrieved would be on Derivative Works, as provided in Section 173 of the same law:

“Section 173. Derivative Works. – 173.1. The following derivative works shall also be protected by copyright:
“(a) Dramatizations, translations, adaptations, abridgments, arrangements, and other alterations of literary or artistic works; and
“(b) Collections of literary, scholarly or artistic works, and compilations of data and other materials which are original by reason of the selection or coordination or arrangement of their contents. ”

“173.2. The works referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Subsection 173.1 shall be protected as new works: Provided however, That such new work shall not affect the force of any subsisting copyright upon the original works employed or any part thereof, or be construed to imply any right to such use of the original works, or to secure or extend copyright in such original works.”

Considering that the original text was created by X, copyright of the original text would that of X (and hence enjoys the economic and moral rights of the original work). However, since permission was granted by X to Songwriter A to create a song out of it, and that the latter modified the original text to fit his music, it can be argued that the modified text and the incorporation of the music constitutes the resulting work as a derivative work under Section 173.1(a). Since the resulting work is considered as a new work under Section 173.2, hence, Songwriter A holds both the economic (section 177) and moral rights (sections 193 and 195) over the derivative work.

Just to recap these points, X holds the copyright of the original work (text), while Songwriter A holds the copyright of the derivative work (modified text as lyrics, with incorporated music).

If X gave permission to Songwriter B to create a derivative work from the original work (text), then there would not be an issue. However, it is argued that Songwriter A’s derivative work was the one transmitted to Songwriter B for alteration, which X has no right to provide. Songwriter A’s copyright on the derivative work would have been violated, as per Section 177.2 (“Subject to the provisions of Chapter VIII, copyright or economic rights shall consist of the exclusive right to carry out, authorize or prevent the following acts: xxx Dramatization, translation, adaptation, abridgment, arrangement or other transformation of the work.”), if it is his work which was the basis for Songwriter B’s derivative work.

This is my appreciation of the available, albeit scant, facts on the issue, as part of the discussions in my class. Absent all necessary facts available, opinions made here could turn out to be inaccurate, if additional facts would be made available in the future. I am not providing any legal advice nor pretend to be the authority in resolving this issue.

This comment is separately copyrighted, as per section 172.2 of RA 8293. Moral rights, especially the one under Section 193.3, are not waived herein.

sec 171.2 Collective work is a work which has been created by two or more natural persons at the initiative and under direction of another ( GMA) with the understanding that it will be disclosed by the latter under its own name and that the contributing natural person will not be identified ( GG)

Mr. GG was commissioned to work in this project. im not really sure about the stipulation on their contract. Guess such stipulation will prevail. Hence:

Sec. 178 Rules on Copyright Ownership

178.1 Subject to the provision of this section, in case of original literary and artisitc works, copyright shall belong to the author of the work;
178.2 In case of Joint authorship, the co-authors shall be the original owners of the copyright and in ABSENCE OF AGREEMENT, their rights shall be governed by co-ownership. If however, a work of joint ownership consists of parts that can be used separately and the author of each part can be identified, the author of each part shall be the original owner of the copyright in the part that the has created. –

If there is no stipulation to the contrary, since the lyrics was made originaly by GMA, and the music was made by Mr. GG, hence, he could be regarded as an author of such distinctive part. However 178.4 provides;

178.4 In the case of a work commissioned by a person other than an employer of the author and who pays for it and the work is made pursuance of the commission (GMA), the person commissioned the work shall have ownership of work, but copyright thereto remains with the creator (MUSIC BY GG) UNLESS THERE IS A WRITTEN STIPULATION TO THE CONTRARY.

In the final analysis, there must be an AGREEMENT that works are to be collaborated ( collaborating agreement), otherwise, there is no collective work to speaks of. In Copyright was is protected is the expression. As to the collection of expression, if there is no change as to the expression but in the manner of collection, there is no infringement. ( Atty. Berne Guerrero’s discussion)

so, what happens kung di naparegister ni Gary ang music? antimano ginawa nung 2nd composer?

reynz´s last blog post..Royal Blog Santacruzan 02/07/2009

Dfish´s last blog post..Neighborhood Irresponsible Borrowers Association

Lesaca said that the issue now involved the second unnamed composer who replaced Granada in the composition of an ad jingle that Granada had claimed infringed on a rejected study he made for the “3-Pid Handog sa Edukasyon” campaign of the network and client Procter & Gamble Philippines. “This other person may have been mistaken [in using Granada's original work] and only acted in good faith. They have to identify who this other composer is.”

http://showbizandstyle.inquirer.net/breakingnews/breakingnews/view/20090206-187831/Lesaca-to-GMA-7-Name-second-composer

reynz´s last blog post..Brother and sister

reynz´s last blog post..Conversation with Billy

foo´s last blog post..Chapter 6: Love Maze

reynz´s last blog post..Rin on the Rox are going to the Grammys!

reynz´s last blog post..Rin on the Rox are going to the Grammys!

roni´s last blog post..A Good Read: New Age