Just recently, Philippine netizens reacted over Senator Sotto’s “plagiarism” of the work of an
American Blogger named Sarah Pope. It was first denied by both Sotto and his
chief of staff, Atty. Henry Villacorta. The Senator maintained that he did not
plagiarize anything saying in the news that;
“Itong blogger na sinasabi nila,
eh pareho kami ng pinagkunan eh. Ang pinagkunan namin si Natasha Campbell-McBride. And in my
speeches, even in my first speech and my second speech, I’ve always said, every
now and then sinisingit ko, hindi po ako
nagdudunong-dunungan ha. Hindi po galing sa akin ito.” (This
blogger they’re mentioning, we got it from the same source. Our source is
Natasha Campbell-McBride. And I’ve always said, I’m not pretending to be wise.
This does not come from me.)
“Bakit ko naman iko-quote ang blogger? Blogger lang iyon. Ang
kino-quote ko si Natasha
Campbell-McBride.” (Why should I quote a blogger? She’s just a blogger. I’m
quoting Natasha Campbell-McBride.)
In a
surprising twist after, his chief of staff finally admitted that parts of the
Senator’s speech against the RH bill indeed were copied from a blog by the foreign
author who calls herself the “Healthy Home Economist”, to the dismay of the
blogger. "Let me say that after asking my staff, indeed your blog was used
but only in quoting also from the same book of Dr. Campbell-Mcbride."
Atty. Villacorta maintained.
Sarah
Pope responded to Villacorta in her blog's comments section saying, "I
don't like the fact that my blog was used without my permission against the
education of the women of the Philippines and their reproductive rights.” The
blogger further explained that the issue in question is plagiarism.
“My blog
was quoted, not Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride. I put her work in my own words
and you copied my words." Sarah Pope concluded.
As most bloggers were
not amused by this ‘Sotto fiasco’, social media like facebook, twitter and
blogs were bombarded with internet memes which made fun of the Senator and the
plagiarism issue. Senator Sotto, in his defense, maintained that he did not
plagiarize anything because Sarah Pope’s work was not copyrighted.
So are blog articles
protected by copyright?
We think so.
A (literary, artistic,
or scientific) work is protected by copyright at the moment of its creation.
The Berne Convention, which the Philippines is a signatory of, also provides
the principle of automatic protection. This principle emphasizes that a work is
protected by copyright at the moment of
its creation hence protection needs no formality. It means that one may not
register a work in order to be copyrighted unlike patents or inventions.
Hence, as work is
copyrighted the moment it is created, the author of such work is vested with
rights which include, among others, “attribution rights”. This means
that no one, not even a Senator, can just take a work or a piece of it and use it for its own without asking permission
or acknowledging the author (Fair Use of Copyrighted/Protected
Materials).
So, was there a
violation of copyright in this incident?
We also think so.
In determining copyright
violation, Sec 185 and Sec 184 of the Intellectual Property Code must be
considered;
(Sec
185 defines what "Fair Use" is, and Sec 184 creates the instances
when no infringement can be claimed when using these "Fair Use"
materials)
"184.1.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter V, the following acts shall not
constitute infringement of copyright:
xxx.
(b) The making of quotations from a published work if they are compatible with fair use...... : PROVIDED, That the source and the name of the author, if appearing on the work, are mentioned".
The provisions of Sec.185 and the passage found in Sec. 184 guarantees “attribution rights” to the original author. Failing to attribute can still make one liable for copyright violation under Sec. 184, even if it complies with all the requisites of Fair use under Sec. 185.
xxx.
(b) The making of quotations from a published work if they are compatible with fair use...... : PROVIDED, That the source and the name of the author, if appearing on the work, are mentioned".
The provisions of Sec.185 and the passage found in Sec. 184 guarantees “attribution rights” to the original author. Failing to attribute can still make one liable for copyright violation under Sec. 184, even if it complies with all the requisites of Fair use under Sec. 185.
In Habana vs Robles (310
scra 511, 1999), the Supreme Court said that it is not merely copying but 'copying which results to injurious effects', further pointing out that 'there can be injury even if
"economic harm" is not proven'. The court said that, "Petitioners’
work as authors is the product of their long and assiduous research and for
another to represent it as her own is injury enough." Clearly, Atty.
Villacorta and Senator Sotto can not assert that there was no “harm” done.
Since Sen. Sotto refused to attribute the materials he appropriated for his Turno en Contra, he cannot clearly hide under Fair Use because attribution is still one of the requirements in that principle. Similarly, non-commercial use of copyrighted work does not automatically remove any chance for copyright violation.
For what it's worth, simple acknowledgement would have sufficed considering that, after all, the literary pieces were used while in the exercise of legislative privileges.
Since Sen. Sotto refused to attribute the materials he appropriated for his Turno en Contra, he cannot clearly hide under Fair Use because attribution is still one of the requirements in that principle. Similarly, non-commercial use of copyrighted work does not automatically remove any chance for copyright violation.
For what it's worth, simple acknowledgement would have sufficed considering that, after all, the literary pieces were used while in the exercise of legislative privileges.
(sources: Star Publications, ABS-CBN, Filipinolosophy, Philippine laws and cases )