Using BLOG articles

I started blogging last summer when a friend encouraged me to attend the first Baguio Bloggers conference in the town. After about a dozen posts in the web, I observed that ‘blogging’ did not only become a trend for this generation’s youth, but also to numerous professionals including lawyers, doctors and other experts who wanted to share information to the world wide web. It became the new tool to inform, to influence, even to entertain. Among lawyer-bloggers are Atty. Harry Roque with his law and legal opinion blog, Atty. Fred Pamaos’ “AttyatWork” and Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr.’s ‘Philippine Laws and Cases’. For most of them, ‘blogs’, or the social media in general, are the new vehicle to share ideas and communicate, aside from serving as a personal journal to things that are close to their hearts.

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.

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.

(sources: Star Publications, ABS-CBN, Filipinolosophy, Philippine laws and cases )