Philippine Education Company, Inc. vs. Alindada

A publisher of a periodical who includes a notice that "publication is reserved" is entitled to protection against reproduction of its articles without citation of the source, even without formal copyright registration, pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 5 of Act No. 3134, which contains a provision not found in the United States Copyright Law.

Philippine Education Company, Inc. is a domestic corporation and the proprietor and publisher of the monthly magazine Philippine Education Magazine, of general circulation in the Philippine Islands. V.R. Alindada was the editor of The Independent, a weekly newspaper also published in Manila and of general circulation. Vicente Sotto was initially named as a co-defendant as the alleged proprietor and publisher of The Independent but was later dismissed from the case. The dispute arose under Act No. 3134 of the Philippine Legislature, entitled "An Act to protect intellectual property" and known as the Copyright Law of the Philippine Islands, which was modeled on but not identical to the United States Copyright Law.

Philippine Education Company, Inc., a domestic corporation with its principal office in Manila, is the proprietor and publisher of the monthly magazine Philippine Education Magazine, published in Manila and of general circulation in the Philippine Islands. V.R. Alindada was the editor of The Independent, a weekly newspaper also published in Manila and of general circulation. Vicente Sotto was initially named as a co-defendant as the alleged proprietor and publisher of The Independent, but he denied any ownership or intervention in its publication and was later dismissed from the complaint upon his motion without objection from the plaintiff.

In December 1927, the plaintiff contracted with Austin Craig for the preparation and publication of an original article concerning Mrs. Jose Rizal, to be published exclusively in the Philippine Education Magazine. Craig prepared and wrote the article entitled "The True Story of Mrs. Rizal," delivered it to the plaintiff, and was paid for it, thereby making the plaintiff the exclusive owner. The plaintiff printed and published the article in its December 1927 issue, which was on the market for sale in the early part of that month. The magazine contained a note on the third page containing the index, under letter A, reading "All Rights Reserved." Neither Craig nor the plaintiff applied for or obtained a formal copyright of the article under Act No. 3134.

The Independent published the article in its issues of December 24 and December 31, 1927, making the name of the author appear in the heading of the article but without citing the source. Upon discovery, the editor of the Philippine Education Magazine wrote to Alindada on December 23, noting that the article was published "without permission or even the courtesy of an ordinary credit line," requesting that the next issue state prominently that the article was taken from their magazine, and further requesting that he refrain from similar acts in the future, calling attention to the fact that the title page stated plainly that all rights were reserved and that infringement was at the defendant's peril. In reply, the editor of The Independent protested against the use of the word "thefts," advised the plaintiff that it had not registered its right under the Copyright Law, and stated that "any newspaper can reprint the article of Professor Craig without permission from anybody," offering what he termed "a free lesson of law." Notwithstanding this exchange, the article was again published in the next issue of The Independent on December 31, without citing the source but again making the name of the author appear.

The plaintiff alleged damages of P5,000 and sought a perpetual injunction against further publication without its knowledge or consent. The case was tried and submitted upon admitted facts, including the admission that the article was not registered in the Copyright Office, that the plaintiff paid Craig for the article, and that Alindada admitted sole civil responsibility. The lower court rendered judgment against Alindada for P500, without costs, and he appealed, contending that the lower court erred in overruling the demurrer to the complaint and in sentencing him to pay P500.

• Public Domain After Publication Without Copyright: Appellant contended that after the article was once published without a copyright in the plaintiff's magazine, it became public property, and he had a legal right to publish it in his magazine without giving the source of the reproduction.
• No Copyright Registration: Appellant argued that the plaintiff had not registered its right under the Copyright Law, and that "any newspaper can reprint the article of Professor Craig without permission from anybody," invoking what he termed "a free lesson of law."
• Demurrer Should Have Been Sustained: Appellant contended that the lower court erred in overruling the demurrer to the complaint, on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

• Statutory Construction of Section 5, Second Paragraph: Whether the second paragraph of Section 5 of Act No. 3134 requires that the source of reproduction be cited even when the article reproduced is not formally copyrighted but contains a notice that publication is reserved.
• Effect of "All Rights Reserved" Notice: Whether a notice that "all rights are reserved" is legally equivalent to a notice that "publication is reserved" under the second paragraph of Section 5 of Act No. 3134.

• Statutory Construction of Section 5, Second Paragraph: Yes. The second paragraph of Section 5 applies to articles in periodicals that contain either a notice that publication is reserved or a notice of copyright, and in either event the source of the reproduction must be cited.
• Effect of "All Rights Reserved" Notice: Yes. The plaintiff's notice that it reserved all rights was legally equivalent to a notice that publication is reserved, and the defendant's failure to cite the source constituted a violation of the statute.

• Statutory Construction of Section 5, Second Paragraph: The second paragraph of Section 5 provides that "news items, editorial paragraphs, and articles in periodicals may also be reproduced unless they contain a notice that their publication is reserved or a notice of copyright, but the source of the reproduction or original reproduced shall be cited." The language is plain, clear, definite, and certain. The provision creates two alternative conditions under which reproduction is restricted: (1) when the periodical contains a notice that publication is reserved, or (2) when it contains a notice of copyright. The word "or" after "reserved" makes clear these are distinct, alternative triggers. If the Legislature had intended to limit the provision to copyrighted works only, it would not have included the words "they contain a notice that their publication is reserved." To construe the provision as applying only to copyrighted matter would nullify, eliminate, and take from the paragraph those very words, which the Court has no legal right to do. The exception is specifically confined to "news items, editorial paragraphs, and articles in periodicals," and thus does not impair the rest of the Copyright Law. The provision, which is not found in the United States Copyright Law, was inserted for a specific purpose: to protect an enterprising newspaper or magazine that invests its money and pays for the right to publish an original article. The defendant had the legal right to publish the article by citing the source of reproduction, but failed to do so.

• Effect of "All Rights Reserved" Notice: The plaintiff did not give notice of copyright, for the simple reason that it did not have a copyright. But it did notify the defendant that in the publication of the article it "reserved all rights," which was legally equivalent to a notice that "their publication is reserved." The defendant published the article without citing the source of reproduction, making it appear, for all that appeared in his paper, that the article was purchased and paid for by the defendant. The Court noted that common courtesy among newspaper men would have suggested giving the source of reproduction, which would have been a very simple and easy thing to do.

• Plain Meaning Rule in Statutory Construction — When the language of a statute is plain, clear, definite, and certain, the court has no legal right to say that the Legislature did not mean what it said. Every word in the statute must be given effect; no word should be treated as a nullity. The Court applied this doctrine by refusing to eliminate the words "they contain a notice that their publication is reserved" from the second paragraph of Section 5, holding that to construe the provision as applying only to copyrighted matter would wipe out those words entirely.

• Reservation of Publication Rights in Periodicals Without Formal Copyright — Under the second paragraph of Section 5 of Act No. 3134, a publisher of a periodical who includes a notice that "publication is reserved" is entitled to protection against reproduction of its articles without citation of the source, even without formal copyright registration. This protection is distinct from and in addition to the protection afforded by formal copyright registration, and arises from a provision unique to the Philippine Copyright Law and not found in the United States Copyright Law. The protection is specifically limited to news items, editorial paragraphs, and articles in periodicals.

• "The language is plain, clear, define and certain, and this court has no legal right to say that the Legislature did not mean what it said when it used those words, which is all the more apparent by the use of the word 'or' after the word 'reserved.'" — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi on statutory construction, establishing that the plain meaning of the statute must control and that the alternative conditions in Section 5 ("notice that their publication is reserved" or "notice of copyright") must be given independent effect.

• "In the instant case, the plaintiff did not give notice of its copyright, for the simple reason that it did not have a copyright, but it did notify the defendant that in the publication of the article 'we reserved all rights,' which was legally equivalent to a notice 'that their publication is reserved.'" — This is the key holding applying the statute to the facts, establishing that an "All Rights Reserved" notice functions as a notice that publication is reserved under Act No. 3134.

• "We are clearly of the opinon that the language in question in the Copyright Law of the Philippine Islands, which is not found in the Copyright Law of the United States, was inserted for a specific purpose, and it was intended to prohibit the doing of the very thing which the defendant did in this case; otherwise, the use of all of those words is a nullity." — This passage explains the legislative purpose behind the unique Philippine provision and confirms that the Court viewed the provision as deliberately designed to protect periodical publishers who invest in original articles.

N/A — The Court noted that the legal question was one of first impression and that the case was submitted without citation of any decision under the same or similar statute. United States copyright decisions were discussed but distinguished on the ground that the Philippine statute contains provisions not found in the United States Copyright Law, rendering those decisions not in point.

• Section 2, Act No. 3134 (Copyright Law of the Philippine Islands) — Defines and enumerates what may be copyrighted, including books, composite and cyclopedic works, manuscripts, commentaries, and critical studies. The Court cited this provision to establish the general scope of copyrightable subject matter under the Act.

• Section 4, Act No. 3134 — Provides that "articles and other writings published without the names of the authors or under pseudonyms are considered as the property of the publishers." The Court referenced this provision in analyzing the statutory framework, though it was not directly dispositive of the issue.

• Section 5, Act No. 3134 — The first paragraph permits quotation, citation, or reproduction of lines, passages, or paragraphs in copyrighted works for comment, dissertation, or criticism. The second paragraph permits reproduction of news items, editorial paragraphs, and articles in periodicals unless they contain a notice that publication is reserved or a notice of copyright, but requires that the source of the reproduction be cited. This was the controlling provision: the Court held that the second paragraph creates two alternative conditions restricting reproduction and that the source-citation requirement applies in either event, and that the plaintiff's "All Rights Reserved" notice was legally equivalent to a notice that publication is reserved.

Malcolm, Ostrand, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concurred in the majority opinion.

Villamor, J., concurred in the majority opinion as regards the matter of law but dissented as to the amount of indemnity, believing the award should be reduced to P200 for lack of proof, pursuant to Section 19 of Act No. 3134.

• Street, J. — Dissented on the ground that the decision creates an anomalous right not heretofore recognized by statute or decision. He argued that it is rudimentary in copyright law that publication without copyright constitutes a dedication to the public, leaving everyone free to utilize the matter with or without giving credit, and that this rule is universal. He contended that the second paragraph of Section 5 deals only with copyrighted matter, read in pari materia with the first paragraph, which expressly refers to "copyrighted works." He maintained that the word "copyrighted" was not repeated before "periodicals" and "musical works" only because the subject matter was already defined in the first paragraph, not because the Legislature intended to extend protection to uncopyrighted matter. He argued that the insertion of the words "or a notice of copyright" does not justify extending the provision to uncopyrighted periodicals, and that the Court's interpretation improperly uses a limiting clause to extend the purview of the general clause it limits. He further noted that the Act does not define the right of literary property in uncopyrighted matter, does not state the duration of the newly discovered right, and that exclusive rights can only be acquired by effecting copyright in the manner provided by law. He maintained that the judgment should be reversed.