Healing Hilot: Protecting Indigenous Massage Techniques

The Dagdagay Hilot is an ancient massage technique that was developed by the indigenous cultural communities (ICCs) of Mountain Province in the Philippines. Here, the masseuse uses uniquely shaped sticks to massage the soles of the feet in order to stimulate blood circulation. This technique is often paired with the use of virgin coconut oil and other herbs. It is believed to be effective therapy for hypertension, hormonal imbalance, depression and stress.

Today, many health spas and massage establishments employ this technique as part of their services. Cropping up alongside them are schools or training facilities that offer to teach these techniques and issue certificates for successful students. Much money changes hands in this industry, yet there has been no reported benefit to the communities of Mountain Province from which these techniques were copied. This is also true for all other indigenous hilot techniques and the communities from which they originate.

Under the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA), ICCs have the right to exercise ownership over their health practices, among other things.[1]

The law reads: “they shall have the right to special measures to control, develop and protect their sciences, technologies and cultural manifestations…”

Unfortunately, this provision presently treated as a mere declaratory statement and it will continue to be one up until the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) shall have properly defined and operationalized these 'special measures'.

A different provision of the law offers more clarity by saying that Community Intellectual Rights (CIRs) may not be taken without ‘Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)’ or ‘in violation of their laws, traditions and customs’.[2]

These rights may be used as a basis for community ownership over a health practice like massage techniques. This community property may then be the subject of a contract for the use of the technique and its name. Franchising this knowledge and brand could be a good and steady source of revenue for a community for as long as there is a properly executed contract, compliant with the dual requirements of FPIC and conformity with the community’s laws, traditions and customs.

Schools and training facilities must also be subject to the quality standards set by the community’s master practitioners. Certificates issued will no longer simply be a result of x number of hours spent in class but an authentic stamp of approval by the communities themselves of the proper application of the technique.

Trademark law can be used to support this business model by registering certification marks that may be used authenticate spas, health establishments or schools that wish to use the community’s brand. 

A “DAGDAGAY” certified establishment assures the public of the quality and authenticity of the service being offered while everybody else is prohibited from using the brand or mark. Any violator will then be liable for both trademark infringement and violation of the provisions of IPRA.

This combination of protective measures under IPRA and the Intellectual Property Code can help create a system that would give life to the ideals set by IPRA to protect the cultural integrity of our ICCs and to help them maintain control over and benefit from their knowledge, systems and practices.

Perhaps someday we can enjoy our massages with real peace of mind, knowing that our patronage is helping our indigenous peoples in a very real way.

---

[1] Sec. 34. Right to Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices and to Develop own Sciences and Technologies. - ICCs/IPs are entitled to the recognition of the full ownership and control and protection of their cultural and intellectual rights. They shall have the right to special measures to control, develop and protect their sciences, technologies and cultural manifestations, including human and other genetic resources, seeds, including derivatives of these resources, traditional medicines and health practices, vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals, indigenous knowledge systems and practices, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literature, designs, and visual and performing arts.

[2] Sec. 32. Community Intellectual Rights. - ICCs/IPs have the right to practice and revitalize their own cultural traditions and customs. The State shall preserve, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures as well as the right to the restitution of cultural, intellectual, religious, and spiritual property taken without their free and prior informed consent or in violation of their laws, traditions and customs. (emphasis supplied)

Copyright and the Visual Artist

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Precious Leano, FILVADRO Executive Director

Mobile: 0917 828 8690

Email: precious.leano@gmail.com

FILVADRO UPHOLDS COPYRIGHT OF VISUAL ARTISTS

Collective Management Organization to be launched in Copyright Forum at the CCP

The Filipino Visual Arts and Design Rights Organization (FILVADRO), the country’s collective management organization (CMO) for the visual arts, will be launched in a copyright forum at the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) on 22 September, 2-5 pm.

International copyright expert Atty. KT Ang from the Confederation of International Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) will speak to visual artists about how to manage the licensing of artworks and how CMOs, with focus on models abroad, support the visual artist’s work.  Also speaking during the forum will be Atty. Mark Robert Dy of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines who will present the Copyright law including, the national system of Registration.

FILVADRO was organized by key visual artists and cultural workers after a series of consultations was conducted in 2009 by the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines. Visual artists, including painters, photographers, sculptors, and graphic artists,  have stated in the consultations that there is a need for a visual arts CMO that would assert copyright for the individual. An informal survey conducted during the consultations showed that 100% of visual artists who participated in the survey have not received resale royalties.  

 “FILVADRO acts on behalf of its members to address copyright concerns, mainly the collection of resale rights for artwork sold after the first purchase, the licensing of art images for publication on all kinds of print and digital media, and the reproduction of art on items used for profit and promotion.  It will represent artists in the collection of royalties from copyright users and will be able to extend this representation to other countries where FILVADRO has  partner CMOs,” said Karen Ocampo Flores, noted visual artist and President of FILVADRO.

FILVADRO has recently signed a sister society agreement with the French La Societies Des Auteurs Dans Les Arts Graphiques Et Plastiques (ADAGP), the oldest visual arts CMO in the world. Likewise, FILVADRO is working closely with BONO, the Norwegian CMO for the visual arts.

FILVADRO was founded by noted artists Alex Baluyut, Yael Buencamino, Tina Colayco, Noel Cuizon, Egai Talusan Fernandez, Karen Ocampo Flores, Emmanuel Garibay, Jeannie Javelosa, and cultural worker Precious Leano.   Sculptor and new media artist Josephine Turalba and ceramicist Rita Badillo has recently joined the current Board of Trustees of FILVADRO.

The FILVADRO Forum and Launch is supported by the Cultural Center of the Philippines, Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines, CISAC, and the Norwegian Copyright Development Association (NORCODE).

The Stylistic Mr. Lee

Clearly, our trademark system has failed.

This shop is in Taguig.

iSchools SAPOT develops IP sensitive Content for Students; IPO status Scored

Original article found at:

http://www.ischools.ph/project_updates/ischools-sapot-develops-ip-sensitive-content-for-students-ipo-status-scored.html

by: Kairos Dela Cruz

“Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being”.

We all know our rights, sometimes we even overshoot on assuming them. The latter even makes some of us neglect the existence of others and the rights that are intrinsic to them. In cases of violence, people know about their human rights. In cases of trials, even the accused parties have the guts to assume their rights to remain silent. In the cases wherein students duplicate or photocopy resource materials, the Philippines appear to be blatant in transgressing intellectual property issues.

Should this be the case and future of Philippine education? Students stealing to become educated?

iSchools Project says NO.

iSchools Project, a government-funded ICT-education integration program, seeks to educate students not just by giving them free computer laboratories and training workshops; but also by providing them with intellectual property- sensitive educational materials.

SAPOT Participants (institutional/individual partners and project staff) pose for a group pick at Angels' Hills, Tagaytay last July 20-22, 2011.

The project seeks to provide high-quality educational content to the project’s high school recipients through its Content Mapping Initiative (CMI), more popularly coined as Supplementary Academic Philippine Online Treasury (SAPOT). The initiative is part of the project’s thrust in empowering the major stakeholders (teachers, students, and community members) of its recipient schools.

Representatives from iSchools partner institutions meet up with iSchools Project Manager, Toni Torres (in maroon) to insure the smooth flow of SAPOT.

As Toni Torres, iSchools Project Manager, puts it “iSchools Project believes that ICT can propel the Philippine education system but the project will not compromise any values in doing so. 

Content, especially in education, comes at a price that not everyone can afford. To help in solving the problem, iSchools would provide free content materials in different subjects, materials that will undergo rigorous academic scrutinizing. Permissions from the “whose” end of these content materials will be coordinated and negotiated by the project”.

In the recent outlining and primary mapping workshop for CMI, iSchools Project joined hands with major academic, cultural and legal institutions at Angels’ Hills, Tagaytay City last June 20-22, 2011. Among the many subject matter experts, Atty. Mark Dy of the Intellectual Property Office (IPO-Phils.) was given the chance to explain the need and implications of insuring that CMI would not transgress any level of the intellectual property rights of the proponents of the content materials that the initiative wishes to include in the final content map.

According to Atty. Dy, “Respect for intellectual property is a strong indicator of quality creative & educational content. Designing world-class educational material always includes proper referencing, attribution and copyright clearance for all the components used in the project. This way, credit is given to those who deserve it and the entire project is kept fresh and original”.

iSchools SAPOT will distribute the content materials to project recipient high schools tentatively through three major media- an online portal, portable external hard disk, and a magazine-type catalog. All of these materials will be distributed free of charge.

Atty. Mark Dy from the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) briefs SAPOT participants about the possible IP implications of the initiative.

During Atty. Dy’s lecture he came across why initiatives such as SAPOT are pushing a holistic change for intellectual property in the Philippines. iSchools SAPOT is one of the first of its kind but it would not be the last of iSchools’ attempts in bridging the digital divide.

“The creative, scientific and academic communities must demand greater institutional support for copyright in the Philippines if we want our creative content to flourish. Senate Bill 2487, once passed into law, will create the Bureau of Copyright under the Intellectual Property Office, dedicated to copyright policies and programs. Presently, our Intellectual Property Office only has an ad hoc team composed of two lawyers and about 10 support personnel manning the entire copyright system of the country. In contrast, South Korea has about 800. We urge everyone to support the passing of Senate Bill 2487 and lift Filipino creativity to the very top”, Dy added.

Attributing the author with due recognition is a basic in respecting intellectual property; here is an example.

Khalil Gibran, an internationally acclaimed philosopher, and author may sound too noble and too ideal when he published the opening line. In all honesty, maybe the world can use a little of this nobility and idealism.

Jollibean

from www.jollibean.com

Yes, Singapore copies too.

I don't know the real story... whether Jollibee has ever tried to sue or whether they can even win this case.

This can certainly be an interesting debate about protecting well-known Filipino marks. 

If Jollibee can't be protected as THE well-known mark, then all others might as well be lost in overseas commerce.

Have a cup of Jollibean while you think about it...

from www.jollibean.com

Shangri-La Restaurant Lives

Shangri-La Restaurant in Times Street, Quezon City, Philippines

From the trademark-junkie favorite Shangri-La International v. Developers Group (G.R. 159931, March 31, 2006 and January 22, 2007) case. 

_____

Read the two Shangri-La cases in the Philippine Supreme Court here:

first case:

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_159938_2006.html

second case:

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_159938_2007.html

Diner Dash in the Flesh

Copyright & Trademark Infringement in One Strike

spotted along Bayani Road, Taguig City, Philippines

Philippine Jurisprudence: The Skechers Trademark Case (2011)

Skechers, USA, Inc. v. Inter-Pacific Industrial Trading Corp.

G.R. No. 164321 (2011)

Skechers, USA Inc. is the owner of the registered trademarks “Skechers” and “S within an oval logo”.

Skechers filed a criminal case for trademark infringement against several store-owners that were selling shoes branded as “Strong” and bearing a similar “S” logo. The Regional Trial Court (RTC)  issued search warrants, allowing the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to raid the stores and confiscate 6,000 pairs of shoes.

The accused moved to quash the warrants, saying that there was no confusing similarity between the “Skechers” and the “Strong” brands.

The RTC granted the motion to quash and ordered the NBI to return the seized goods. The court said that the two brands had glaring differences and that an ordinary prudent consumer would not mistake one for the other.

On certiorari, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC ruling.

The matter was elevated to the Supreme Court (SC).

Issue: Did the accused commit trademark infringement?

Yes, the accused is guilty of trademark infringement.

Under the IP Code (RA No. 8293), trademark infringement is committed when: 

Remedies; Infringement. — Any person who shall, without the consent of the owner of the registered mark:  

155.1. Use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark or the same container or a dominant feature thereof in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, advertising of any goods or services including other preparatory steps necessary to carry out the sale of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or  

155.2. Reproduce, counterfeit, copy or colorably imitate a registered mark or a dominant feature thereof and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive, shall be liable in a civil action for infringement by the registrant for the remedies hereinafter set forth: Provided, That the infringement takes place at the moment any of the acts stated in Subsection 155.1 or this subsection are committed regardless of whether there is actual sale of goods or services using the infringing material. (emphasis supplied)

There is trademark infringement when the second mark used is likely to cause confusion. There are two tests to determine this:

1. Dominancy Test – the court focuses on the similarity of the dominant features of the marks that might cause confusion in the mind of the consumer. Duplication or imitation is not necessary. Even accidental confusion may be cause for trademark infringement. More consideration is given to the aural and visual impressions created by the marks on the buyers and less weight is given to factors like price, quality, sales outlets and market segments.  

Applied to this case: The SC found that the use of the “S” symbol by Strong rubber shoes infringes on the registered Skechers trademark. It is the most dominant feature of the mark -- one that catches the buyer’s eye first. Even if the accused claims that there was a difference because the “S” used by Skechers is found inside an oval, the fact that the accused used the dominant “S” symbol already constitutes trademark infringement.  

The SC disagreed with the CA reasoning that the “S” symbol is already used for many things, including the Superman symbol. Even if this is true, the fact that Strong used same stylized “S” symbol as that of the Skechers brand makes this a case of trademark infringement. The same font and style was used in this case. The Superman “S” symbol is clearly different from the “S” in this case.  

2. Holistic or Totality Test – the court looks at the entirety of the marks as applied to the products, including the labels and packaging. You must not only look at the dominant features but all other features appearing on both marks.  

Applied to this case: Both RTC and CA used the Holistic Test to rule that there was no infringement. Both courts argued the following differences: 

• The mark “S” found in Strong Shoes is not enclosed in an “oval design.”

• The word “Strong” is conspicuously placed at the backside and insoles.

• The hang tags and labels attached to the shoes bears the word “Strong” for respondent and “Skechers U.S.A.” for private complainant;

• Strong shoes are modestly priced compared to the costs of Skechers Shoes.
 

Also using the Holistic Test, the SC corrected the lower courts and ruled that the striking similarities between the products outweigh the differences argued by the respondents:

• Same color scheme of blue, white and gray;

• Same wave-like pattern on the midsole and the outer sole;

• Same elongated designs at the side of the midsole near the heel;

• Same number of ridges on the outer soles (five at the back and six in front);

• Same location of the stylized “S” symbol;

• The words "Skechers Sport Trail" at the back of the Skechers shoes and "Strong Sport Trail" at the back of the Strong shoes, using the same font, color, size, direction and orientation;

• Same two grayish-white semi-transparent circles on top of the heel collars.

The features and overall design of the two products are so similar that there is a high likelihood of confusion. 

Two products do not need to be identical, they just need to be similar enough to confuse the ordinary buyer in order to constitute trademark infringement (Converse Rubber Corporation v. Jacinto Rubber & Plastic Co., 186 Phil. 85 [1980]). Also, the difference in price cannot be a defense in a case for trademark infringement (McDonald’s Corporation v. L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc., 480 Phil. 402, 434 [2004]).

There are two types of confusion:

1. Product Confusion – where the ordinary prudent purchaser would be induced to purchase on product in the belief that he was buying another.
2. Source or Origin Confusion – although the goods are different, the use of the mark causes the consumer to assume that both products originate from the same source. 

Trademark law protects the owner not only from product confusion but also from source confusion. Protection is not limited to the same or similar products but extends to all cases where:

• The consumer is misled into thinking that the trademark owner extended his business into a new field;

• The consumer is misled into thinking that the trademark owner is in any way connected to the infringer’s activities; or 

• The infringement forestalls the normal potential expansion of the trademark owner’s business.

Trademark law does not only protect the owner’s reputation and goodwill, it also protects the consumers from fraud and confusion. 

In this case, it is clear that there was an attempt to copy the trademark owner’s mark and product design. In trademark infringement cases, you do not need to copy another's mark or product exactly. Colorable imitation is enough.

Gatorade: A cautionary and success story on the importance of having a university IP Policy

I just came back from a very productive trip to Cebu and Dumaguete. My mission there was to teach university administrators and faculty members about intellectual property rights (IPRs) and why every school should have its own IP Policy.

Conducting Basic Orientation Seminar on Intellectual Property Rights to university administrators and faculty members from different schools all over the Visayan islands.

It was no surprise that there wasn't much accurate knowledge about IPRs floating around. I have been visiting schools all over the country for some time now and the same old recurring theme always comes to greet us: educators need to be educated about their IP rights and those of their students. They need to learn how their copyrights, trademarks, industrial designs, trade secrets, utility models and patents figure into their daily work.


After the basics, we then go into the more difficult task of crafting IP Policies for each individual school, institution or university. 


So what is an IP Policy and why is it so important when we already have the IP Code? 


IP Policies are rules set by a group, institution or even an individual to govern the ownership, management and transfer of IPRs. It's important for institutions and schools because the people working for them need to know how much of their IPRs they get to keep and how much they need to give up to be part of that group. 


Even if the IP Code is sufficient to provide protection of IPRs, the law also leaves us with a wide latitude of contractual freedom so that people and institutions get to decide how IPRs are managed among them. Upon this wide space, institutions need to craft a predictable rulebook on IPRs so that those who create them can manage their expectations as to how much money and credit they will receive for their work.


Universities and colleges are IP manufacturers of the highest grade. It's only a matter of time before that student stumbles upon that formula to destroy that formerly incurable disease or that professor invents human teleportation. What we believe to be science fiction is explored and made real every day in these schools. With such prolific intellectual activity, there is great potential for creation and commercialization of intellectual assets. 


The classic success and cautionary story on the importance of IP Policies is the story of how Gatorade came to be.


What we recognize today as the gold standard in sports drinks was created in the laboratories of the University of Florida in 1965 by a team of university researchers, upon the request of Florida Gators assistant coach Ray Graves -- the drink, of course, was later named after the team.

Taken from Wikipedia.org and used for educational & historical illustration only.

This drink was designed to quickly hydrate a player and replenish the carbohydrates and electrolytes lost during physical exertion. The invention was a massive success and was considered to be the tipping point that led the Gators to win their first Orange Bowl championship against the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets.


Word would then spread to the different schools and the different states and sports teams started ordering Gatorade by the truck. Gatorade was then purchased by the Quaker Oats Company and then by PepsiCo. It would be marketed worldwide and was accepted as the official sports drink of the NFL, the NBA, the NHL and even NASCAR. Today, Gatorade makes roughly a billion dollars in revenue each year. From this, the University of Florida has received $100 million in royalty payments alone. (http://www.gatorade.com/history/default.aspx)

Taken from www.gatorade.com and used for educational & historical illustration only.

So what's the problem here?

Well, for starters, there were several lawsuits concerning the ownership of the Gatorade formula. Because there was no clear IP Policy in place during the time of its creation, the government was said that the researchers had no proprietary rights over the formula because they were using federal money to fund their research. The University of Florida also claimed IP rights over the formula because its facilities were used for its creation. 


After the bloody legal battle, a settlement was reached awarding 20% of the royalties to the university. 


Indeed, the story seems to end well. But one can't help but wonder how much more the university could have received if it only had an IP Policy in place. 


Going even further, could the researchers have had a larger share in the revenue? could the coach who initiated the project have received a small cut? could the student assistants who helped the researchers have received a portion of the rewards or at least credit for the invention?


All these things could have been clarified a school's IP Policy. A mere chapter in the student handbook could have spelled the difference between a million dollars and nothing. 

Discussing Copyright and IP Policy with faculty members of the Notre Dame University in Cotabato City (Photo by M.R. Dy © 2010)

Here in the Philippines, these same questions and conflicts arise every day. Each time a student submits a thesis or dissertation, the faculty member who spent long hours refining the work and advising the student wonders if he or she should get credit for the extra effort. Such credit could have been used to secure a professorial promotion or a study grant had there been a policy in place.


Each time a professor publishes a book that was edited by a team of students, they wonder if they should be credited as co-authors or if they deserve a tiny bit of the royalties as a reward for their work. Such acknowledgement could have been included in the student's CV, giving him or her a chance at better employment and further studies.


Fair is only fair if you agree upon a set of rules before playing the game. People working in a university setting miss so many opportunities to improve their careers, their portfolios and their incomes because no IP Policy exists to manage their rights. I have been a victim of this. If we had an IP policy when I was still in college and law school, I could properly claim to be an author of at least three books. Right now, I don't even know what rights I have over my thesis.

A hotbed of invention and innovation -- The Agricultural Engineering Workshop at the University of Southern Mindanao, Kidapawan Campus (Photo by M.R. Dy © 2010)

We have been travelling the country from Baguio to General Santos City and have found the response of the different schools to be very encouraging. Today we have over 30 colleges and universities with active IP Policies and 20 others that are drafting theirs. This gold mine is slowly being excavated one school at a time.


Genius is everywhere. We simply have to manage it. 




_____


To know more about formulating your own IP Policies, you may email IPOPHL: mail@ipophil.gov.ph






According to 2010 figures, the following schools have active IP Policies:

1. Aklan State University
2. Batangas State University
3. Benguet State University
4. Bicol University
5. Camarines Sur Polytechnic College
6. Camarines Sur State Agricultural College
7. Carlos Hilado Memorial State College
8. Central Philippines University
9. De La Salle University-Manila
10. Eulogio Amang Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology
11. Laguna State Polytechnic University - Siniloan Campus
12. Mariano Marcos State University
13. Mindoro State College of Agriculture and Technology
14. Naval Institute of Technology
15. Northern Iloilo Polytechnic State College
16. Northern Negros State College of Science and Technology
17. Notre Dame University - Mabel
18. Polytechnic University of the Philippines
19. Samar State College of Agriculture and Forestry
20. Southern Leyte State University
21. Southern Luzon State University
22. St. Jude College
23. Tarlac College of Agriculture
24. Tarlac State University
25. Technological University of the Philippines
26. University of Rizal System
27. University of San Carlos
28. University of Sto. Tomas
29. University of the Philippines - Diliman
30. Visayan State University
31. West Visayas State University
32. Western Philippines University
33. Western Visayas College of Science and Technology
34. Xavier University - Ateneo de Cagayan

The following schools are in the process of drafting their IP Policies:

1. Abra State Institute of Sciences and Technology - Main Campus
2. Ateneo de Naga University
3. Bataan Peninsula State University
4. Bulacan State University
5. Capiz State University
6. Cebu Institute of Technology
7. Cebu State College of Science and Technology - FIZ Camotes, Tuburan and AIFC Campuses
8. Eastern Samar State University
9. Eastern Visayas State University
10. Ifugao State College of Agriculture and Forestry
11. Kalinga Apayao State College
12. Leyte Colleges
13. Notre Dame of Dadiangas University
14. Partido State University
15. Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Medical Center
16. Samar State University
17. University of Northern Philippines
18. University of Southern Mindanao

Who You Calling Spineless? -- The Collective Management of Copyright for Books in the Philippines

I just came from a forum by the Filipinas Copyright Licensing Society (FILCOLS) where they presented a solution to illegal photocopying of copyright-protected works. 

FILCOLS Executive Director Alvin Buenaventura says that copyright is a human right and is necessary to protect the way of life and dignity of the author.

Entitled 'Copyright: Empowering the Research University', the forum was actually a pitch to De La Salle University (DLSU) to convince them to become the first university in the Philippines to enter into a licensing agreement with FILCOLS, as the Philippines' recognized Reprographic Rights Organization (RRO). If the negotiations proceed as planned, DLSU would effectively be the first institution in the country to declare its respect for the intellectual property of authors.


It all sounds so grand, but several questions must come to mind. What is an RRO? What is the deal all about? Why is it so important?


An RRO is an organization that acts as an agent for publishers and authors in order to manage their copyrights. Also known as a Collective Management Organization (CMO), these organizations are tasked to collect royalties from users of copyright-protected works and distribute the same to the authors of these works. This way, the user obtains the freedom to make copies of works without the fear of committing copyright infringement, while the authors receive income for the use of their work.


An example of a working CMO in the Philippines is the Filipino Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (FILSCAP), which manages the copyright-protected works in the music business. FILSCAP has successfully collected income on behalf of artists and composers for several years and now FILCOLS is seeking to do the same for the publishing industry.


The basis for creating RROs or CMOs is found in our IP Code:

Section 183. Designation of Society. - The copyright owners or their heirs may designate a society of artists, writers or composers to enforce their economic rights and moral rights on their behalf. 

So what does FILCOLS offer the university? The freedom to photocopy any material from any publication without fear of incurring liability for copyright infringement. In exchange, the university will pay a per-student fee to FILCOLS per semester, which will be passed on to the students as a minimal increase in their tuition fees (about P100 or $2 per semester). This money will then be used to pay for the administrative costs of FILCOLS and then the remaining amount shall be distributed to the authors being represented by the organization.


In addition, the FILCOLS license acts as a quasi-insurance against liability for copyright infringement because FILCOLS will absorb liability up to a certain amount, even for works they do not represent. This effectively shields the university from legal liability and reputation damage. Theoretically, this license will even cover orphaned works, over which FILCOLS will hold the royalties in trust for the benefit of the missing author, in case he or she turns up.

Mr. Paul Wee, CEO of the Singapore-based Copyright Licensing and Administration Society of Singapore (CLASS), says that they are entering into an agreement with FILCOLS to protect Filipino works being used in Singapore and Singaporean works being used in the Philippines.

This elegant solution to copyright management has been found to be effective in the UK, France, Norway, Singapore, and many other countries. FILCOLS is a member of the International Federation of Reprographic Rights Organisations (IFRRO), which is a global network of CMOs for the publishing industry. To protect foreign works, FILCOLS has entered into agreements with RROs from the United States, Singapore, UK, and other countries to protect the works of their authors here in the Philippines. In turn, these foreign RROs have agreed to protect Filipino works used in their countries and hold any collected royalties in trust for them.


The licensing activities of FILCOLS is an effective first step in promoting respect for copyright in the academe. It bears noting, however, that this license is directed at university-sanctioned copying (e.g. the production of course packs or handout compilations) and does not limit legitimate fair use activities by students and faculty under our IP Code.

Ms. Karen Pitt, General Counsel of the Australia-based Copyright Agency Limited (CAL), says that the educational system in Australia takes copyright very seriously. You cannot be considered a serious institution unless you are copyright compliant.

In the international academic community, respect for intellectual property rights has become an essential condition to be considered among the very best. Quality education requires intellectual honesty, which in turn, demands respect for other people's copyright and hard work.


In this country, where photocopiers and "book-alike" services abound, a major attitudinal change has to yet to be put in place.


FILCOLS is attempting to destroy the myth that respecting copyright is too expensive for a third world country. By spreading out the cost among the entire student population, the personal expense we incur to support our authors and publishers becomes minuscule compared to what we spend on notebooks, pens or mobile phone credit.


Our authors need to feed their families too. We simply cannot choose to pay for electricity and food but not pay for our music, books, art and other intellectual creations. Ignoring the plight of our talented brothers and sisters is to sentence the creative and intellectual industries to a slow and painful death. 


As intelligent and talented as we are, unless we are paid fairly for our hard work, we will never be anything more than slaves. 


... and there's no dignity in that.