Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

G.R. No. L-36402 March 16, 1987

FILIPINO SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS, INC., plaintiff-appellant, vs.BENJAMIN TAN, defendant-appellee.

Lichauco, Picazo & Agcaoili Law Office for plaintiff-appellant.

Ramon A. Nieves for defendant-appellee.

 

PARAS, J.:

An appeal was made to the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. No. 46373-R * entitled Filipino Society of Composers, Authors, Publishers, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant v. Benjamin Tan, Defendant-Appellee, from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VII in Civil Case No. 71222 ** "Filipino Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, Inc., Plaintiff v. Benjamin Tan, Defendant," which had dismissed plaintiffs' complaint without special pronouncement as to costs.

The Court of Appeals, finding that the case involves pure questions of law, certified the same to the Supreme Court for final determination (Resolution, CA-G.R. No. 46373-R, Rollo, p. 36; Resolution of the Supreme Court of February 16, 1973 in L-36402, Rollo, p. 38).

The undisputed facts of this case are as follows:

Plaintiff-appellant is a non-profit association of authors, composers and publishers duly organized under the Corporation Law of the Philippines and registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Said association is the owner of certain musical compositions among which are the songs entitled: "Dahil Sa Iyo", "Sapagkat Ikaw Ay Akin," "Sapagkat Kami Ay Tao Lamang" and "The Nearness Of You."

On the other hand, defendant-appellee is the operator of a restaurant known as "Alex Soda Foundation and Restaurant" where a combo with professional singers, hired to play and sing musical compositions to entertain and amuse customers therein, were playing and singing the above-mentioned compositions without any license or permission from the appellant to play or sing the same. Accordingly, appellant demanded from the appellee payment of the necessary license fee for the playing and singing of aforesaid compositions but the demand was ignored.

Hence, on November 7, 1967, appellant filed a complaint with the lower court for infringement of copyright against defendant-appellee for allowing the playing in defendant-appellee's restaurant of said songs copyrighted in the name of the former.

Defendant-appellee, in his answer, countered that the complaint states no cause of action. While not denying the playing of said copyrighted compositions in his establishment, appellee maintains that the mere singing and playing of songs and popular tunes even if they are copyrighted do not constitute an infringement (Record on Appeal, p. 11; Resolution, CA-G.R. NO. 46373-R, Rollo, pp.

32-36) under the provisions of Section 3 of the Copyright Law (Act 3134 of the Philippine Legislature).

The lower court, finding for the defendant, dismissed the complaint (Record on Appeal, p. 25).

Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals which as already stated certified the case to the Supreme Court for adjudication on the legal question involved. (Resolution, Court of Appeals, Rollo, p. 36; Resolution of the Supreme Court of February 18, 1973, Rollo, p. 38).

In its brief in the Court of Appeals, appellant raised the following Assignment of Errors:

I

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS OF THE APPELLANT WERE IN THE NATURE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY WHEN THEY WERE COPYRIGHTED OR REGISTERED.

II

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS OF THE APPELLANT WERE PLAYED AND SUNG IN THE SODA FOUNTAIN AND RESTAURANT OF THE APPELLEE BY INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS AND ONLY UPON THE REQUEST OF CUSTOMERS.

III

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PLAYING AND SINGING OF COPYRIGHTED MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS IN THE SODA FOUNTAIN AND RESTAURANT OF THE APPELLEE ARE NOT PUBLIC PERFORMANCES FOR PROFIT OF THE SAID COMPOSITIONS WITHIN THE MEANING AND CONTEMPLATION OF THE COPYRIGHT LAW.

IV

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE APPELLEE IS LIABLE TO THE APPELLANT FOR FOUR (4) SEPARATE INFRINGEMENTS. (Brief for Appellant, pp. A and B).

The petition is devoid of merit.

The principal issues in this case are whether or not the playing and signing of musical compositions which have been copyrighted under the provisions of the Copyright Law (Act 3134) inside the establishment of the defendant-appellee constitute a public performance for profit within the meaning and contemplation of the Copyright Law of the Philippines; and assuming that there were indeed public performances for profit, whether or not appellee can be held liable therefor.

Appellant anchors its claim on Section 3(c) of the Copyright Law which provides:

SEC. 3. The proprietor of a copyright or his heirs or assigns shall have the exclusive right:

xxx xxx xxx

(c) To exhibit, perform, represent, produce, or reproduce the copyrighted work in any manner or by any method whatever for profit or otherwise; if not reproduced in copies for sale, to sell any manuscripts or any record whatsoever thereof;

xxx xxx xxx

It maintains that playing or singing a musical composition is universally accepted as performing the musical composition and that playing and singing of copyrighted music in the soda fountain and restaurant of the appellee for the entertainment of the customers although the latter do not pay for the music but only for the food and drink constitute performance for profit under the Copyright Law (Brief for the Appellant, pp. 19-25).

We concede that indeed there were "public performances for profit. "

The word "perform" as used in the Act has been applied to "One who plays a musical composition on a piano, thereby producing in the air sound waves which are heard as music ... and if the instrument he plays on is a piano plus a broadcasting apparatus, so that waves are thrown out, not only upon the air, but upon the other, then also he is performing the musical composition." (Buck, et al. v. Duncan, et al.; Same Jewell La Salle Realty Co., 32F. 2d. Series 367).

In relation thereto, it has been held that "The playing of music in dine and dance establishment which was paid for by the public in purchases of food and drink constituted "performance for profit" within a Copyright Law." (Buck, et al. v. Russon No. 4489 25 F. Supp. 317). Thus, it has been explained that while it is possible in such establishments for the patrons to purchase their food and drinks and at the same time dance to the music of the orchestra, the music is furnished and used by the orchestra for the purpose of inducing the public to patronize the establishment and pay for the entertainment in the purchase of food and drinks. The defendant conducts his place of business for profit, and it is public; and the music is performed for profit (Ibid, p. 319). In a similar case, the Court ruled that "The Performance in a restaurant or hotel dining room, by persons employed by the proprietor, of a copyrighted musical composition, for the entertainment of patrons, without charge for admission to hear it, infringes the exclusive right of the owner of the copyright." (Herbert v. Shanley Co.; John Church Co. v. Hillard Hotel Co., et al., 242 U.S. 590-591). In delivering the opinion of the Court in said two cases, Justice Holmes elaborated thus:

If the rights under the copyright are infringed only by a performance where money is taken at the door, they are very imperfectly protected. Performances not different in kind from those of the defendants could be given that might compete with and even destroy the success of the monopoly that the law intends the plaintiffs to have. It is enough to say that there is no need to construe the statute so narrowly. The defendants' performances are not eleemosynary. They are part of a total for which the public pays, and the fact that the price of the whole is attributed to a particular item which those present are expected to order is not important. It is true that the music is not the sole object, but neither is the food, which probably could be got cheaper elsewhere. The object is a repast in surroundings that to people having limited power of conversation or disliking the rival noise, give a luxurious pleasure not to be had from eating a silent meal. If music did not pay, it would be given up. If it pays, it pays out of the public's pocket. Whether it pays or not, the purpose of employing it is profit, and that is enough. (Ibid., p. 594).

In the case at bar, it is admitted that the patrons of the restaurant in question pay only for the food and drinks and apparently not for listening to the music. As found by the trial court, the music provided is for the purpose of entertaining and amusing the customers in order to make the establishment more attractive and desirable (Record on Appeal, p. 21). It will be noted that for the playing and singing the musical compositions involved, the combo was paid as independent contractors by the appellant (Record on Appeal, p. 24). It is therefore obvious that the expenses entailed thereby are added to the overhead of the restaurant which are either eventually charged in the price of the food and drinks or to the overall total of additional income produced by the bigger volume of business which the entertainment was programmed to attract. Consequently, it is beyond question that the playing and singing of the combo in defendant-appellee's restaurant constituted performance for profit contemplated by the Copyright Law. (Act 3134 amended by P.D. No. 49, as amended).

Nevertheless, appellee cannot be said to have infringed upon the Copyright Law. Appellee's allegation that the composers of the contested musical compositions waived their right in favor of the general public when they allowed their intellectual creations to become property of the public domain before applying for the corresponding copyrights for the same (Brief for Defendant-Appellee, pp. 14-15) is correct.

The Supreme Court has ruled that "Paragraph 33 of Patent Office Administrative Order No. 3 (as amended, dated September 18, 1947) entitled 'Rules of Practice in the Philippines Patent Office relating to the Registration of Copyright Claims' promulgated pursuant to Republic Act 165, provides among other things that an intellectual creation should be copyrighted thirty (30) days after its publication, if made in Manila, or within the (60) days if made elsewhere, failure of which renders such creation public property." (Santos v. McCullough Printing Company, 12 SCRA 324-325 [1964]. Indeed, if the general public has made use of the object sought to be copyrighted for thirty (30) days prior to the copyright application the law deems the object to have been donated to the public domain and the same can no longer be copyrighted.

A careful study of the records reveals that the song "Dahil Sa Iyo" which was registered on April 20, 1956 (Brief for Appellant, p. 10) became popular in radios, juke boxes, etc. long before registration (TSN, May 28, 1968, pp. 3-5; 25) while the song "The Nearness Of You" registered on January 14, 1955 (Brief for Appellant, p. 10) had become popular twenty five (25) years prior to 1968, (the year of the hearing) or from 1943 (TSN, May 28, 1968, p. 27) and the songs "Sapagkat Ikaw Ay Akin" and "Sapagkat Kami Ay Tao Lamang" both registered on July 10, 1966, appear to have been known and sang by the witnesses as early as 1965 or three years before the hearing in 1968. The testimonies of the witnesses at the hearing of this case on this subject were unrebutted by the appellant. (Ibid, pp. 28; 29 and 30).

Under the circumstances, it is clear that the musical compositions in question had long become public property, and are therefore beyond the protection of the Copyright Law.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the appealed decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila in Civil Case No. 71222 is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan (Chairman), Gutierrez, Jr., Padilla, Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur.

Alampay, J., took no part.

 

Footnotes

* Penned by Justice Ruperto G. Martin concurred in by Justices Andres Reyes and Mateo Canonoy.

** Penned by Judge Gregorio T. Lantin.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-30774             January 29, 1929

PHILIPPINE EDUCATION COMPANY, INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs.VICENTE SOTTO and V. R. ALINDADA defendants. V. R. ALINDADA, appellant.

Vicente Sotto for appellant.Gibbs, and McDonough and Roman Ozaeta for appellee.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff alleges that it is a domestic corporation, with its principal office in the City of Manila, of which the defendants are also residents and of legal age; that it is the proprietor and publisher of the monthly magazine Philippine Education Magazine, which is published in the City of Manila and of general circulation in the Philippine Islands; that the defendant, Vicente Sotto, is the proprietor and publisher, and the defendant, V. R. Alindada, is the editor of a weekly newspaper known as The Independent, which is also published in the City of Manila and also of such general circulation; that in December, 1927, plaintiff contracted with Austin Craig for the preparation and publication of an original article to be written by him concerning Mrs. Jose Rizal, to be published exclusively in the Philippine Education Magazine, and that by virtue thereof, the said Craig prepared and wrote an original article entitled "The True Story of Mrs. Rizal," and delivered it to the plaintiff which paid him for it, and thereby became the exclusive owner of the article; that it printed and published the article in its issue of December, 1927, and that it was on the market for sale in the early part of that month; that as such owner the plaintiff has the exclusive right to print and publish the article in its magazine, and that it gave notice in that issue "that all rights thereto were reserved;" that the defendants unlawfully and without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff appropriated, copied and reproduced and published the article in the weekly issues of The Independent of December 24th and December 31, 1927, without citing the source of its defendants; that upon such discovery, the plaintiff to the fact that the article in question was published "without permission or even the courtesy of an ordinary credit line," and requested that in his next issue that "you state in some prominent place that this article was taken from our magazine, and I request further that you refrain from similar thefts in the future," Also calling his attention to the fact that we have stated plainly "on the title page of our magazine that we reserve all rights, and you infringe on them at your peril." In answer to that latter, the editor protested against the use of the word "thefts," and advised the plaintiff in substance that it had not registered such right under the Copyright Law, and that "any newspaper can reprint the article of Professor Craig without permission from anybody. Will you appreciate this free lesson of law?" And the article as continued was again published in the next issue of The Independent. Plaintiff alleges that by reason of defendants' acts, it was damaged in the sum of P5,000; that the

defendants threaten to, and will continue appropriating and reproducing the article owned by the plaintiff, in voilation of its rights, unless restrained by the court, and plaintiff prays for judgment against the defendants for P5,000, and that they be perpetually enjoined from the publication of any further articles without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff, and for such other and further relief as the court may deem just and equitable.

To this complaint, the defendants filed a general demurrer upon the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, which was overruled. The defendants then answered in which they made a general and specific denial of all of the material allegations of the complaint, and as a special defense allege:

(a) That the defendant Vicente Sotto is not the owner of the magazine The Independent, nor has he any intervention in the publication of said magazine.

(b) That the plaintiff is not the owner of the article entitled "The True Story of Mrs. Rizal," because it is not registered in its name in the proper registry under Act No. 3134 and the regulation concerning the registration of intellectual property made by the Chief of the Philippine Library and Museum.

(c) That the defendant V. R. Alindada, as the editor of The Independent, published in said magazine the article entitled "The True Story of Mrs. Rizal," written by Austin Craig, in good faith and in the belief that such an interesting historical passage of the Philippines was published by the magazinePhilippine Education Magazine for the information and propaganda of the ideas and patriotic feelings of the wife of the apostle of our country's liberties, without any intention to prejudice anybody in his property rights.

Wherefore, the defendants pray the court that the complaint be dismissed and the defendants absolved therefrom, with costs against the plaintiff.

The case was tried and submitted upon the following admitted facts:

(1) That the Philippine Education Co., Inc., is the corporation that contracted with Austin Craig for the preparation of the article "The True Story of Mrs. Rizal," for its exclusive publication in said magazine.

(2) That said article which was prepared by Mr. Austin Craig and published in the "Philippine Education Magazine" is not found registered in the Copyright Office, although in the same magazine, under letter A, on the third page containing the index, there may be read a note "All Rights Reserved."

(3) That the Philippine Education Co., Inc., paid Mr. Austin Craig a certain sum for the preparation of said article.

(4) That The Independent, which is edited under the management of Mr. V. R. Alindada, published the said article written by Austin Craig on December 24, 1927 and December 31st of the same year, making it appear in the heading of the article the name of the author, the first publication of which is marked as Exhibit B.

(5) That on December 23d when The Independent published it, the editor of The Philippine Education Magazine wrote to Mr. V. R. Alindada, editor of The Independent, the letter marked with letter C.

(6) That notwithstanding the letter Exhibit C, the publication of the said article was continued in the issue of The Independent of December 31st, marked Exhibit E, without citing the source of the article but making it appear therein the name of the author.

(7) That the purposes of the judgment that may be rendered in this case, in the event of adverse judgment, Mr. V. R. Alindada, one of the defendants, admits to be solely responsible civilly.

(8) That in relation to the admission just mentioned, the document, Exhibit F, is presented.

Mr. SOTTO. Before presenting our evidence, I request that the defendant Vicente Sotto be excluded from the complaint.

Mr. OZAETA. Without objection.

COURT. According to the petition of the defendant Mr. Vicente Sotto, which is concurred in by counsel for the plaintiff, the case is dismissed with respect to him, without costs.

Upon such issues the lower court rendered judgment against the defendant, V. R. Alindada, for P500, without costs, from which he appeals, contending, first, that the lower court erred in overruling the demurrer to the complaint, and second, in sentencing him to pay P500 to the plaintiff.

 

JOHNS, J.:

The question presented involves the legal construction of Act No. 3134 of the Philippine Legislature, which is entitled "An Act to protect intellectual property," and which is known as the Copyright Law of the Philippine Islands.

Section 2 of the Act defines and enumerates what may be copyrighted which, among other things, includes books, composite and cyclopedic works, manuscripts, commentaries and critical studies.

Section 4 provides:

For the purpose of this Act articles and other writings published without the names of the authors or under pseudonyms are considered as the property of the publishers.

And section 5 says:

Lines, passages, or paragraphs in a book or other copyrighted works may be qouted or cited or reproduced for comment, dissertation, or criticism.

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. In case of musical works part of little extent may also be reproduced.

Hence, the real question involved is the construction which should be placed upon the second paragraph of section 5.

It is conceded that neither Professor Craig nor the palintiff applied for or obtained a copyright of the article in question under the terms and provisions of this Act. The defendants contends taht after the article was once published without a copyright in plaintiff's magazine, it then became public property, and that he had a legal right to publish it in his magazine, without giving "the source of the reproduction."

It must be conceded that after the Copyright Law of the United States, he would have that legal right. That is the construction which has been place upon that law by numerous decisions both state and federal of that nation. Be that as it may, we have carefully read and reread the Copyright Law of the United States, and the provisions contained in the second paragraph of section 5 of the Act No. 3134 are removed to be found in the Copyright Law of the United States. Neither does it contain any similar provision, and for want thereof, the decisions of those courts are not in point on the question involved here, and, as appellant says, the legal question presented on this appeal is one of first impression in this court, and the case is submitted without the citation of the decision of any court under the same or similar statute.

Section 4 specifically provides:

For the purpose of this Act articles and other writings published without the names of the authors or under pseudonyms are conidered as the property of the publishers.

The first paragraph of section 5 says:

Lines, passages, or paragraphs in book or other copyrighted works may be qouted or cited or reproduced for comment, dissertion, or criticism.

It is very apparent that this paragraph is confined and limited to a book or other copyrighted works, and, hence, that it does not apply to the publication of the article now in question. The second paragraph of this question is confined to news items, editorial paragraphs and articles in periodicals which 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 reproduce shall be cited." It is admitted that the plaintiff notified the defendant "that we reserve all rights and you infringe on them at your peril," and that after receipt of the notice, the defendant published the article in question, without giving "the source of the reproduction."

If it had been the purpose and intent of the Legislature to limit the reproduction of "news items, editorial paragraphs, and articles in periodicals," to those which have a notice or copyright only, it never would have said if "they contain a notice that their publication is reserved."

Analyzing the language used, it says, first, that such news items, editorial paragraphs, and articles in periodicals may be reproduced, unless they contain a notice that their publication is reserved, or, second, that may also be reproduced, unless they contain a notice of copyright. But in either event, the law specifically provides that "the source of the reproduction or original reproduced shall be cited," and is not confined or limited to case in which there is "a notice of copyright," and specifically says that in either event "the source of the reproduction or original reproduced shall be cited." To give this section any other construction would be to nullify, eliminate and take from the paragraph the words "they contain a notice that their publication is reserved," and to say that the Legislature never intended to say what it did say. This court must construe the language found in the act. 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." 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." To give that paragraph any other construction would eliminate, take from it, and wipe out, the words "that their publication is reserved," and this court has no legal right to do that. It was contended that this construction would nullify the use and value of the whole Copyright Law, but it will bbe notted that this exception is specifically confined and limited to "news items editorial paragraphs, and articles in periodicals," and hence could not be made to apply to any other provisions of the Copyright Law. It will also be noted that in the instant case, the defendant had the legal right to publish the article in question by giving "the source of the reproduction." The plaintiff bought and paid for the article and published it with the notice that "we reserve all rights," and the defendant published the article in question without citing "the source of the reproduction," and for aught that appeared in his paper, the article was purchase and paid for by the defendant.

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 construction does not least impair the Copyright Law, except as to "news items, editorial paragraphs, and articles in periodicals," and it protects an enterprising newspaper or magazine that invests its money and pays for the right to publish an original article, and that was the reason why the Legislature saw fit to use the language in question.

Above and beyond all this, it would seem that upon the undisputed facts in this case, common courtesy among newspaper men would suggest that the defendant would give "the source of the reproduction." It would have been a very simple and an easy thing to do.

All things considered, we are clearly of the opinion that the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Malcolm, Ostrand, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

VILLAMOR, J., concurring and dissenting:

I concur in the majority opinion as regards the matter of law, but believe the idemnity imposed by the trial court should be reduced, for lack of proof, to P200, in accordance with section 19 of Act No. 3134.

STREET, J., dissenting:

The effect of this decision is to create an anomalous right, not heretofore recognized by statute or decision, in matter published without copyright protection. The decision rests, as I conceive it, upon an erroneous interpretation of the second paragraph of section 5 of the Copyright Law (Act No. 3134).

It is rudimentary in copyright law that publictaion without copyright constitutes a dedication to the public and leaves any and everybody free to utilize the matter, with or without giving credit. In other words, publication without copyright terminates the literary property which the author had while the material was unpublished. This rule is universal. I here quote from the monographic article on copyright and literary property in Corpus Juris:

The owner of literary or intellectual property, like the owner of any other kind of property, may do what he will with his own; his right is absolute, and exclusive as against the word. Subject to the rule that a general publication operates as a dedication and terminates all private property rights, he is master of situation. If he chooses to keep his production unpublished and private, he may do so, and he has his remedies to prevent or to redress an unauthorized publication. He has the exclusive right to make first publication. (13 C. J., 949.)

Again, I quote from the title "Copyright" in Ruling Case Law:

. . . In other words, the author of a manuscript, so long as he does not publish it, may keep it as a private matter which he is not obliged to give to the world; and in it he has a special interest entitling him to prevent its publication. But this exclusive right is confined to the first publication. When once published it is dedicated to the public, and the author has not, at common law, any exclusive right to multiply copies of it or to control the subsequent issues of copies by others. Therefore a work which has been published by others in any form they may see fit, so far as the copyright law is concerned. (6 R. C. L., 1103.)

An intention radically to change the foundations of copyright law on the point now under consideration is not lightly to be attributed to our Legislature, and this consideration is especially cogent in dealing with an Act of the Philippine Legislature which, in all its more important provisions, is an embodiment of the American copyright law.

And what is the provision which is relied upon by the court as a justification of the present decision? Confronting the eye again with the text, we find that the section in question reads as follows:

SEC. 5. Lines, passages, or paragraphs in a book or other copyrighted works may be quoted or cited or reproduced for comment, dissertation, or criticism.

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. In case of musical works parts of little extent may also be reproduced.

Upon this it will be noted that the first paragraph expressly refers to copyrighted matter, the purpose being to define the extent to which copyrighted matter may be quoted or reproduced for purposes of comment, dissertation, or criticism. The second paragraph also evidently deals with copyrighted matter, although the word "copyrighted" is not inserted before the word "periodicals." Nor was it necessary to repeat the word in this paragraph, because the subject matter of said paragraph and the form of expression in which the provision is moulded otherwise show clearly that the Legislature was here dealing with rights in copyrighted matter. Of course this paragraph should be interpreted in pari materia with the first paragraph for it was evidently intended to nulify in certain respects the rule stated in the first paragraph.

Again, it will be observed the the word "copyrighted" is not used before musical works, near the end of the second paragraph. Nevertheless, we imagine that no one would doubt that the Legislature there meanscopyrighted musical works. It is obvious that, inasmuch as the subject matter treated in section 5 was defined in first paragraph of said section as relating to copyrighted works, it was considered unnecessary to go on repeating the word "copyrighted" before "periodicals" and "musical works."

Furthermore upon comparing the two paragraphs of which section 5 is composed, it will be seen that the first paragraphs defines the right of reproduction of books and works like books, while the

second deals with the right of reproduction of certain matter printed in periodicals and musical works. The two paragraphs together cover substantially the field of copyrightable matter; and the peculiarity of the second paragraph is merely that the law-making body there states a special rule with respect to the material with which this paragraph deals. Throughout the reference is clearly to copyrighted matter.

If we fix the attention still more closely upon the contents of the second paragraph, it will be noted that by this paragraph news items, editorial paragraphs, and articles in periodicals may be reproduced "unless they contain a notice that their publication is reserved or a notice of copyright." This perhaps gives a more extensive right of reproduction with respect to the matter mentioned than is conferred by the first paragraph, subject always to the proviso contained in the clause introduced by the word "unless." By this priviso the statute permits the publisher of periodicals, meaning copyrighted periodicals, absolutely to prohibit the reproduction of news items, editorial paragraphs, and articles, If he gives the notice therein required. The expression "unless they contain a notice that their publication is reserved a notice of copyright" contemplates a reservation or notice of copyright in addition to the doing of the acts required by the statute to be done in order to effect legal copyright. In other words, where the periodical is copyrighted, it requires a special notice reservation or special notice of copyright to prevent reproduction to the extent therein permitted. The part of the paragraph which has caused difficulty in this case is apparently found in the words "or a notice of copyright" in the clause commencing with "unless." Without those words it could hardly be contended that the reservation of rights therein referred to would be effective upon uncopyrighted matter. But the ill-advised insertion of these words in the statute — if such it be — does not render the statute unintelligible, nor does it justify the decision made by the court; for as we have demonstrated, the second paragraph of section 5 is concerned only with copyrighted matter.

If we may be permitted to hazard a conjecture as to the reason why these words "or a notice of copyright" were inserted, an explanation might possibly be found in the reflection that the copyright of a signed article in the periodical may be vested in the author whose name is signed thereto, while the publisher of the periodical may have copyright only in the matter published in the periodical without the names of the authors or under pseudonyms, as indicated in section 4 of the Act. In view of the possibility of conflict between these two interest, it may have been considered desirable to express the clause in the form adopted in the statute.

The interpretation which the majority opinion now place upon this paragraph is such that the clause in question now has about the same meaning that it would have had if written thus: "unless they contain a notice that their publication is reserved, in case either of copyrighted or uncopyrighted matter, or a notice of copyright in case of copyrighted matter" (Emphasis ours). In other words a limiting clause has been so construed as to extend the purview of the general clause which it limits. This is a violent process.

Again, in no place does Act No. 3134 attempt to define the right of literary property in uncopyrighted matter. Its subject matter is copyright and means of acquiring copyright. But assuming that the Legislature designed to create the anomalous right which the court has deduced from the statute, is it not strange that it did not state the duration of this right? Under section 18 of the Act a copyright acquired in accordance with the provisions of the Act endures for thirty years. Does the new right which the court has now discovered have the same duration, or will it continue after copyright has expired?

Heretofore the only way of acquiring an exclusive right to reproduce published matter was to effect copyright. But under the interpretation which the court now place upon this law, there now is another way to acquire the same exclusive right, which is simply not to take copyright but merely to reserv the right of publication. I maintain that even under our statue exclusive rights can only be acquired

by effecting copyright in the manner provided by law. This is the fundamental point that underlies all legislature on the subject. The judgment should, in my opinion, be reserved.

464 U.S. 417

104 S.Ct. 774

78 L.Ed.2d 574

SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, et al., Petitioners

v.

UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., etc., et al.

No. 81-1687.

Argued Jan. 18, 1983.

Reargued Oct. 3, 1983.

Decided Jan. 17, 1984.

Rehearing Denied March 19, 1984. See U.S., 104 S.Ct. 1619.

Syllabus

Petitioner Sony Corp. manufactures home video tape recorders (VTR's), and markets them through retail establishments, some of which are also petitioners. Respondents own the copyrights on some of the television programs that are broadcast on the public airwaves. Respondents brought an action against

petitioners in Federal District Court, alleging that VTR consumers had been recording some of respondents' copyrighted works that had been exhibited on commercially sponsored television and thereby infringed respondents' copyrights, and further that petitioners were liable for such copyright infringement because of their marketing of the VTR's. Respondents sought money damages, an equitable accounting of profits, and an injunction against the manufacture and marketing of the VTR's. The District Court denied respondents all relief, holding that noncommercial home use recording of material broadcast over the public airwaves was a fair use of copyrighted works and did not constitute copyright infringement, and that petitioners could not be held liable as contributory infringers even if the home use of a VTR was considered an infringing use. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding petitioners liable for contributory infringement and ordering the District Court to fashion appropriate relief.

Held: The sale of the VTR's to the general public does not constitute contributory infringement of respondents' copyrights. Pp. 428-456.

(a) The protection given to copyrights is wholly statutory, and, in a case like this, in which Congress has not plainly marked the course to be followed by the judiciary, this Court must be circumspect in construing the scope of rights created by a statute that never contemplated such a calculus of interests. Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use. Pp. 428-434.

(b) Kalem Co. v. Harper Brothers, 222 U.S. 55, 32 S.Ct. 20, 56 L.Ed. 92, does not support respondents' novel theory that supplying the "means" to accomplish an infringing activity and encouraging that activity through advertisement are sufficient to establish liability for copyright infringement. This case does not fall in the category of those in which it is manifestly just to impose vicarious liability because the "contributory" infringer was in a position to control the use of copyrighted works by others and had authorized the use without permission from the copyright owner. Here, the only contact between petitioners and the users of the VTR's occurred at the moment of sale. And there is no precedent for imposing vicarious liability on the theory that petitioners sold the VTR's with constructive knowledge that their customers might use the equipment to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted material. The sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes, or, indeed, is merely capable of substantial noninfringing uses. Pp. 434-442.

(c) The record and the District Court's findings show (1) that there is a significant likelihood that substantial numbers of copyright holders who license their works for broadcast on free television would

not object to having their broadcast time-shifted by private viewers (i.e., recorded at a time when the VTR owner cannot view the broadcast so that it can be watched at a later time); and (2) that there is no likelihood that time-shifting would cause nonminimal harm to the potential market for, or the value of, respondents' copyrighted works. The VTR's are therefore capable of substantial noninfringing uses. Private, noncommercial time-shifting in the home satisfies this standard of noninfringing uses both because respondents have no right to prevent other copyright holders from authorizing such time-shifting for their programs, and because the District Court's findings reveal that even the unauthorized home time-shifting of respondents' programs is legitimate fair use. Pp. 442-456.

659 F.2d 963, reversed.

Dean C. Dunlavey, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioners.

Stephen A. Kroft, Beverly Hills, Cal., for respondents.

Justice STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court.

1

Petitioners manufacture and sell home video tape recorders. Respondents own the copyrights on some of the television programs that are broadcast on the public airwaves. Some members of the general public use video tape recorders sold by petitioners to record some of these broadcasts, as well as a large number of other broadcasts. The question presented is whether the sale of petitioners' copying equipment to the general public violates any of the rights conferred upon respondents by the Copyright Act.

2

Respondents commenced this copyright infringement action against petitioners in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in 1976. Respondents alleged that some individuals had used Betamax video tape recorders (VTR's) to record some of respondents' copyrighted works which had been exhibited on commercially sponsored television and contended that these individuals had thereby infringed respondents' copyrights. Respondents further maintained that petitioners were liable for the copyright infringement allegedly committed by Betamax consumers because of petitioners' marketing of the Betamax VTR's.1 Respondents sought no relief against any Betamax consumer. Instead,

they sought money damages and an equitable accounting of profits from petitioners, as well as an injunction against the manufacture and marketing of Betamax VTR's.

3

After a lengthy trial, the District Court denied respondents all the relief they sought and entered judgment for petitioners. 480 F.Supp. 429 (1979). The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's judgment on respondent's copyright claim, holding petitioners liable for contributory infringement and ordering the District Court to fashion appropriate relief. 659 F.2d 963 (1981). We granted certiorari, 457 U.S. 1116, 102 S.Ct. 2926, 73 L.Ed.2d 1328 (1982); since we had not completed our study of the case last Term, we ordered reargument, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 3568, 77 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1983). We now reverse.

4

An explanation of our rejection of respondents' unprecedented attempt to impose copyright liability upon the distributors of copying equipment requires a quite detailed recitation of the findings of the District Court. In summary, those findings reveal that the average member of the public uses a VTR principally to record a program he cannot view as it is being televised and then to watch it once at a later time. This practice, known as "time-shifting," enlarges the television viewing audience. For that reason, a significant amount of television programming may be used in this manner without objection from the owners of the copyrights on the programs. For the same reason, even the two respondents in this case, who do assert objections to time-shifting in this litigation, were unable to prove that the practice has impaired the commercial value of their copyrights or has created any likelihood of future harm. Given these findings, there is no basis in the Copyright Act upon which respondents can hold petitioners liable for distributing VTR's to the general public. The Court of Appeals' holding that respondents are entitled to enjoin the distribution of VTR's, to collect royalties on the sale of such equipment, or to obtain other relief, if affirmed, would enlarge the scope of respondents' statutory monopolies to encompass control over an article of commerce that is not the subject of copyright protection. Such an expansion of the copyright privilege is beyond the limits of the grants authorized by Congress.

5

* The two respondents in this action, Universal Studios, Inc. and Walt Disney Productions, produce and hold the copyrights on a substantial number of motion pictures and other audiovisual works. In the current marketplace, they can exploit their rights in these works in a number of ways: by authorizing theatrical exhibitions, by licensing limited showings on cable and network television, by selling syndication rights for repeated airings on local television stations, and by marketing programs on

prerecorded videotapes or videodiscs. Some works are suitable for exploitation through all of these avenues, while the market for other works is more limited.

6

Petitioner Sony manufactures millions of Betamax video tape recorders and markets these devices through numerous retail establishments, some of which are also petitioners in this action.2 Sony's Betamax VTR is a mechanism consisting of three basic components: (1) a tuner, which receives electromagnetic signals transmitted over the television band of the public airwaves and separates them into audio and visual signals; (2) a recorder, which records such signals on a magnetic tape; and (3) an adapter, which converts the audio and visual signals on the tape into a composite signal that can be received by a television set.

7

Several capabilities of the machine are noteworthy. The separate tuner in the Betamax enables it to record a broadcast off one station while the television set is tuned to another channel, permitting the viewer, for example, to watch two simultaneous news broadcasts by watching one "live" and recording the other for later viewing. Tapes may be reused, and programs that have been recorded may be erased either before or after viewing. A timer in the Betamax can be used to activate and deactivate the equipment at predetermined times, enabling an intended viewer to record programs that are transmitted when he or she is not at home. Thus a person may watch a program at home in the evening even though it was broadcast while the viewer was at work during the afternoon. The Betamax is also equipped with a pause button and a fast-forward control. The pause button, when depressed, deactivates the recorder until it is released, thus enabling a viewer to omit a commercial advertisement from the recording, provided, of course, that the viewer is present when the program is recorded. The fast forward control enables the viewer of a previously recorded program to run the tape rapidly when a segment he or she does not desire to see is being played back on the television screen.

8

The respondents and Sony both conducted surveys of the way the Betamax machine was used by several hundred owners during a sample period in 1978. Although there were some differences in the surveys, they both showed that the primary use of the machine for most owners was "time-shifting,"—the practice of recording a program to view it once at a later time, and thereafter erasing it. Time-shifting enables viewers to see programs they otherwise would miss because they are not at home, are occupied with other tasks, or are viewing a program on another station at the time of a broadcast that they desire to watch. Both surveys also showed, however, that a substantial number of interviewees had accumulated libraries of tapes.3 Sony's survey indicated that over 80% of the interviewees watched at

least as much regular television as they had before owning a Betamax.4 Respondents offered no evidence of decreased television viewing by Betamax owners.5

9

Sony introduced considerable evidence describing television programs that could be copied without objection from any copyright holder, with special emphasis on sports, religious, and educational programming. For example, their survey indicated that 7.3% of all Betamax use is to record sports events, and representatives of professional baseball, football, basketball, and hockey testified that they had no objection to the recording of their televised events for home use.6

10

Respondents offered opinion evidence concerning the future impact of the unrestricted sale of VTR's on the commercial value of their copyrights. The District Court found, however, that they had failed to prove any likelihood of future harm from the use of VTR's for time-shifting. Id., at 469.

The District Court's Decision

11

The lengthy trial of the case in the District Court concerned the private, home use of VTR's for recording programs broadcast on the public airwaves without charge to the viewer.7 No issue concerning the transfer of tapes to other persons, the use of home-recorded tapes for public performances, or the copying of programs transmitted on pay or cable television systems was raised. See 480 F.Supp. 429, 432-433, 442 (1979).

12

The District Court concluded that noncommercial home use recording of material broadcast over the public airwaves was a fair use of copyrighted works and did not constitute copyright infringement. It emphasized the fact that the material was broadcast free to the public at large, the noncommercial character of the use, and the private character of the activity conducted entirely within the home. Moreover, the court found that the purpose of this use served the public interest in increasing access to television programming, an interest that "is consistent with the First Amendment policy of providing the fullest possible access to information through the public airwaves. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94, 102 [93 S.Ct. 2080, 2086, 36 L.Ed.2d 772]." 480 F.Supp., at

454.8 Even when an entire copyrighted work was recorded, the District Court regarded the copying as fair use "because there is no accompanying reduction in the market for 'plaintiff's original work.' " Ibid.

13

As an independent ground of decision, the District Court also concluded that Sony could not be held liable as a contributory infringer even if the home use of a VTR was considered an infringing use. The District Court noted that Sony had no direct involvement with any Betamax purchasers who recorded copyrighted works off the air. Sony's advertising was silent on the subject of possible copyright infringement, but its instruction booklet contained the following statement:

14

"Television programs, films, videotapes and other materials may be copyrighted. Unauthorized recording of such material may be contrary to the provisions of the United States copyright laws." Id., at 436.

15

The District Court assumed that Sony had constructive knowledge of the probability that the Betamax machine would be used to record copyrighted programs, but found that Sony merely sold a "product capable of a variety of uses, some of them allegedly infringing." Id., at 461. It reasoned:

16

"Selling a staple article of commerce e.g., a typewriter, a recorder, a camera, a photocopying machine technically contributes to any infringing use subsequently made thereof, but this kind of 'contribution,' if deemed sufficient as a basis for liability, would expand the theory beyond precedent and arguably beyond judicial management.

17

"Commerce would indeed be hampered if manufacturers of staple items were held liable as contributory infringers whenever they 'constructively' knew that some purchasers on some occasions would use their product for a purpose which a court later deemed, as a matter of first impression, to be an infringement." Ibid.

18

Finally, the District Court discussed the respondents' prayer for injunctive relief, noting that they had asked for an injunction either preventing the future sale of Betamax machines, or requiring that the machines be rendered incapable of recording copyrighted works off the air. The court stated that it had "found no case in which the manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and advertisors of the instrument enabling the infringement were sued by the copyright holders," and that the request for relief in this case "is unique." 480 F.Supp., at 465.

19

It concluded that an injunction was wholly inappropriate because any possible harm to respondents was outweighed by the fact that "the Betamax could still legally be used to record noncopyrighted material or material whose owners consented to the copying. An injunction would deprive the public of the ability to use the Betamax for this noninfringing off-the-air recording." 480 F.Supp., at 468.

The Court of Appeals' Decision

20

The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's judgment on respondents' copyright claim. It did not set aside any of the District Court's findings of fact. Rather, it concluded as a matter of law that the home use of a VTR was not a fair use because it was not a "productive use."9 It therefore held that it was unnecessary for plaintiffs to prove any harm to the potential market for the copyrighted works, but then observed that it seemed clear that the cumulative effect of mass reproduction made possible by VTR's would tend to diminish the potential market for respondents' works. 659 F.2d, at 974.

21

On the issue of contributory infringement, the Court of Appeals first rejected the analogy to staple articles of commerce such as tape recorders or photocopying machines. It noted that such machines "may have substantial benefit for some purposes" and do not "even remotely raise copyright problems." Id., at 975. VTR's, however, are sold "for the primary purpose of reproducing television programming" and "virtually all" such programming is copyrighted material. Ibid. The Court of Appeals concluded, therefore, that VTR's were not suitable for any substantial noninfringing use even if some copyright owners elect not to enforce their rights.

22

The Court of Appeals also rejected the District Court's reliance on Sony's lack of knowledge that home use constituted infringement. Assuming that the statutory provisions defining the remedies for infringement applied also to the non-statutory tort of contributory infringement, the court stated that a defendant's good faith would merely reduce his damages liability but would not excuse the infringing conduct. It held that Sony was chargeable with knowledge of the homeowner's infringing activity because the reproduction of copyrighted materials was either "the most conspicuous use" or "the major use" of the Betamax product. Ibid.

23

On the matter of relief, the Court of Appeals concluded that "statutory damages may be appropriate," that the District Court should reconsider its determination that an injunction would not be an appropriate remedy; and, referring to "the analogous photocopying area," suggested that a continuing royalty pursuant to a judicially created compulsory license may very well be an acceptable resolution of the relief issue. 659 F.2d, at 976.

II

24

Article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution provides that:

25

"The Congress shall have Power . . . to Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." The monopoly privileges that Congress may authorize are neither unlimited nor primarily designed to provide a special private benefit. Rather, the limited grant is a means by which an important public purpose may be achieved. It is intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors by the provision of a special reward, and to allow the public access to the products of their genius after the limited period of exclusive control has expired.

26

"The copyright law, like the patent statute, makes reward to the owner a secondary consideration. In Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123, 127 [52 S.Ct. 546, 547, 76 L.Ed. 1010], Chief Justice Hughes spoke as follows respecting the copyright monopoly granted by Congress, 'The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors.' It is said that reward to the author or artist serves to induce release to the public of the products of his creative genius." United States v. Paramount Pictures, 334 U.S. 131, 158, 68 S.Ct. 915, 929, 92 L.Ed. 1260.

27

As the text of the Constitution makes plain, it is Congress that has been assigned the task of defining the scope of the limited monopoly that should be granted to authors or to inventors in order to give the public appropriate access to their work product. Because this task involves a difficult balance between the interests of authors and inventors in the control and exploitation of their writings and discoveries on the one hand, and society's competing interest in the free flow of ideas, information, and commerce on the other hand, our patent and copyright statutes have been amended repeatedly.10

28

From its beginning, the law of copyright has developed in response to significant changes in technology.11 Indeed, it was the invention of a new form of copying equipment—the printing press—that gave rise to the original need for copyright protection.12 Repeatedly, as new developments have occurred in this country, it has been the Congress that has fashioned the new rules that new technology made necessary. Thus, long before the enactment of the Copyright Act of 1909, 35 Stat. 1075, it was settled that the protection given to copyrights is wholly statutory. Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Peters) 591, 661-662, 8 L.Ed. 1055 (1834). The remedies for infringement "are only those prescribed by Congress." Thompson v. Hubbard, 131 U.S. 123, 151, 9 S.Ct. 710, 720, 33 L.Ed. 76 (1889).

29

The judiciary's reluctance to expand the protections afforded by the copyright without explicit legislative guidance is a recurring theme. See, e.g., Teleprompter Corp. v. CBS, 415 U.S. 394, 94 S.Ct. 1129, 39 L.Ed.2d 415 (1974); Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists, 392 U.S. 390, 88 S.Ct. 2084, 20 L.Ed.2d 1176 (1968); White-Smith Music Publishing Co. v. Apollo Co., 209 U.S. 1, 28 S.Ct. 319, 52 L.Ed. 655 (1908); Williams and Wilkins v. United States, 487 F.2d 1345, 203 Ct.Cl. 74 (1973), affirmed by an equally divided court, 420 U.S. 376, 95 S.Ct. 1344, 43 L.Ed.2d 264 (1975). Sound policy, as well as history, supports our consistent deference to Congress when major technological innovations alter the market for copyrighted materials. Congress has the constitutional authority and the institutional ability to accommodate fully the varied permutations of competing interests that are inevitably implicated by

such new technology.

30

In a case like this, in which Congress has not plainly marked our course, we must be circumspect in construing the scope of rights created by a legislative enactment which never contemplated such a calculus of interests. In doing so, we are guided by Justice Stewart's exposition of the correct approach to ambiguities in the law of copyright:

31

"The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly, like the limited copyright duration required by the Constitution, reflects a balance of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good. 'The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly,' this Court has said, 'lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors.' Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123, 127 [52 S.Ct. 546, 547, 76 L.Ed. 1010]. See Kendall v. Winsor, 21 How. 322, 327-328 [16 L.Ed. 165]; Grant v. Raymond, 6 Pet. 218, 241-242 [8 L.Ed. 376]. When technological change has rendered its literal terms ambiguous, the Copyright Act must be construed in light of this basic purpose." Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 156, 95 S.Ct. 2040, 2043, 45 L.Ed.2d 84 (footnotes omitted).

32

Copyright protection "subsists . . . in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression." 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). This protection has never accorded the copyright owner complete control over all possible uses of his work.13 Rather, the Copyright Act grants the copyright holder "exclusive" rights to use and to authorize the use of his work in five qualified ways, including reproduction of the copyrighted work in copies. Id., § 106.14 All reproductions of the work, however, are not within the exclusive domain of the copyright owner; some are in the public domain. Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use;" the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use. Compare id., § 106 with id., § 107.

33

"Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner," that is, anyone who trespasses

into his exclusive domain by using or authorizing the use of the copyrighted work in one of the five ways set forth in the statute, "is an infringer of the copyright." Id., § 501(a). Conversely, anyone who is authorized by the copyright owner to use the copyrighted work in a way specified in the statute or who makes a fair use of the work is not an infringer of the copyright with respect to such use.

34

The Copyright Act provides the owner of a copyright with a potent arsenal of remedies against an infringer of his work, including an injunction to restrain the infringer from violating his rights, the impoundment and destruction of all reproductions of his work made in violation of his rights, a recovery of his actual damages and any additional profits realized by the infringer or a recovery of statutory damages, and attorneys fees. Id., §§ 502-505.15

35

The two respondents in this case do not seek relief against the Betamax users who have allegedly infringed their copyrights. Moreover, this is not a class action on behalf of all copyright owners who license their works for television broadcast, and respondents have no right to invoke whatever rights other copyright holders may have to bring infringement actions based on Betamax copying of their works.16 As was made clear by their own evidence, the copying of the respondents' programs represents a small portion of the total use of VTR's. It is, however, the taping of respondents own copyrighted programs that provides them with standing to charge Sony with contributory infringement. To prevail, they have the burden of proving that users of the Betamax have infringed their copyrights and that Sony should be held responsible for that infringement.

III

36

The Copyright Act does not expressly render anyone liable for infringement committed by another. In contrast, the Patent Act expressly brands anyone who "actively induces infringement of a patent" as an infringer, 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), and further imposes liability on certain individuals labeled "contributory" infringers, id., § 271(c). The absence of such express language in the copyright statute does not preclude the imposition of liability for copyright infringements on certain parties who have not themselves engaged in the infringing activity.17 For vicarious liability is imposed in virtually all areas of the law, and the concept of contributory infringement is merely a species of the broader problem of identifying the circumstances in which it is just to hold one individual accountable for the actions of another.

37

Such circumstances were plainly present in Kalem Co. v. Harper Brothers, 222 U.S. 55, 32 S.Ct. 20, 56 L.Ed. 92 (1911), the copyright decision of this Court on which respondents place their principal reliance. In Kalem, the Court held that the producer of an unauthorized film dramatization of the copyrighted book Ben Hur was liable for his sale of the motion picture to jobbers, who in turn arranged for the commercial exhibition of the film. Justice Holmes, writing for the Court, explained:

38

"The defendant not only expected but invoked by advertisement the use of its films for dramatic reproduction of the story. That was the most conspicuous purpose for which they could be used, and the one for which especially they were made. If the defendant did not contribute to the infringement it is impossible to do so except by taking part in the final act. It is liable on principles recognized in every part of the law." 222 U.S., at 63, 32 S.Ct., at 22.

39

The use for which the item sold in Kalem had been "especially" made was, of course, to display the performance that had already been recorded upon it. The producer had personally appropriated the copyright owner's protected work and, as the owner of the tangible medium of expression upon which the protected work was recorded, authorized that use by his sale of the film to jobbers. But that use of the film was not his to authorize: the copyright owner possessed the exclusive right to authorize public performances of his work. Further, the producer personally advertised the unauthorized public performances, dispelling any possible doubt as to the use of the film which he had authorized.

40

Respondents argue that Kalem stands for the proposition that supplying the "means" to accomplish an infringing activity and encouraging that activity through advertisement are sufficient to establish liability for copyright infringement. This argument rests on a gross generalization that cannot withstand scrutiny. The producer in Kalem did not merely provide the "means" to accomplish an infringing activity; the producer supplied the work itself, albeit in a new medium of expression. Petitioners in the instant case do not supply Betamax consumers with respondents' works; respondents do. Petitioners supply a piece of equipment that is generally capable of copying the entire range of programs that may be televised: those that are uncopyrighted, those that are copyrighted but may be copied without objection from the copyright holder, and those that the copyright holder would prefer not to have copied. The Betamax can

be used to make authorized or unauthorized uses of copyrighted works, but the range of its potential use is much broader than the particular infringing use of the film Ben Hur involved in Kalem. Kalem does not support respondents' novel theory of liability.

41

Justice Holmes stated that the producer had "contributed" to the infringement of the copyright, and the label "contributory infringement" has been applied in a number of lower court copyright cases involving an ongoing relationship between the direct infringer and the contributory infringer at the time the infringing conduct occurred. In such cases, as in other situations in which the imposition of vicarious liability is manifestly just, the "contributory" infringer was in a position to control the use of copyrighted works by others and had authorized the use without permission from the copyright owner.18 This case, however, plainly does not fall in that category. The only contact between Sony and the users of the Betamax that is disclosed by this record occurred at the moment of sale. The District Court expressly found that "no employee of Sony, Sonam or DDBI had either direct involvement with the allegedly infringing activity or direct contact with purchasers of Betamax who recorded copyrighted works off-the-air." 480 F.Supp., at 460. And it further found that "there was no evidence that any of the copies made by Griffiths or the other individual witnesses in this suit were influenced or encouraged by [Sony's] advertisements." Ibid. If vicarious liability is to be imposed on petitioners in this case, it must rest on the fact that they have sold equipment with constructive knowledge of the fact that their customers may use that equipment to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted material. There is no precedent in the law of copyright for the imposition of vicarious liability on such a theory. The closest analogy is provided by the patent law cases to which it is appropriate to refer because of the historic kinship between patent law and copyright law.19

42

In the Patent Code both the concept of infringement and the concept of contributory infringement are expressly defined by statute.20 The prohibition against contributory infringement is confined to the knowing sale of a component especially made for use in connection with a particular patent. There is no suggestion in the statute that one patentee may object to the sale of a product that might be used in connection with other patents. Moreover, the Act expressly provides that the sale of a "staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use" is not contributory infringement.

43

When a charge of contributory infringement is predicated entirely on the sale of an article of commerce that is used by the purchaser to infringe a patent, the public interest in access to that article of commerce is necessarily implicated. A finding of contributory infringement does not, of course, remove

the article from the market altogether; it does, however, give the patentee effective control over the sale of that item. Indeed, a finding of contributory infringement is normally the functional equivalent of holding that the disputed article is within the monopoly granted to the patentee.21

44

For that reason, in contributory infringement cases arising under the patent laws the Court has always recognized the critical importance of not allowing the patentee to extend his monopoly beyond the limits of his specific grant. These cases deny the patentee any right to control the distribution of unpatented articles unless they are "unsuited for any commercial noninfringing use." Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm & Hass Co., 448 U.S. 176, 198, 100 S.Ct. 2601, 2614, 65 L.Ed.2d 696 (1980). Unless a commodity "has no use except through practice of the patented method," ibid, the patentee has no right to claim that its distribution constitutes contributory infringement. "To form the basis for contributory infringement the item must almost be uniquely suited as a component of the patented invention." P. Rosenberg, Patent Law Fundamentals § 17.02[2] (1982). "[A] sale of an article which though adapted to an infringing use is also adapted to other and lawful uses, is not enough to make the seller a contributory infringer. Such a rule would block the wheels of commerce." Henry v. A.B. Dick Co., 224 U.S. 1, 48, 32 S.Ct. 364, 379, 56 L.Ed. 645 (1912), overruled on other grounds, Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co., 243 U.S. 502, 517, 37 S.Ct. 416, 421, 61 L.Ed. 871 (1917).

45

We recognize there are substantial differences between the patent and copyright laws. But in both areas the contributory infringement doctrine is grounded on the recognition that adequate protection of a monopoly may require the courts to look beyond actual duplication of a device or publication to the products or activities that make such duplication possible. The staple article of commerce doctrine must strike a balance between a copyright holder's legitimate demand for effective—not merely symbolic—protection of the statutory monopoly, and the rights of others freely to engage in substantially unrelated areas of commerce. Accordingly, the sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses.

IV

46

The question is thus whether the Betamax is capable of commercially significant noninfringing uses. In

order to resolve that question, we need not explore all the different potential uses of the machine and determine whether or not they would constitute infringement. Rather, we need only consider whether on the basis of the facts as found by the district court a significant number of them would be non-infringing. Moreover, in order to resolve this case we need not give precise content to the question of how much use is commercially significant. For one potential use of the Betamax plainly satisfies this standard, however it is understood: private, noncommercial time-shifting in the home. It does so both (A) because respondents have no right to prevent other copyright holders from authorizing it for their programs, and (B) because the District Court's factual findings reveal that even the unauthorized home time-shifting of respondents' programs is legitimate fair use. A. Authorized Time Shifting

47

Each of the respondents owns a large inventory of valuable copyrights, but in the total spectrum of television programming their combined market share is small. The exact percentage is not specified, but it is well below 10%.22 If they were to prevail, the outcome of this litigation would have a significant impact on both the producers and the viewers of the remaining 90% of the programming in the Nation. No doubt, many other producers share respondents' concern about the possible consequences of unrestricted copying. Nevertheless the findings of the District Court make it clear that time-shifting may enlarge the total viewing audience and that many producers are willing to allow private time-shifting to continue, at least for an experimental time period.23

The District Court found:

48

"Even if it were deemed that home-use recording of copyrighted material constituted infringement, the Betamax could still legally be used to record noncopyrighted material or material whose owners consented to the copying. An injunction would deprive the public of the ability to use the Betamax for this noninfringing off-the-air recording.

"Defendants introduced considerable testimony at

49

trial about the potential for such copying of sports, religious, educational and other programming. This included testimony from representatives of the Offices of the Commissioners of the National Football,

Basketball, Baseball and Hockey Leagues and Associations, the Executive Director of National Religious Broadcasters and various educational communications agencies. Plaintiffs attack the weight of the testimony offered and also contend that an injunction is warranted because infringing uses outweigh noninfringing uses."

50

"Whatever the future percentage of legal versus illegal home-use recording might be, an injunction which seeks to deprive the public of the very tool or article of commerce capable of some noninfringing use would be an extremely harsh remedy, as well as one unprecedented in copyright law." 480 F.Supp., at 468.

51

Although the District Court made these statements in the context of considering the propriety of injunctive relief, the statements constitute a finding that the evidence concerning "sports, religious, educational, and other programming" was sufficient to establish a significant quantity of broadcasting whose copying is now authorized, and a significant potential for future authorized copying. That finding is amply supported by the record. In addition to the religious and sports officials identified explicitly by the District Court,24 two items in the record deserve specific mention.

52

First is the testimony of John Kenaston, the station manager of Channel 58, an educational station in Los Angeles affiliated with the Public Broadcasting Service. He explained and authenticated the station's published guide to its programs.25 For each program, the guide tells whether unlimited home taping is authorized, home taping is authorized subject to certain restrictions (such as erasure within seven days), or home taping is not authorized at all. The Spring 1978 edition of the guide described 107 programs. Sixty-two of those programs or 58% authorize some home taping. Twenty-one of them or almost 20% authorize unrestricted home taping.26

53

Second is the testimony of Fred Rogers, president of the corporation that produces and owns the copyright on Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood. The program is carried by more public television stations than any other program. Its audience numbers over 3,000,000 families a day. He testified that he had absolutely no objection to home taping for noncommercial use and expressed the opinion that it is a real service to families to be able to record children's programs and to show them at appropriate

times.27

54

If there are millions of owners of VTR's who make copies of televised sports events, religious broadcasts, and educational programs such as Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, and if the proprietors of those programs welcome the practice, the business of supplying the equipment that makes such copying feasible should not be stifled simply because the equipment is used by some individuals to make unauthorized reproductions of respondents' works. The respondents do not represent a class composed of all copyright holders. Yet a finding of contributory infringement would inevitably frustrate the interests of broadcasters in reaching the portion of their audience that is available only through time-shifting.

55

Of course, the fact that other copyright holders may welcome the practice of time-shifting does not mean that respondents should be deemed to have granted a license to copy their programs. Third party conduct would be wholly irrelevant in an action for direct infringement of respondents' copyrights. But in an action for contributory infringement against the seller of copying equipment, the copyright holder may not prevail unless the relief that he seeks affects only his programs, or unless he speaks for virtually all copyright holders with an interest in the outcome. In this case, the record makes it perfectly clear that there are many important producers of national and local television programs who find nothing objectionable about the enlargement in the size of the television audience that results from the practice of time-shifting for private home use.28 The seller of the equipment that expands those producers' audiences cannot be a contributory infringer if, as is true in this case, it has had no direct involvement with any infringing activity.

56

Even unauthorized uses of a copyrighted work are not necessarily infringing. An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 154-155, 95 S.Ct. 2040, 2043, 45 L.Ed.2d 84. Moreover, the definition of exclusive rights in § 106 of the present Act is prefaced by the words "subject to sections 107 through 118." Those sections describe a variety of uses of copyrighted material that "are not infringements of copyright notwithstanding the provisions of § 106." The most pertinent in this case is § 107, the legislative endorsement of the doctrine of "fair use."29

57

That section identifies various factors30 that enable a Court to apply an "equitable rule of reason" analysis to particular claims of infringement.31 Although not conclusive, the first factor requires that "the commercial or nonprofit character of an activity" be weighed in any fair use decision.32 If the Betamax were used to make copies for a commercial or profit-making purpose, such use would presumptively be unfair. The contrary presumption is appropriate here, however, because the District Court's findings plainly establish that time-shifting for private home use must be characterized as a noncommercial, nonprofit activity. Moreover, when one considers the nature of a televised copyrighted audiovisual work, see 17 U.S.C. § 107(2), and that timeshifting merely enables a viewer to see such a work which he had been invited to witness in its entirety free of charge, the fact that the entire work is reproduced, see id., at § 107(3), does not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use.33

58

This is not, however, the end of the inquiry because Congress has also directed us to consider "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." Id., at § 107(4). The purpose of copyright is to create incentives for creative effort. Even copying for noncommercial purposes may impair the copyright holder's ability to obtain the rewards that Congress intended him to have. But a use that has no demonstrable effect upon the potential market for, or the value of, the copyrighted work need not be prohibited in order to protect the author's incentive to create. The prohibition of such noncommercial uses would merely inhibit access to ideas without any countervailing benefit.34

59

Thus, although every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively an unfair exploitation of the monopoly privilege that belongs to the owner of the copyright, noncommercial uses are a different matter. A challenge to a noncommercial use of a copyrighted work requires proof either that the particular use is harmful, or that if it should become widespread, it would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work. Actual present harm need not be shown; such a requirement would leave the copyright holder with no defense against predictable damage. Nor is it necessary to show with certainty that future harm will result. What is necessary is a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that some meaningful likelihood of future harm exists. If the intended use is for commercial gain, that likelihood may be presumed. But if it is for a noncommercial purpose, the likelihood must be demonstrated.

60

In this case, respondents failed to carry their burden with regard to home time-shifting. The District Court described respondents' evidence as follows:

61

"Plaintiffs' experts admitted at several points in the trial that the time-shifting without librarying would result in 'not a great deal of harm.' Plaintiffs' greatest concern about time-shifting is with 'a point of important philosophy that transcends even commercial judgment.' They fear that with any Betamax usage, 'invisible boundaries' are passed: 'the copyright owner has lost control over his program.' " 480 F.Supp., at 467.

62

Later in its opinion, the District Court observed:

63

"Most of plaintiffs' predictions of harm hinge on speculation about audience viewing patterns and ratings, a measurement system which Sidney Sheinberg, MCA's president, calls a 'black art' because of the significant level of imprecision involved in the calculations." Id., at 469.35

64

There was no need for the District Court to say much about past harm. "Plaintiffs have admitted that no actual harm to their copyrights has occurred to date." Id., at 451.

65

On the question of potential future harm from time-shifting, the District Court offered a more detailed analysis of the evidence. It rejected respondents' "fear that persons 'watching' the original telecast of a program will not be measured in the live audience and the ratings and revenues will decrease," by observing that current measurement technology allows the Betamax audience to be reflected. Id., at 466.36 It rejected respondents' prediction "that live television or movie audiences will decrease as more people watch Betamax tapes as an alternative," with the observation that "[t]here is no factual basis for [the underlying] assumption." Ibid.37 It rejected respondents' "fear that time-shifting will reduce audiences for telecast reruns," and concluded instead that "given current market practices, this should aid plaintiffs rather than harm them." Ibid.38 And it declared that respondents' suggestion "that theater

or film rental exhibition of a program will suffer because of time-shift recording of that program" "lacks merit." 480 F.Supp., at 467.39

66

After completing that review, the District Court restated its overall conclusion several times, in several different ways. "Harm from time-shifting is speculative and, at best, minimal." Ibid. "The audience benefits from the time-shifting capability have already been discussed. It is not implausible that benefits could also accrue to plaintiffs, broadcasters, and advertisers, as the Betamax makes it possible for more persons to view their broadcasts." Ibid. "No likelihood of harm was shown at trial, and plaintiffs admitted that there had been no actual harm to date." Id., at 468-469. "Testimony at trial suggested that Betamax may require adjustments in marketing strategy, but it did not establish even a likelihood of harm." Id., at 469. "Television production by plaintiffs today is more profitable than it has ever been, and, in five weeks of trial, there was no concrete evidence to suggest that the Betamax will change the studios' financial picture." Ibid.

67

The District Court's conclusions are buttressed by the fact that to the extent time-shifting expands public access to freely broadcast television programs, it yields societal benefits. Earlier this year, in Community Television of Southern California v. Gottfried, --- U.S. ----, ---- - ----, n. 12, 103 S.Ct. 885, 891-892, 74 L.Ed.2d 705 (1983), we acknowledged the public interest in making television broadcasting more available. Concededly, that interest is not unlimited. But it supports an interpretation of the concept of "fair use" that requires the copyright holder to demonstrate some likelihood of harm before he may condemn a private act of time-shifting as a violation of federal law.

68

When these factors are all weighed in the "equitable rule of reason" balance, we must conclude that this record amply supports the District Court's conclusion that home time-shifting is fair use. In light of the findings of the District Court regarding the state of the empirical data, it is clear that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the statute as presently written bars such conduct.40

69

In summary, the record and findings of the District Court lead us to two conclusions. First, Sony demonstrated a significant likelihood that substantial numbers of copyright holders who license their works for broadcast on free television would not object to having their broadcasts time-shifted by

private viewers. And second, respondents failed to demonstrate that time-shifting would cause any likelihood of nonminimal harm to the potential market for, or the value of, their copyrighted works. The Betamax is, therefore, capable of substantial noninfringing uses. Sony's sale of such equipment to the general public does not constitute contributory infringement of respondent's copyrights.

V

70

"The direction of Art. I is that Congress shall have the power to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. When, as here, the Constitution is permissive, the sign of how far Congress has chosen to go can come only from Congress." Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., 406 U.S. 518, 530, 92 S.Ct. 1700, 1707, 32 L.Ed.2d 273 (1972).

71

One may search the Copyright Act in vain for any sign that the elected representatives of the millions of people who watch television every day have made it unlawful to copy a program for later viewing at home, or have enacted a flat prohibition against the sale of machines that make such copying possible.

72

It may well be that Congress will take a fresh look at this new technology, just as it so often has examined other innovations in the past. But it is not our job to apply laws that have not yet been written. Applying the copyright statute, as it now reads, to the facts as they have been developed in this case, the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be reversed.

73

It is so ordered. Justice BLACKMUN, with whom Justice MARSHALL, Justice POWELL, and Justice REHNQUIST join, dissenting.

74

A restatement of the facts and judicial history of this case is necessary, in my view, for a proper focus upon the issues. Respondents' position is hardly so "unprecedented," ante, at 421, in the copyright law,

nor does it really embody a "gross generalization," ante, at 436, or a "novel theory of liability," ante, at 437, and the like, as the Court, in belittling their claims, describes the efforts of respondents.

75

* The introduction of the home videotape recorder (VTR) upon the market has enabled millions of Americans to make recordings of television programs in their homes, for future and repeated viewing at their own convenience. While this practice has proved highly popular with owners of television sets and VTRs, it understandably has been a matter of concern for the holders of copyrights in the recorded programs. A result is the present litigation, raising the issues whether the home recording of a copyrighted television program is an infringement of the copyright, and, if so, whether the manufacturers and distributors of VTRs are liable as contributory infringers. I would hope that these questions ultimately will be considered seriously and in depth by the Congress and be resolved there, despite the fact that the Court's decision today provides little incentive for congressional action. Our task in the meantime, however, is to resolve these issues as best we can in the light of ill-fitting existing copyright law.

76

It is no answer, of course, to say and stress, as the Court does, this Court's "consistent deference to Congress" whenever "major technological innovations" appear. Ante, at 431. Perhaps a better and more accurate description is that the Court has tended to evade the hard issues when they arise in the area of copyright law. I see no reason for the Court to be particularly pleased with this tradition or to continue it. Indeed, it is fairly clear from the legislative history of the 1976 Act that Congress meant to change the old pattern and enact a statute that would cover new technologies, as well as old.

II

77

In 1976, respondents Universal City Studios, Inc., and Walt Disney Productions (Studios) brought this copyright infringement action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against, among others, petitioners Sony Corporation, a Japanese corporation, and Sony Corporation of America, a New York corporation, the manufacturer and distributor, respectively, of the Betamax VTR. The Studios sought damages, profits, and a wide-ranging injunction against further sales or use of the Betamax or Betamax tapes.

78

The Betamax, like other VTRs, presently is capable of recording television broadcasts off the air on videotape cassettes, and playing them back at a later time.1 Two kinds of Betamax usage are at issue here.2 The first is "time-shifting," whereby the user records a program in order to watch it at a later time, and then records over it, and thereby erases the program, after a single viewing. The second is "library-building," in which the user records a program in order to keep it for repeated viewing over a longer term. Sony's advertisements, at various times, have suggested that Betamax users "record favorite shows" or "build a library." Sony's Betamax advertising has never contained warnings about copyright infringement, although a warning does appear in the Betamax operating instructions.

79

The Studios produce copyrighted "movies" and other works that they release to theaters and license for television broadcast. They also rent and sell their works on film and on prerecorded videotapes and videodiscs. License fees for television broadcasts are set according to audience ratings, compiled by rating services that do not measure any playbacks of videotapes. The Studios make the serious claim that VTR recording may result in a decrease in their revenue from licensing their works to television and from marketing them in other ways.

80

After a 5-week trial, the District Court, with a detailed opinion, ruled that home VTR recording did not infringe the Studios' copyrights under either the Act of March 4, 1909 (1909 Act), 35 Stat. 1075, as amended (formerly codified as 17 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. (1976 ed.)), or the Copyright Revision Act of 1976 (1976 Act), 90 Stat. 2541, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. (1982 ed.).3 The District Court also held that even if home VTR recording were an infringement, Sony could not be held liable under theories of direct infringement, contributory infringement, or vicarious liability. Finally, the court concluded that an injunction against sales of the Betamax would be inappropriate even if Sony were liable under one or more of those theories. 480 F.Supp. 429 (1979).

81

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed in virtually every respect. 659 F.2d 963 (1981). It held that the 1909 Act and the 1976 Act contained no implied exemption for "home use" recording, that such recording was not "fair use," and that the use of the Betamax to record the Studios' copyrighted works infringed their copyrights. The Court of Appeals also held Sony liable for contributory infringement, reasoning that Sony knew and anticipated that the Betamax would be used to record copyrighted material off the air, and that Sony, indeed, had induced, caused, or materially contributed

to the infringing conduct. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District Court for appropriate relief; it suggested that the District Court could consider the award of damages or a continuing royalty in lieu of an injunction. Id., at 976.

III

82

The Copyright Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, § 8, cl. 8, empowers Congress "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." This Nation's initial copyright statute was passed by the First Congress. Entitled "An Act for the encouragement of learning," it gave an author "the sole right and liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing and vending" his "map, chart, book or books" for a period of 14 years. Act of May 31, 1790, § 1, 1 Stat. 124. Since then, as the technology available to authors for creating and preserving their writings has changed, the governing statute has changed with it. By many amendments, and by complete revisions in 1831, 1870, 1909, and 1976,4 authors' rights have been expanded to provide protection to any "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression," including "motion pictures and other audiovisual works." 17 U.S.C. § 102(a).5

83

Section 106 of the 1976 Act grants the owner of a copyright a variety of exclusive rights in the copyrighted work,6 including the right "to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords."7 This grant expressly is made subject to §§ 107-118, which create a number of exemptions and limitations on the copyright owner's rights. The most important of these sections, for present purposes, is § 107; that section states that "the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . is not an infringement of copyright."8

84

The 1976 Act, like its predecessors,9 does not give the copyright owner full and complete control over all possible uses of his work. If the work is put to some use not enumerated in § 106, the use is not an infringement. See Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists, 392 U.S. 390, 393-395, 88 S.Ct. 2084, 2085-2086, 20 L.Ed.2d 1176 (1968). Thus, before considering whether home videotaping comes within the scope of the fair use exemption, one first must inquire whether the practice appears to violate the exclusive right, granted in the first instance by § 106(1), "to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords."

85

Although the word "copies" is in the plural in § 106(1), there can be no question that under the Act the making of even a single unauthorized copy is prohibited. The Senate and House Reports explain: "The references to 'copies or phonorecords,' although in the plural, are intended here and throughout the bill to include the singular (1 U.S.C. § 1)."10 S.Rep. No. 94-473, p. 58 (1975) (1975 Senate Report); H.R.Rep. No. 94-1476, p. 61 (1976) (1976 House Report), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976, p. 5675. The Reports then describe the reproduction right established by § 106(1):

86

"[T]he right 'to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords' means the right to produce a material object in which the work is duplicated, transcribed, imitated, or simulated in a fixed form from which it can be 'perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.' As under the present law, a copyrighted work would be infringed by reproducing it in whole or in any substantial part, and by duplicating it exactly or by imitation or simulation." 1975 Senate Report 58; 1976 House Report 61, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976, p. 5675.

87

The making of even a single videotape recording at home falls within this definition; the VTR user produces a material object from which the copyrighted work later can be perceived. Unless Congress intended a special exemption for the making of a single copy for personal use, I must conclude that VTR recording is contrary to the exclusive rights granted by § 106(1).

88

The 1976 Act and its accompanying reports specify in some detail the situations in which a single copy of a copyrighted work may be made without infringement concerns. Section 108(a), for example, permits a library or archives "to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work" for a patron, but only under very limited conditions; an entire work, moreover, can be copied only if it cannot be obtained elsewhere at a fair price.11 § 108(e); see also § 112(a) (broadcaster may "make no more than one copy or phonorecord of a particular transmission program," and only under certain conditions). In other respects, the making of single copies is permissible only within the limited confines of the fair use doctrine. The Senate report, in a section headed "Single and multiple copying," notes that the fair use doctrine would permit a teacher to make a single copy of a work for use in the classroom, but only if the work was not a "sizable" one such as a novel or treatise. 1975 Senate Report 63-64; accord, 1976 House

Report 68-69, 71. Other situations in which the making of a single copy would be fair use are described in the House and Senate reports.12 But neither the statute nor its legislative history suggests any intent to create a general exemption for a single copy made for personal or private use.

89

Indeed, it appears that Congress considered and rejected the very possibility of a special private use exemption. The issue was raised early in the revision process, in one of the studies prepared for Congress under the supervision of the Copyright Office. Latman, Fair Use of Copyrighted Works (1958), reprinted in Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Copyright Law Revision, Studies Prepared for the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1960) (Latman Fair Use Study). This study found no reported case supporting the existence of an exemption for private use, although it noted that "the purpose and nature of a private use, and in some cases the small amount taken, might lead a court to apply the general principles of fair use in such a way as to deny liability." Id., at 12. After reviewing a number of foreign copyright laws that contained explicit statutory exemptions for private or personal use, id., at 25, Professor Latman outlined several approaches that a revision bill could take to the general issue of exemptions and fair use. One of these was the adoption of particularized rules to cover specific situations, including "the field of personal use." Id., at 33.13

90

Rejecting the latter alternative, the Register of Copyrights recommended that the revised copyright statute simply mention the doctrine of fair use and indicate its general scope. The Register opposed the adoption of rules and exemptions to cover specific situations,14 preferring, instead, to rely on the judge-made fair use doctrine to resolve new problems as they arose. See Register's 1961 Report 25; Register's Supplementary Report 27-28.

91

The Register's approach was reflected in the first copyright revision bills, drafted by the Copyright Office in 1964. These bills, like the 1976 Act, granted the copyright owner the exclusive right to reproduce the copyrighted work, subject only to the exceptions set out in later sections. H.R. 11947/S. 3008, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., § 5(a) (1964). The primary exception was fair use, § 6, containing language virtually identical to § 107 of the 1976 Act. Although the copyright revision bills underwent change in many respects from their first introduction in 1964 to their final passage in 1976, these portions of the bills did not change.15 I can conclude only that Congress, like the Register, intended to rely on the fair use doctrine, and not on a per se exemption for private use, to separate permissible copying from the impermissible.16

92

When Congress intended special and protective treatment for private use, moreover, it said so explicitly. One such explicit statement appears in § 106 itself. The copyright owner's exclusive right to perform a copyrighted work, in contrast to his right to reproduce the work in copies, is limited. Section 106(4) grants a copyright owner the exclusive right to perform the work "publicly," but does not afford the owner protection with respect to private performances by others. A motion picture is "performed" whenever its images are shown or its sounds are made audible. § 101. Like "sing[ing] a copyrighted lyric in the shower," Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 155, 95 S.Ct. 2040, 2043, 45 L.Ed.2d 84 (1975), watching television at home with one's family and friends is now considered a performance. 1975 Senate Report 59-60; 1976 House Report 63.17 Home television viewing nevertheless does not infringe any copyright—but only because § 106(4) contains the word "publicly."18 See generally 1975 Senate Report 60-61; 1976 House Report 63-64; Register's 1961 Report 29-30. No such distinction between public and private uses appears in § 106(1)'s prohibition on the making of copies.19

93

Similarly, an explicit reference to private use appears in § 108. Under that section, a library can make a copy for a patron only for specific types of private use: "private study, scholarship, or research."20 §§ 108(d)(1) and (e)(1); see 37 CFR § 201.14(b) (1982). Limits also are imposed on the extent of the copying and the type of institution that may make copies, and the exemption expressly is made inapplicable to motion pictures and certain other types of works. § 108(h). These limitations would be wholly superfluous if an entire copy of any work could be made by any person for private use.21

B

94

The District Court in this case nevertheless concluded that the 1976 Act contained an implied exemption for "home-use recording." 480 F.Supp., at 444-446. The court relied primarily on the legislative history of a 1971 amendment to the 1909 Act, a reliance that this Court today does not duplicate. Ante, at 430, n. 11. That amendment, however, was addressed to the specific problem of commercial piracy of sound recordings. Act of Oct. 15, 1971, 85 Stat. 391 (1971 Amendment). The House Report on the 1971 Amendment, in a section entitled "Home Recording," contains the following statement:

95

"In approving the creation of a limited copyright in sound recordings it is the intention of the Committee that this limited copyright not grant any broader rights than are accorded to other copyright proprietors under the existing title 17. Specifically, it is not the intention of the Committee to restrain the home recording, from broadcasts or from tapes or records, of recorded performances, where the home recording is for private use and with no purpose of reproducing or otherwise capitalizing commercially on it. This practice is common and unrestrained today, and the record producers and performers would be in no different position from that of the owners of copyright in recorded musical compositions over the past 20 years." H.R.Rep. No. 92-487, p. 7 (1971) (1971 House Report).

96

Similar statements were made during House hearings on the bill22 and on the House floor,23 although not in the Senate proceedings. In concluding that these statements created a general exemption for home recording, the District Court, in my view, paid too little heed to the context in which the statements were made, and failed to consider the limited purpose of the 1971 Amendment and the structure of the 1909 Act.

97

Unlike television broadcasts and other types of motion pictures, sound recordings were not protected by copyright prior to the passage of the 1971 Amendment. Although the underlying musical work could be copyrighted, the 1909 Act provided no protection for a particular performer's rendition of the work. Moreover, copyrighted musical works that had been recorded for public distribution were subject to a "compulsory license": any person was free to record such a work upon payment of a 2-cent royalty to the copyright owner. § 1(e), 35 Stat. 1075-1076. While reproduction without payment of the royalty was an infringement under the 1909 Act, damages were limited to three times the amount of the unpaid royalty. § 25(e), 35 Stat. 1081-1082; Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. Goody, 248 F.2d 260, 262-263, 265 (CA2 1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 952, 78 S.Ct. 536, 2 L.Ed.2d 529 (1958). It was observed that the practical effect of these provisions was to legalize record piracy. See S.Rep. No. 92-72, p. 4 (1971); 1971 House Report 2.

98

In order to suppress this piracy, the 1971 Amendment extended copyright protection beyond the underlying work and to the sound recordings themselves. Congress chose, however, to provide only limited protection: owners of copyright in sound recordings were given the exclusive right "[t]o reproduce [their works] and distribute [them] to the public." 1971 Amendment, § 1(a), 85 Stat. 391

(formerly codified as 17 U.S.C. § 1(f) (1976 ed.)).24 This right was merely the right of commercial distribution. See 117 Cong.Rec. 34748-34749 (1971) (colloquy of Reps. Kazen & Kastenmeier) ("the bill protects copyrighted material that is duplicated for commercial purposes only").

99

Against this background, the statements regarding home recording under the 1971 Amendment appear in a very different light. If home recording was "common and unrestrained" under the 1909 Act, see 1971 House Report 7, it was because sound recordings had no copyright protection and the owner of a copyright in the underlying musical work could collect no more than a 2-cent royalty plus 6 cents in damages for each unauthorized use. With so little at stake, it is not at all surprising that the Assistant Register "d[id] not see anybody going into anyone's home and preventing this sort of thing." 1971 House Hearings 23.

100

But the references to home sound recording in the 1971 Amendment's legislative history demonstrate no congressional intent to create a generalized home use exemption from copyright protection. Congress, having recognized that the 1909 Act had been unsuccessful in controlling home sound recording, addressed only the specific problem of commercial record piracy. To quote Assistant Register Ringer again, home use was "not what this legislation [was] addressed to." 1971 House Hearings 22.25

101

While the 1971 Amendment narrowed the sound recordings loophole in then existing copyright law, motion pictures and other audiovisual works have been accorded full copyright protection since at least 1912, see Act of Aug. 24, 1912, 37 Stat. 488, and perhaps before, see Edison v. Lubin, 122 F. 240 (CA3 1903), app. dism'd, 195 U.S. 625, 25 S.Ct. 790, 49 L.Ed. 349 (1904). Congress continued this protection in the 1976 Act. Unlike the sound recording rights created by the 1971 Amendment, the reproduction rights associated with motion pictures under § 106(1) are not limited to reproduction for public distribution; the copyright owner's right to reproduce the work exists independently, and the "mere duplication of a copy may constitute an infringement even if it is never distributed." Register's Supplementary Report 16; see 1975 Senate Report 57 and 1976 House Report 61. Moreover, the 1976 Act was intended as a comprehensive treatment of all aspects of copyright law. The reports accompanying the 1976 Act, unlike the 1971 House Report, contain no suggestion that home-use recording is somehow outside the scope of this all-inclusive statute. It was clearly the intent of Congress that no additional exemptions were to be implied.26

102

I therefore find in the 1976 Act no implied exemption to cover the home taping of television programs, whether it be for a single copy, for private use, or for home use. Taping a copyrighted television program is infringement unless it is permitted by the fair use exemption contained in § 107 of the 1976 Act. I now turn to that issue.

IV

Fair Use

103

The doctrine of fair use has been called, with some justification, "the most troublesome in the whole law of copyright." Dellar v. Samuel Goldwyn, Inc., 104 F.2d 661, 662 (CA2 1939); see Triangle Publications, Inc. v. Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Inc., 626 F.2d 1171, 1174 (CA5 1980); Meeropol v. Nizer, 560 F.2d 1061, 1068 (CA2 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1013, 98 S.Ct. 727, 54 L.Ed.2d 756 (1978). Although courts have constructed lists of factors to be considered in determining whether a particular use is fair,27 no fixed criteria have emerged by which that determination can be made. This Court thus far has provided no guidance; although fair use issues have come here twice, on each occasion the Court was equally divided and no opinion was forthcoming. Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States, 203 Ct.Cl. 74, 487 F.2d 1345 (1973), aff'd, 420 U.S. 376, 95 S.Ct. 1344, 43 L.Ed.2d 264 (1975); Benny v. Loew's, Inc., 239 F.2d 532 (CA9 1956), aff'd sub nom. CBS, Inc. v. Loew's Inc., 356 U.S. 43, 78 S.Ct. 667, 2 L.Ed.2d 583 (1958).

104

Nor did Congress provide definitive rules when it codified the fair use doctrine in the 1976 Act; it simply incorporated a list of factors "to be considered": the "purpose and character of the use," the "nature of the copyrighted work," the "amount and substantiality of the portion used," and, perhaps the most important, the "effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" (emphasis supplied). § 107. No particular weight, however, was assigned to any of these, and the list was not intended to be exclusive. The House and Senate Reports explain that § 107 does no more than give "statutory recognition" to the fair use doctrine; it was intended "to restate the present judicial doctrine of fair use, not to change, narrow, or enlarge it in any way." 1976 House Report 66, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976, p. 5680. See 1975 Senate Report 62; S.Rep. No. 93-983, p. 116 (1974); H.R.Rep. No. 83, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 32 (1967); H.R.Rep. No. 2237, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 61 (1966).

105

* Despite this absence of clear standards, the fair use doctrine plays a crucial role in the law of copyright. The purpose of copyright protection, in the words of the Constitution, is to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Copyright is based on the belief that by granting authors the exclusive rights to reproduce their works, they are given an incentive to create, and that "encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance public welfare through the talents of authors and inventors in 'Science and the useful Arts.' " Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 219, 74 S.Ct. 460, 471, 98 L.Ed. 630 (1954). The monopoly created by copyright thus rewards the individual author in order to benefit the public. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 156, 95 S.Ct. 2040, 2043, 45 L.Ed.2d 84 (1975); Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123, 127-128, 52 S.Ct. 546, 547, 76 L.Ed. 1010 (1932); see H.R.Rep. No. 2222, 60th Cong., 2d Sess., 7 (1909).

106

There are situations, nevertheless, in which strict enforcement of this monopoly would inhibit the very "Progress of Science and useful Arts" that copyright is intended to promote. An obvious example is the researcher or scholar whose own work depends on the ability to refer to and to quote the work of prior scholars. Obviously, no author could create a new work if he were first required to repeat the research of every author who had gone before him.28 The scholar, like the ordinary user, of course could be left to bargain with each copyright owner for permission to quote from or refer to prior works. But there is a crucial difference between the scholar and the ordinary user. When the ordinary user decides that the owner's price is too high, and forgoes use of the work, only the individual is the loser. When the scholar forgoes the use of a prior work, not only does his own work suffer, but the public is deprived of his contribution to knowledge. The scholar's work, in other words, produces external benefits from which everyone profits. In such a case, the fair use doctrine acts as a form of subsidy—albeit at the first author's expense—to permit the second author to make limited use of the first author's work for the public good. See Latman Fair Use Study 31; Gordon, Fair Use as Market Failure: A Structural Analysis of the Betamax Case and its Predecessors, 82 Colum.L.Rev. 1600, 1630 (1982).

107

A similar subsidy may be appropriate in a range of areas other than pure scholarship. The situations in which fair use is most commonly recognized are listed in § 107 itself; fair use may be found when a work is used "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, . . . scholarship, or research." The House and Senate Reports expand on this list somewhat,29 and other examples may be found in the case law.30 Each of these uses, however, reflects a common theme: each is a productive use, resulting in some added benefit to the public beyond that produced by the first author's work.31 The fair use doctrine, in other words, permits works to be used for "socially laudable purposes." See Copyright Office, Briefing Papers on Current Issues, reprinted in 1975 House Hearings 2051, 2055. I am

aware of no case in which the reproduction of a copyrighted work for the sole benefit of the user has been held to be fair use.32

108

I do not suggest, of course, that every productive use is a fair use. A finding of fair use still must depend on the facts of the individual case, and on whether, under the circumstances, it is reasonable to expect the user to bargain with the copyright owner for use of the work. The fair use doctrine must strike a balance between the dual risks created by the copyright system: on the one hand, that depriving authors of their monopoly will reduce their incentive to create, and, on the other, that granting authors a complete monopoly will reduce the creative ability of others.33 The inquiry is necessarily a flexible one, and the endless variety of situations that may arise precludes the formulation of exact rules. But when a user reproduces an entire work and uses it for its original purpose, with no added benefit to the public, the doctrine of fair use usually does not apply. There is then no need whatsoever to provide the ordinary user with a fair use subsidy at the author's expense.

109

The making of a videotape recording for home viewing is an ordinary rather than a productive use of the Studios' copyrighted works. The District Court found that "Betamax owners use the copy for the same purpose as the original. They add nothing of their own." 480 F.Supp., at 453. Although applying the fair use doctrine to home VTR recording, as Sony argues, may increase public access to material broadcast free over the public airwaves, I think Sony's argument misconceives the nature of copyright. Copyright gives the author a right to limit or even to cut off access to his work. Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123, 127, 52 S.Ct. 546, 547, 76 L.Ed. 1010 (1932). A VTR recording creates no public benefit sufficient to justify limiting this right. Nor is this right extinguished by the copyright owner's choice to make the work available over the airwaves. Section 106 of the 1976 Act grants the copyright owner the exclusive right to control the performance and the reproduction of his work, and the fact that he has licensed a single television performance is really irrelevant to the existence of his right to control its reproduction. Although a television broadcast may be free to the viewer, this fact is equally irrelevant; a book borrowed from the public library may not be copied any more freely than a book that is purchased.

110

It may be tempting, as, in my view, the Court today is tempted, to stretch the doctrine of fair use so as to permit unfettered use of this new technology in order to increase access to television programming. But such an extension risks eroding the very basis of copyright law, by depriving authors of control over their works and consequently of their incentive to create.34 Even in the context of highly productive educational uses, Congress has avoided this temptation; in passing the 1976 Act, Congress made it clear

that off-the-air videotaping was to be permitted only in very limited situations. See 1976 House Report 71; 1975 Senate Report 64. And, the Senate report adds, "[t]he committee does not intend to suggest . . . that off-the-air recording for convenience would under any circumstances, be considered 'fair use.' " Id., at 66. I cannot disregard these admonitions.

B

111

I recognize, nevertheless, that there are situations where permitting even an unproductive use would have no effect on the author's incentive to create, that is, where the use would not affect the value of, or the market for, the author's work. Photocopying an old newspaper clipping to send to a friend may be an example; pinning a quotation on one's bulletin board may be another. In each of these cases, the effect on the author is truly de minimis. Thus, even though these uses provide no benefit to the public at large, no purpose is served by preserving the author's monopoly, and the use may be regarded as fair.

112

Courts should move with caution, however, in depriving authors of protection from unproductive "ordinary" uses. As has been noted above, even in the case of a productive use, § 107(4) requires consideration of "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" (emphasis added). "[A] particular use which may seem to have little or no economic impact on the author's rights today can assume tremendous importance in times to come." Register's Supplementary Report 14. Although such a use may seem harmless when viewed in isolation, "[i]solated instances of minor infringements, when multiplied many times, become in the aggregate a major inroad on copyright that must be prevented." 1975 Senate Report 65.

113

I therefore conclude that, at least when the proposed use is an unproductive one, a copyright owner need prove only a potential for harm to the market for or the value of the copyrighted work. See 3 M. Nimmer, Copyright § 13.05[E][4][c], p. 13-84 (1982). Proof of actual harm, or even probable harm, may be impossible in an area where the effect of a new technology is speculative, and requiring such proof would present the "real danger . . . of confining the scope of an author's rights on the basis of the present technology so that, as the years go by, his copyright loses much of its value because of unforeseen technical advances." Register's Supplementary Report 14. Infringement thus would be found if the copyright owner demonstrates a reasonable possibility that harm will result from the proposed

use. When the use is one that creates no benefit to the public at large, copyright protection should not be denied on the basis that a new technology that may result in harm has not yet done so.

114

The Studios have identified a number of ways in which VTR recording could damage their copyrights. VTR recording could reduce their ability to market their works in movie theaters and through the rental or sale of pre-recorded videotapes or videodiscs; it also could reduce their rerun audience, and consequently the license fees available to them for repeated showings. Moreover, advertisers may be willing to pay for only "live" viewing audiences, if they believe VTR viewers will delete commercials or if rating services are unable to measure VTR use; if this is the case, VTR recording could reduce the license fees the Studios are able to charge even for first-run showings. Library-building may raise the potential for each of the types of harm identified by the Studios, and time-shifting may raise the potential for substantial harm as well.35

115

Although the District Court found no likelihood of harm from VTR use, 480 F.Supp., at 468, I conclude that it applied an incorrect substantive standard and misallocated the burden of proof. The District Court reasoned that the Studios had failed to prove that library-building would occur "to any significant extent," id., at 467; that the Studios' prerecorded videodiscs could compete with VTR recordings and were "arguably . . . more desirable," ibid; that it was "not clear that movie audiences will decrease," id., at 468; and that the practice of deleting commercials "may be too tedious" for many viewers, ibid. To the extent any decrease in advertising revenues would occur, the court concluded that the Studios had "marketing alternatives at hand to recoup some of that predicted loss." Id., at 452. Because the Studios' prediction of harm was "based on so many assumptions and on a system of marketing which is rapidly changing," the court was "hesitant to identify 'probable effects' of home-use copying." Ibid.

116

The District Court's reluctance to engage in prediction in this area is understandable, but, in my view, the court was mistaken in concluding that the Studios should bear the risk created by this uncertainty. The Studios have demonstrated a potential for harm, which has not been, and could not be, refuted at this early stage of technological development.

117

The District Court's analysis of harm, moreover, failed to consider the effect of VTR recording on "the

potential market for or the value of the copyrighted work," as required by § 107(4).36 The requirement that a putatively infringing use of a copyrighted work, to be "fair," must not impair a "potential" market for the work has two implications. First, an infringer cannot prevail merely by demonstrating that the copyright holder suffered no net harm from the infringer's action. Indeed, even a showing that the infringement has resulted in a net benefit to the copyright holder will not suffice. Rather, the infringer must demonstrate that he had not impaired the copyright holder's ability to demand compensation from (or to deny access to) any group who would otherwise be willing to pay to see or hear the copyrighted work. Second, the fact that a given market for a copyrighted work would not be available to the copyright holder were it not for the infringer's activities does not permit the infringer to exploit that market without compensating the copyright holder. See Iowa State University Research Foundation, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., 621 F.2d 57 (CA2 1980).

118

In this case, the Studios and their amici demonstrate that the advent of the VTR technology created a potential market for their copyrighted programs. That market consists of those persons who find it impossible or inconvenient to watch the programs at the time they are broadcast, and who wish to watch them at other times. These persons are willing to pay for the privilege of watching copyrighted work at their convenience, as is evidenced by the fact that they are willing to pay for VTRs and tapes; undoubtedly, most also would be willing to pay some kind of royalty to copyright holders. The Studios correctly argue that they have been deprived of the ability to exploit this sizable market.

119

It is thus apparent from the record and from the findings of the District Court that time-shifting does have a substantial adverse effect upon the "potential market for" the Studios' copyrighted works. Accordingly, even under the formulation of the fair use doctrine advanced by Sony, time-shifting cannot be deemed a fair use.

V

Contributory Infringement

120

From the Studios' perspective, the consequences of home VTR recording are the same as if a business

had taped the Studios' works off the air, duplicated the tapes, and sold or rented them to members of the public for home viewing. The distinction is that home VTR users do not record for commercial advantage; the commercial benefit accrues to the manufacturer and distributors of the Betamax. I thus must proceed to discuss whether the manufacturer and distributors can be held contributorily liable if the product they sell is used to infringe.

121

It is well established that liability for copyright infringement can be imposed on persons other than those who actually carry out the infringing activity. Kalem Co. v. Harper Brothers, 222 U.S. 55, 62-63, 32 S.Ct. 20, 21-22, 56 L.Ed. 92 (1911); 3 M. Nimmer, Copyright § 12.04[A] (1982); see Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 160, n. 11, 95 S.Ct. 2040, 2046, n. 11, 45 L.Ed.2d 84 (1975); Buck v. Jewell-LaSalle Realty Co., 283 U.S. 191, 198, 51 S.Ct. 410, 411, 75 L.Ed. 971 (1931). Although the liability provision of the 1976 Act provides simply that "[a]nyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner . . . is an infringer of the copyright," 17 U.S.C. § 501(a), the House and Senate Reports demonstrate that Congress intended to retain judicial doctrines of contributory infringement. 1975 Senate Report 57; 1976 House Report 61.37

122

The doctrine of contributory copyright infringement, however, is not well-defined. One of the few attempts at definition appears in Gershwin Publishing Corp. v. Columbia Artists Management, Inc., 443 F.2d 1159 (CA2 1971). In that case the Second Circuit stated that "one who, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another, may be held liable as a 'contributory' infringer." Id., at 1162 (footnote omitted). While I have no quarrel with this general statement, it does not easily resolve the present case; the District Court and the Court of Appeals, both purporting to apply it, reached diametrically opposite results.

A.

123

In absolving Sony from liability, the District Court reasoned that Sony had no direct involvement with individual Betamax users, did not participate in any off-the-air copying, and did not know that such copying was an infringement of the Studios' copyright. 480 F.Supp., at 460. I agree with the Gershwin court that contributory liability may be imposed even when the defendant has no formal control over the infringer. The defendant in Gershwin was a concert promoter operating through local concert

associations that it sponsored; it had no formal control over the infringing performers themselves. 443 F.2d, at 1162-1163. See also Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at 160, n. 11, 95 S.Ct., at 2046, n. 11. Moreover, a finding of contributory infringement has never depended on actual knowledge of particular instances of infringement; it is sufficient that the defendant have reason to know that infringement is taking place. 443 F.2d, at 1162; see Screen Gems-Columbia Music, Inc. v. Mark-Fi Records, Inc., 256 F.Supp. 399 (SDNY 1966).38 In the so-called "dance hall" cases, in which questions of contributory infringement arise with some frequency, proprietors of entertainment establishments routinely are held liable for unauthorized performances on their premises, even when they have no knowledge that copyrighted works are being performed. In effect, the proprietors in those cases are charged with constructive knowledge of the performances.39

124

Nor is it necessary that the defendant be aware that the infringing activity violates the copyright laws. Section 504(c)(2) of the 1976 Act provides for a reduction in statutory damages when an infringer proves he "was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright," but the statute establishes no general exemption for those who believe their infringing activities are legal. Moreover, such an exemption would be meaningless in a case such as this, in which prospective relief is sought; once a court has established that the copying at issue is infringement, the defendants are necessarily aware of that fact for the future. It is undisputed in this case that Sony had reason to know the Betamax would be used by some owners to tape copyrighted works off the air. See 480 F.Supp., at 459-460.

125

The District Court also concluded that Sony had not caused, induced, or contributed materially to any infringing activities of Betamax owners. 480 F.Supp., at 460. In a case of this kind, however, causation can be shown indirectly; it does not depend on evidence that particular Betamax owners relied on particular advertisements. In an analogous case decided just two Terms ago, this Court approved a lower court's conclusion that liability for contributory trademark infringement could be imposed on a manufacturer who "suggested, even by implication" that a retailer use the manufacturer's goods to infringe the trademark of another. Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 851, 102 S.Ct. 2182, 2186, 72 L.Ed.2d 606 (1982); see id., at 860, 102 S.Ct., at 2191 (concurring opinion). I think this standard is equally appropriate in the copyright context.

126

The District Court found that Sony has advertised the Betamax as suitable for off-the-air recording of "favorite shows," "novels for television," and "classic movies," 480 F.Supp., at 436, with no visible

warning that such recording could constitute copyright infringement. It is only with the aid of the Betamax or some other VTR, that it is possible today for home television viewers to infringe copyright by recording off-the-air. Off-the-air recording is not only a foreseeable use for the Betamax, but indeed is its intended use. Under the circumstances, I agree with the Court of Appeals that if off-the-air recording is an infringement of copyright, Sony has induced and materially contributed to the infringing conduct of Betamax owners.40

B

127

Sony argues that the manufacturer or seller of a product used to infringe is absolved from liability whenever the product can be put to any substantial noninfringing use. Brief for Petitioners 41-42. The District Court so held, borrowing the "staple article of commerce" doctrine governing liability for contributory infringement of patents. See 35 U.S.C. § 271.41 This Court today is much less positive. See ante, at 440-442. I do not agree that this technical judge-made doctrine of patent law, based in part on considerations irrelevant to the field of copyright, see generally Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 448 U.S. 176, 187-199, 100 S.Ct. 2601, 2608-2614, 65 L.Ed.2d 696 (1980), should be imported wholesale into copyright law. Despite their common constitutional source, see U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 8, patent and copyright protections have not developed in a parallel fashion, and this Court in copyright cases in the past has borrowed patent concepts only sparingly. See Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 345-346, 28 S.Ct. 722, 724, 52 L.Ed. 1086 (1908).

128

I recognize, however, that many of the concerns underlying the "staple article of commerce" doctrine are present in copyright law as well. As the District Court noted, if liability for contributory infringement were imposed on the manufacturer or seller of every product used to infringe—a typewriter, a camera, a photocopying machine—the "wheels of commerce" would be blocked. 480 F.Supp., at 461; see also Kalem Co. v. Harper Brothers, 222 U.S., at 62, 32 S.Ct., at 21.

129

I therefore conclude that if a significant portion of the product's use is noninfringing, the manufacturers and sellers cannot be held contributorily liable for the product's infringing uses. See ante, at 440-441. If virtually all of the product's use, however, is to infringe, contributory liability may be imposed; if no one would buy the product for noninfringing purposes alone, it is clear that the manufacturer is purposely

profiting from the infringement, and that liability is appropriately imposed. In such a case, the copyright owner's monopoly would not be extended beyond its proper bounds; the manufacturer of such a product contributes to the infringing activities of others and profits directly thereby, while providing no benefit to the public sufficient to justify the infringement.

130

The Court of Appeals concluded that Sony should be held liable for contributory infringement, reasoning that "[v]ideotape recorders are manufactured, advertised, and sold for the primary purpose of reproducing television programming," and "[v]irtually all television programming is copyrighted material." 659 F.2d, at 975. While I agree with the first of these propositions,42 the second, for me, is problematic. The key question is not the amount of television programming that is copyrighted, but rather the amount of VTR usage that is infringing.43 Moreover, the parties and their amici have argued vigorously about both the amount of television programming that is covered by copyright and the amount for which permission to copy has been given. The proportion of VTR recording that is infringing is ultimately a question of fact,44 and the District Court specifically declined to make findings on the "percentage of legal versus illegal home-use recording." 480 F.Supp., at 468. In light of my view of the law, resolution of this factual question is essential. I therefore would remand the case for further consideration of this by the District Court.

VI

131

The Court has adopted an approach very different from the one I have outlined. It is my view that the Court's approach alters dramatically the doctrines of fair use and contributory infringement as they have been developed by Congress and the courts. Should Congress choose to respond to the Court's decision, the old doctrines can be resurrected. As it stands, however, the decision today erodes much of the coherence that these doctrines have struggled to achieve.

132

The Court's disposition of the case turns on its conclusion that time-shifting is a fair use. Because both parties agree that time-shifting is the primary use of VTRs, that conclusion, if correct, would settle the issue of Sony's liability under almost any definition of contributory infringement. The Court concludes that time-shifting is fair use for two reasons. Each is seriously flawed.

133

The Court's first reason for concluding that time-shifting is fair use is its claim that many copyright holders have no objection to time-shifting, and that "respondents have no right to prevent other copyright holders from authorizing it for their programs." Ante, at 442. The Court explains that a finding of contributory infringement would "inevitably frustrate the interests of broadcasters in reaching the portion of their audience that is available only through time-shifting." Ante, at 446. Such reasoning, however, simply confuses the question of liability with the difficulty of fashioning an appropriate remedy. It may be that an injunction prohibiting the sale of VTRs would harm the interests of copyright holders who have no objection to others making copies of their programs. But such concerns should and would be taken into account in fashioning an appropriate remedy once liability has been found. Remedies may well be available that would not interfere with authorized time-shifting at all. The Court of Appeals mentioned the possibility of a royalty payment that would allow VTR sales and time-shifting to continue unabated, and the parties may be able to devise other narrowly tailored remedies. Sony may be able, for example, to build a VTR that enables broadcasters to scramble the signal of individual programs and "jam" the unauthorized recording of them. Even were an appropriate remedy not available at this time, the Court should not misconstrue copyright holders' rights in a manner that prevents enforcement of them when, through development of better techniques, an appropriate remedy becomes available.45

134

The Court's second stated reason for finding that Sony is not liable for contributory infringement is its conclusion that even unauthorized time-shifting is fair use. Ante, at 447. This conclusion is even more troubling. The Court begins by suggesting that the fair use doctrine operates as a general "equitable rule of reason." That interpretation mischaracterizes the doctrine, and simply ignores the language of the statute. Section 107 establishes the fair use doctrine "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, . . . scholarship, or research." These are all productive uses. It is true that the legislative history states repeatedly that the doctrine must be applied flexibly on a case-by-case basis, but those references were only in the context of productive uses. Such a limitation on fair use comports with its purpose, which is to facilitate the creation of new works. There is no indication that the fair use doctrine has any application for purely personal consumption on the scale involved in this case,46 and the Court's application of it here deprives fair use of the major cohesive force that has guided evolution of the doctrine in the past.

135

Having bypassed the initial hurdle for establishing that a use is fair, the Court then purports to apply to time-shifting the four factors explicitly stated in the statute. The first is "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes."

§ 107(1). The Court confidently describes time-shifting as a noncommercial, nonprofit activity. It is clear, however, that personal use of programs that have been copied without permission is not what § 107(1) protects. The intent of the section is to encourage users to engage in activities the primary benefit of which accrues to others. Time-shifting involves no such humanitarian impulse. It is likewise something of a mischaracterization of time-shifting to describe it as noncommercial in the sense that that term is used in the statute. As one commentator has observed, time-shifting is noncommercial in the same sense that stealing jewelry and wearing it—instead of reselling it—is noncommercial.47 Purely consumptive uses are certainly not what the fair use doctrine was designed to protect, and the awkwardness of applying the statutory language to time-shifting only makes clearer that fair use was designed to protect only uses that are productive.

136

The next two statutory factors are all but ignored by the Court—though certainly not because they have no applicability. The second factor—"the nature of the copyrighted work"—strongly supports the view that time-shifting is an infringing use. The rationale guiding application of this factor is that certain types of works, typically those involving "more of diligence than of originality or inventiveness," New York Times Co. v. Roxbury Data Interface, Inc., 434 F.Supp. 217, 221 (NJ 1977), require less copyright protection than other original works. Thus, for example, informational works, such as news reports, that readily lend themselves to productive use by others, are less protected than creative works of entertainment. Sony's own surveys indicate that entertainment shows account for more than 80 percent of the programs recorded by Betamax owners.48

137

The third statutory factor—"the amount and substantiality of the portion used"—is even more devastating to the Court's interpretation. It is undisputed that virtually all VTR owners record entire works, see 480 F.Supp., at 454, thereby creating an exact substitute for the copyrighted original. Fair use is intended to allow individuals engaged in productive uses to copy small portions of original works that will facilitate their own productive endeavors. Time-shifting bears no resemblance to such activity, and the complete duplication that it involves might alone be sufficient to preclude a finding of fair use. It is little wonder that the Court has chosen to ignore this statutory factor.49

138

The fourth factor requires an evaluation of "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." This is the factor upon which the Court focuses, but once again, the Court has misread the statute. As mentioned above, the statute requires a court to consider the effect of the use on the potential market for the copyrighted work. The Court has struggled mightily to show that VTR use

has not reduced the value of the Studios' copyrighted works in their present markets. Even if true, that showing only begins the proper inquiry. The development of the VTR has created a new market for the works produced by the Studios. That market consists of those persons who desire to view television programs at times other than when they are broadcast, and who therefore purchase VTR recorders to enable them to time-shift.50 Because time-shifting of the Studios' copyrighted works involves the copying of them, however, the Studios are entitled to share in the benefits of that new market. Those benefits currently go to Sony through Betamax sales. Respondents therefore can show harm from VTR use simply by showing that the value of their copyrights would increase if they were compensated for the copies that are used in the new market. The existence of this effect is self-evident.

139

Because of the Court's conclusion concerning the legality of time-shifting, it never addresses the amount of noninfringing use that a manufacturer must show to absolve itself from liability as a contributory infringer. Thus, it is difficult to discuss how the Court's test for contributory infringement would operate in practice under a proper analysis of time-shifting. One aspect of the test as it is formulated by the Court, however, particularly deserves comment. The Court explains that a manufacturer of a product is not liable for contributory infringement as long as the product is "capable of substantial noninfringing uses." Ante, at 442 (emphasis supplied). Such a definition essentially eviscerates the concept of contributory infringement. Only the most unimaginative manufacturer would be unable to demonstrate that a image-duplicating product is "capable" of substantial noninfringing uses. Surely Congress desired to prevent the sale of products that are used almost exclusively to infringe copyrights; the fact that noninfringing uses exist presumably would have little bearing on that desire.

140

More importantly, the rationale for the Court's narrow standard of contributory infringement reveals that, once again, the Court has confused the issue of liability with that of remedy. The Court finds that a narrow definition of contributory infringement is necessary in order to protect "the rights of others freely to engage in substantially unrelated areas of commerce." Ante, at 442. But application of the contributory infringement doctrine implicates such rights only if the remedy attendant upon a finding of liability were an injunction against the manufacture of the product in question. The issue of an appropriate remedy is not before the Court at this time, but it seems likely that a broad injunction is not the remedy that would be ordered. It is unfortunate that the Court has allowed its concern over a remedy to infect its analysis of liability.

VII

141

The Court of Appeals, having found Sony liable, remanded for the District Court to consider the propriety of injunctive or other relief. Because of my conclusion as to the issue of liability, I, too, would not decide here what remedy would be appropriate if liability were found. I concur, however, in the Court of Appeals' suggestion that an award of damages, or continuing royalties, or even some form of limited injunction, may well be an appropriate means of balancing the equities in this case.51 Although I express no view on the merits of any particular proposal, I am certain that, if Sony were found liable in this case, the District Court would be able to fashion appropriate relief. The District Court might conclude, of course, that a continuing royalty or other equitable relief is not feasible. The Studios then would be relegated to statutory damages for proved instances of infringement. But the difficulty of fashioning relief, and the possibility that complete relief may be unavailable, should not affect our interpretation of the statute.

142

Like so many other problems created by the interaction of copyright law with a new technology, "[t]here can be no really satisfactory solution to the problem presented here, until Congress acts." Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at 167, 95 S.Ct., at 2049 (dissenting opinion). But in the absence of a congressional solution, courts cannot avoid difficult problems by refusing to apply the law. We must "take the Copyright Act . . . as we find it," Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists, 392 U.S. 390, 401-402, 88 S.Ct. 2084, 2090, 20 L.Ed.2d 1176 (1968), and "do as little damage as possible to traditional copyright principles . . . until the Congress legislates." Id., at 404, 88 S.Ct., at 2091 (dissenting opinion).

1

The respondents also asserted causes of action under state law and § 43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946, 60 Stat. 441, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). These claims are not before this Court.

2

The four retailers are Carter, Hawley, Hales, Stores, Inc.; Associated Dry Goods Corp.; Federated Department Stores, Inc.; and Henry's Camera Corp. The principal defendants are Sony Corporation, the manufacturer of the equipment, and its wholly owned subsidiary, Sony Corporation of America. The advertising agency of Doyle, Dane, Burnbock, Inc., also involved in marketing the Betamax, is also a petitioner. An individual VTR user, Willis Griffiths, was named as a defendant in the District Court, but respondent sought no relief against him. Griffiths is not a petitioner. For convenience, we shall refer to petitioners collectively as Sony.

3

As evidence of how a VTR may be used, respondents offered the testimony of William Griffiths. Griffiths, although named as an individual defendant, was a client of plaintiffs' law firm. The District Court summarized his testimony as follows:

"He owns approximately 100 tapes. When Griffiths bought his Betamax, he intended not only to time-shift (record, play-back and then erase) but also to build a library of cassettes. Maintaining a library, however, proved too expensive, and he is now erasing some earlier tapes and reusing them.

"Griffiths copied about 20 minutes of a Universal motion picture called 'Never Give An Inch,' and two episodes from Universal television series entitled 'Baa Baa Black Sheep' and 'Holmes and Yo Yo.' He would have erased each of these but for the request of plaintiffs' counsel that it be kept. Griffiths also testified that he had copied but already erased Universal films called 'Alpha Caper' (erased before anyone saw it) and 'Amelia Earhart.' At the time of his deposition Griffiths did not intend to keep any Universal film in his library.

"Griffiths has also recorded documentaries, news broadcasts, sporting events and political programs such as a rerun of the Nixon/Kennedy debate." 480 F.Supp., at 436-437.

Four other witnesses testified to having engaged in similar activity.

4

The District Court summarized some of the findings in these surveys as follows:

"According to plaintiffs' survey, 75.4% of the VTR owners use their machines to record for time-shifting purposes half or most of the time. Defendants' survey showed that 96% of the Betamax owners had used the machine to record programs they otherwise would have missed.

"When plaintiffs asked interviewees how many cassettes were in their library, 55.8% said there were 10 or fewer. In defendants' survey, of the total programs viewed by interviewees in the past month, 70.4%

had been viewed only that one time and for 57.9%, there were no plans for further viewing." 480 F.Supp., at 438.

5

"81.9% of the defendants' interviewees watched the same amount or more of regular television as they did before owning a Betamax. 83.2% reported their frequency of movie going was unaffected by Betamax." 480 F.Supp., at 439.

6

See Def.Exh. OT, Table 20; Tr. 2447-2450, 2480, 2486-2487, 2515-2516, 2530-2534.

7

The trial also briefly touched upon demonstrations of the Betamax by the retailer petitioners which were alleged to be infringements by respondents. The District Court held against respondents on this claim, 480 F.Supp., at 456-457, the Court of Appeals affirmed this holding, 659 F.2d, at 976, and respondents did not cross-petition on this issue.

8

The court also found that this "access is not just a matter of convenience, as plaintiffs have suggested. Access has been limited not simply by inconvenience but by the basic need to work. Access to the better program has also been limited by the competitive practice of counterprogramming." 480 F.Supp., at 454.

9

"Without a 'productive use', i.e. when copyrighted material is reproduced for its intrinsic use, the mass copying of the sort involved in this case precludes an application of fair use." 659 F.2d, at 971-972.

10

In its report accompanying the comprehensive revision of the Copyright Act in 1909, the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives explained this balance:

"The enactment of copyright legislation by Congress under the terms of the Constitution is not based upon any natural right that the author has in his writings, . . . but upon the ground that the welfare of the public will be served and progress of science and useful arts will be promoted by securing to authors for limited periods the exclusive rights to their writings.

* * * * *

"In enacting a copyright law Congress must consider . . . two questions: First, how much will the legislation stimulate the producer and so benefit the public, and, second, how much will the monopoly granted be detrimental to the public? The granting of such exclusive rights, under the proper terms and conditions, confers a benefit upon the public that outweighs the evils of the temporary monopoly." H.R.Rep. No. 2222, 60th Cong., 2d Sess. 7 (1909).

11

Thus, for example, the development and marketing of player pianos and perforated roles of music, see White-Smith Music Publishing Co. v. Apollo Co., 209 U.S. 1, 28 S.Ct. 319, 52 L.Ed. 655 (1908), preceded the enactment of the Copyright Act of 1909; innovations in copying techniques gave rise to the statutory exemption for library copying embodied in § 108 of the 1976 revision of the Copyright law; the development of the technology that made it possible to retransmit television programs by cable or by microwave systems, see Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists, 392 U.S. 390, 88 S.Ct. 2084, 20 L.Ed.2d 1176 (1968), and Teleprompter Corp. v. CBS, 415 U.S. 394, 94 S.Ct. 1129, 39 L.Ed.2d 415 (1974), prompted the enactment of the complex provisions set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 111(d)(2)(B) and § 111(d)(5) after years of detailed congressional study, see Eastern Microwave, Inc. v. Doubleday Sports, Inc., 691 F.2d 125, 129 (CA2 1982).

By enacting the Sound Recording Amendment of 1971, 85 Stat. 391, Congress also provided the solution to the "record piracy" problems that had been created by the development of the audio tape recorder. Sony argues that the legislative history of that Act, see especially H.Rep. No. 487, 92nd Cong., 1st Sess., p. 7, indicates that Congress did not intend to prohibit the private home use of either audio or video tape recording equipment. In view of our disposition of the contributory infringement issue, we express no opinion on that question.

12

"Copyright protection became necessary with the invention of the printing press and had its early beginnings in the British censorship laws. The fortunes of the law of copyright have always been closely connected with freedom of expression, on the one hand, and with technological improvements in means of dissemination, on the other. Successive ages have drawn different balances among the interest of the writer in the control and exploitation of his intellectual property, the related interest of the publisher, and the competing interest of society in the untrammeled dissemination of ideas." Foreword to B. Kaplan, An Unhurried View of Copyright vii-viii (1967).

13

See, e.g., White-Smith Music Publishing Co. v. Apollo Co., 209 U.S. 1, 19, 28 S.Ct. 319, 323, 52 L.Ed. 655 (1908); cf. Deep South Packing Co. v. Lathram Corp., 406 U.S. 518, 530-531, 92 S.Ct. 1700, 1707-1708, 32 L.Ed.2d 273 (1972). While the law has never recognized an author's right to absolute control of his work, the natural tendency of legal rights to express themselves in absolute terms to the exclusion of all else is particularly pronounced in the history of the constitutionally sanctioned monopolies of the copyright and the patent. See e.g., United States v. Paramount Pictures, 334 U.S. 131, 156-158, 68 S.Ct. 915, 928-929, 92 L.Ed. 1260 (1948) (copyright owners claiming right to tie license of one film to license of another under copyright law); Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123, 52 S.Ct. 546, 76 L.Ed. 1010 (1932) (copyright owner claiming copyright renders it immune from state taxation of copyright royalties); Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 349-351, 28 S.Ct. 722, 725-726, 52 L.Ed. 1086 (1908) (copyright owner claiming that a right to fix resale price of his works within the scope of his copyright); International Business Machines v. United States, 298 U.S. 131, 56 S.Ct. 701, 80 L.Ed. 1085 (1936) (patentees claiming right to tie sale of unpatented article to lease of patented device).

14

Section 106 of the Act provides:

" 'Subject to sections 107 through 118, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; and

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly."

15

Moreover, anyone who willfully infringes the copyright to reproduce a motion picture for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain is subject to criminal penalties of one year imprisonment and a $25,000 fine for the first offense and two years imprisonment and a $50,000 fine for each subsequent offense, 17 U.S.C. § 506(a), and the fruits and instrumentalities of the crime are forfeited upon conviction, id., § 506(b).

16

In this regard, we reject respondent's attempt to cast this action as comparable to a class action because of the positions taken by amici with copyright interests and their attempt to treat the statements made by amici as evidence in this case. See Brief for Respondent, at 1, and n. 1, 6, 52, 53 and n. 116. The stated desires of amici concerning the outcome of this or any litigation are no substitute for a class action, are not evidence in the case, and do not influence our decision; we examine an amicus curiae brief solely for whatever aid it provides in analyzing the legal questions before us.

17

As the District Court correctly observed, however, "the lines between direct infringement, contributory infringement, and vicarious liability are not clearly drawn. . . ." 480 F.Supp. 457-458. The lack of clarity in this area may, in part, be attributable to the fact that an infringer is not merely one who uses a work without authorization by the copyright owner, but also one who authorizes the use of a copyrighted work without actual authority from the copyright owner.

We note the parties' statements that the questions of petitioners' liability under the "doctrines" of "direct infringement" and "vicarious liability" are not nominally before this Court. Compare Respondents' Brief, at 9, n. 22, 41, n. 90 with Petitioners' Reply Brief, at 1, n. 2. We also observe, however, that reasoned analysis of respondents' unprecedented contributory infringement claim necessarily entails consideration of arguments and case law which may also be forwarded under the other labels, and indeed the parties to a large extent rely upon such arguments and authority in support of their respective positions on the issue of contributory infringement.

18

The so-called "dance hall cases," Famous Music Corp. v. Bay State Harness Horse Racing and Breeding Ass'n, 554 F.2d 1213 (CA1 1977) (racetrack retained infringer to supply music to paying customers); KECA MUSIC, Inc. v. Dingus McGee's Co., 432 F.Supp. 72 (W.D.Mo.1977) (cocktail lounge hired musicians to supply music to paying customers); Dreamland Ball Room v. Shapiro, Bernstein & Co., 36 F.2d 354 (CA7 1929) (dance hall hired orchestra to supply music to paying customers) are often contrasted with the so-called landlord-tenant cases, in which landlords who leased premises to a direct infringer for a fixed rental and did not participate directly in any infringing activity were found not to be liable for contributory infringement. E.g., Deutsch v. Arnold, 98 F.2d 686 (CA2 1938).

In Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. H.L. Green Co., 316 F.2d 304 (CA2 1963) the owner of twenty-three chain stores retained the direct infringer to run its record departments. The relationship was structured as a licensing arrangement, so that the defendant bore none of the business risk of running the department. Instead, it received 10% or 12% of the direct infringer's gross receipts. The Court of Appeals concluded:

"[The dance-hall cases] and this one lie closer on the spectrum to the employer-employee model, than to the landlord-tenant model. On the particular facts before us, . . . Green's relationship to its infringing licensee, as well as its strong concern for the financial success of the phonograph

record concession, renders it liable for the unauthorized sales of the 'bootleg' records.

"[T]he imposition of vicarious liability in the case before us cannot be deemed unduly harsh or unfair. Green has the power to police carefully the conduct of its concessionaire; our judgment will simply encourage it to do so, thus placing responsibility where it can and should be effectively exercised." Id., at 308 (emphasis in original).

In Gershwin Publishing Corp. v. Columbia Artists Management, Inc., 443 F.2d 1159 (CA2 1971), the direct infringers retained the contributory infringer to manage their performances. The contributory infringer would contact each direct infringer, obtain the titles of the musical compositions to be performed, print the programs, and then sell the programs to its own local organizations for distribution at the time of the direct infringement. Id., at 1161. The Court of Appeals emphasized that the contributory infringer had actual knowledge that the artists it was managing were performing copyrighted works, was in a position to police the infringing conduct of the artists, and derived substantial benefit from the actions of the primary infringers. Id., at 1163.

In Screen Gems-Columbia Music, Inc. v. Mark-Fi Records, Inc., 256 F.Supp. 399 (SDNY 1966), the direct infringer manufactured and sold bootleg records. In denying a motion for summary judgment, the District Court held that the infringer's advertising agency, the radio stations that advertised the infringer's works, and the service agency that boxed and mailed the infringing goods could all be held liable, if at trial it could be demonstrated that they knew or should have known that they were dealing in illegal goods.

19

E.g., United States v. Paramount Pictures, 334 U.S. 131, 158, 68 S.Ct. 915, 929, 92 L.Ed. 1260 (1948); Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123, 131, 52 S.Ct. 546, 548, 76 L.Ed. 1010 (1932); Wheaton and Donaldson v. Peters and Grigg, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591, 657-658, 8 L.Ed. 1055 (1834). The two areas of the law, naturally, are not identical twins, and we exercise the caution which we have expressed in the past in applying doctrine formulated in one area to the other. See generally, Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 217-218, 74 S.Ct. 460, 470, 98 L.Ed. 630 (1954); Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 345, 28 S.Ct. 722, 724, 52 L.Ed. 1086 (1908).

We have consistently rejected the proposition that a similar kinship exists between copyright law and trademark law, and in the process of doing so have recognized the basic similarities between copyrights and patents. The Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82, 91-92, 25 L.Ed. 550 (1879); see also, United Drug Co. v. Rectanus Co., 248 U.S. 90, 97, 39 S.Ct. 48, 50, 63 L.Ed. 141 (1918) (trademark right "has little or no analogy" to copyright or patent); McLean v. Fleming, 96 U.S. 245, 254 (1877); Canal Co. v. Clark, 13 Wall. 311, 322, 20 L.Ed. 581 (1871). Given the fundamental differences between copyright law and trademark law, in this copyright case we do not look to the standard for contributory infringement set forth in Inwood Laboratories v. Ives Laboratories, 456 U.S. 844, 854-855, 102 S.Ct. 2182, 2188, 72 L.Ed.2d 606 (1982), which was crafted for application in trademark cases. There we observed that a manufacturer or distributor could be held liable to the owner of a trademark if it intentionally induced a merchant down the chain of distribution to pass off its product as that of the trademark owner's or if it continued to supply a product which could readily be passed off to a particular merchant whom it knew was

mislabeling the product with the trademark owner's mark. If Inwood's narrow standard for contributory trademark infringement governed here, respondents' claim of contributory infringement would merit little discussion. Sony certainly does not "intentionally induce[ ]" its customers to make infringing uses of respondents' copyrights, nor does it supply its products to identified individuals known by it to be engaging in continuing infringement of respondents' copyrights, see id., at 855, 102 S.Ct., at 2188.

20

35 U.S.C. § 271 provides:

"(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses or sells any patented invention, within the United States during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.

"(b) Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.

"(c) Whoever sells a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer.

"(d) No patent owner otherwise entitled to relief for infringement or contributory infringement of a patent shall be denied relief or deemed guilty of misuse or illegal extension of the patent right by reason of his having done one or more of the following: (1) derived revenue from acts which if performed by another without his consent would constitute contributory infringement of the patent; (2) licensed or authorized another to perform acts which if performed without his consent would constitute contributory infringement of the patent; (3) sought to enforce his patent rights against infringement or contributory infringement."

21

It seems extraordinary to suggest that the Copyright Act confers upon all copyright owners collectively, much less the two respondents in this case, the exclusive right to distribute VTR's simply because they may be used to infringe copyrights. That, however, is the logical implication of their claim. The request

for an injunction below indicates that respondents seek, in effect, to declare VTR's contraband. Their suggestion in this Court that a continuing royalty pursuant to a judicially created compulsory license would be an acceptable remedy merely indicates that respondents, for their part, would be willing to license their claimed monopoly interest in VTR's to petitioners in return for a royalty.

22

The record suggests that Disney's programs at the time of trial consisted of approximately one hour a week of network television and one syndicated series. Universal's percentage in the Los Angeles market on commercial television stations was under 5%. See Tr. 532-533, 549-550.

23

The District Court did not make any explicit findings with regard to how much broadcasting is wholly uncopyrighted. The record does include testimony that at least one movie—My Man Godfrey —falls within that category, Tr. 2300-2301, and certain broadcasts produced by the federal government are also uncopyrighted. See 17 U.S.C. § 105. Cf. Schnapper v. Foley, 667 F.2d 102 (CADC 1981) (explaining distinction between work produced by the government and work commissioned by the government). To the extent such broadcasting is now significant, it further bolsters our conclusion. Moreover, since copyright protection is not perpetual, the number of audiovisual works in the public domain necessarily increases each year.

24

See Tr. 2447-2450 (Alexander Hadden, Major League Baseball); Tr. 2480, 2486-2487 (Jay Moyer, National Football League); Tr. 2515-2516 (David Stern, National Basketball Association); Tr. 2530-2534 (Gilbert Stein, National Hockey League); Tr. 2543-2552 (Thomas Hansen, National Collegiate Athletic Association); Tr. 2565-2572 (Benjamin Armstrong, National Religious Broadcasters). Those officials were authorized to be the official spokespersons for their respective institutions in this litigation. Tr. 2432, 2479, 2509-2510, 2530, 2538, 2563. See Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 30(b)(6).

25

Tr. 2863-2902; Def. Exh. PI.

26

See also Tr. 2833-2844 (similar testimony by executive director of New Jersey Public Broadcasting Authority). Cf. Tr. 2592-2605 (testimony by chief of New York Education Department's Bureau of Mass Communications approving home taping for educational purposes).

27

"Some public stations, as well as commercial stations, program the 'Neighborhood' at hours when some children cannot use it. I think that it's a real service to families to be able to record such programs and show them at appropriate times. I have always felt that with the advent of all of this new technology that allows people to tape the 'Neighborhood' off-the-air, and I'm speaking for the 'Neighborhood' because that's what I produce, that they then become much more active in the programming of their family's television life. Very frankly, I am opposed to people being programmed by others. My whole approach in broadcasting has always been 'You are an important person just the way you are. You can make healthy decisions.' Maybe I'm going on too long, but I just feel that anything that allows a person to be more active in the control of his or her life, in a healthy way, is important." T.R. 2920-2921. See also Def. Exh. PI, p. 85.

28

It may be rare for large numbers of copyright owners to authorize duplication of their works without demanding a fee from the copier. In the context of public broadcasting, however, the user of the copyrighted work is not required to pay a fee for access to the underlying work. The traditional method by which copyright owners capitalize upon the television medium commercially sponsored free public broadcast over the public airwaves—is predicated upon the assumption that compensation for the value of displaying the works will be received in the form of advertising revenues.

In the context of television programming, some producers evidently believe that permitting home viewers to make copies of their works off the air actually enhances the value of their copyrights. Irrespective of their reasons for authorizing the practice, they do so, and in significant enough numbers to create a substantial market for a non-infringing use of the Sony VTR's. No one could dispute the legitimacy of that market if the producers had authorized home taping of their programs in exchange for a license fee paid directly by the home user. The legitimacy of that market is not compromised simply because these producers have authorized home taping of their programs without demanding a fee from the home user. The copyright law does not require a copyright owner to charge a fee for the use of his works, and as this record clearly demonstrates, the owner of a copyright may well have economic or noneconomic reasons for permitting certain kinds of copying to occur without receiving direct compensation from the copier. It is not the role of the courts to tell copyright holders the best way for them to exploit their copyrights:

even if respondents' competitors were ill-advised in authorizing home videotaping, that would not change the fact that they have created a substantial market for a paradigmatic non-infringing use of petitioners' product.

B. Unauthorized Time-Shifting

29

The Copyright Act of 1909, 35 Stat. 1075, did not have a "fair use" provision. Although that Act's compendium of exclusive rights "to print, reprint, publish, copy, and vend the copyrighted work" was broad enough to encompass virtually all potential interactions with a copyrighted work, the statute was never so construed. The courts simply refused to read the statute literally in every situation. When Congress amended the statute in 1976, it indicated that it "intended to restate the present judicial doctrine of fair use, not to change, narrow, or enlarge it in any way." House Report No. 94-1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 66, U.S.Code Code & Admin.News 1976, pp. 5659, 5679.

30

Section 107 provides:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

"(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

"(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

"(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;

and

"(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." 17 U.S.C. § 107.

31

The House Report expressly stated that the fair use doctrine is an "equitable rule of reason" in its explanation of the fair use section:

"Although the courts have considered and ruled upon the fair use doctrine over and over again, no real definition of the concept has ever emerged. Indeed, since the doctrine is an equitable rule of reason, no generally applicable definition is possible, and each case raising the question must be decided on its own facts. . . .

General intention behind the provision

"The statement of the fair use doctrine in section 107 offers some guidance to users in determining when the principles of the doctrine apply. However, the endless variety of situations and combinations of circumstances that can rise in particular cases precludes the formulation of exact rules in the statute. The bill endorses the purpose and general scope of the judicial doctrine of fair use, but there is no disposition to freeze the doctrine in the statute, especially during a period of rapid technological change. Beyond a very broad statutory explanation of what fair use is and some of the criteria applicable to it, the courts must be free to adapt the doctrine to particular situations on a case-by-case basis." H.Rep. No. 94-1476, pp. 65-66, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976, p. 5680.

The Senate Committee similarly eschewed a rigid, bright line approach to fair use. The Senate Report endorsed the view "that off-the-air recording for convenience" could be considered "fair use" under some circumstances, although it then made it clear that it did not intend to suggest that off-the-air recording for convenience should be deemed fair use under any circumstances imaginable. Senate Report 94-473, pp. 65-66. The latter qualifying statement is quoted by the dissent, post, at 481, and if read in isolation, would indicate that the Committee intended to condemn all off-the-air recording for convenience. Read in context, however, it is quite clear that that was the farthest thing from the Committee's intention.

32

"The Committee has amended the first of the criteria to be considered—'the purpose and character of the use'—to state explicitly that this factor includes a consideration of 'whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes.' This amendment is not intended to be interpreted as any sort of not-for-profit limitation on educational uses of copyrighted works. It is an express recognition that, as under the present law, the commercial or non-profit character of an activity, while not conclusive with respect to fair use, can and should be weighed along with other factors in fair use decisions." H.Rep. No. 94-1476, p. 66, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976, p. 5679.

33

It has been suggested that "consumptive uses of copyrights by home VTR users are commercial even if the consumer does not sell the homemade tape because the consumer will not buy tapes separately sold by the copyrightholder." Home Recording of Copyrighted Works: Hearing before Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties and the Administration of Justice of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Congress, 2d Session, pt. 2, p. 1250 (1982) (memorandum of Prof. Laurence H. Tribe). Furthermore, "[t]he error in excusing such theft as noncommercial," we are told, "can be seen by simple analogy: jewel theft is not converted into a noncommercial veniality if stolen jewels are simply worn rather than sold." Ibid. The premise and the analogy are indeed simple, but they add nothing to the argument. The use to which stolen jewelery is put is quite irrelevant in determining whether depriving its true owner of his present possessory interest in it is venial; because of the nature of the item and the true owner's interests in physical possession of it, the law finds the taking objectionable even if the thief does not use the item at all. Theft of a particular item of personal property of course may have commercial significance, for the thief deprives the owner of his right to sell that particular item to any individual. Timeshifting does not even remotely entail comparable consequences to the copyright owner. Moreover, the timeshifter no more steals the program by watching it once than does the live viewer, and the live viewer is no more likely to buy pre-recorded videotapes than is the timeshifter. Indeed, no live viewer would buy a pre-recorded videotape if he did not have access to a VTR.

34

Cf. Latman, Fair Use of Copyrighted Works (1958), reprinted as Study No. 14 in Senate Judiciary Committee, Copyright Law Revision, Studies Prepared for the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 30 (1960):

"In certain situations, the copyright owner suffers no substantial harm from the use of the work. . . .

Here again, is the partial marriage between the doctrine of fair use and the legal maxim de minimis non curat lex."

35

See also 480 F.Supp., at 451:

"It should be noted, however, that plaintiffs' argument is more complicated and speculative than was the plaintiff's in Williams & Wilkins. . . . Here, plaintiffs ask the court to find harm based on many more assumptions. . . . As is discussed more fully in Part IV, infra, some of these assumptions are based on neither fact nor experience, and plaintiffs admit that they are to some extent inconsistent and illogical."

36

"There was testimony at trial, however, that Nielsen Ratings has already developed the ability to measure when a Betamax in a sample home is recording the program. Thus, the Betamax will be measured as a part of the live audience. The later diary can augment that measurement with information about subsequent viewing." 480 F.Supp., at 466.

In a separate section, the District Court rejected plaintiffs' suggestion that the commercial attractiveness of television broadcasts would be diminished because Betamax owners would use the pause button or fast-forward control to avoid viewing advertisements:

"It must be remembered, however, that to omit commercials, Betamax owners must view the program, including the commercials, while recording. To avoid commercials during playback, the viewer must fast-forward and, for the most part, guess as to when the commercial has passed. For most recordings, either practice may be too tedious. As defendants' survey showed, 92% of the programs were recorded with commercials and only 25% of the owners fast-forward through them. Advertisers will have to make the same kinds of judgments they do now about whether persons viewing televised programs actually watch the advertisements which interrupt them." Id., at 468.

37

"Here plaintiffs assume that people will view copies when they would otherwise be watching television or going to the movie theater. There is no factual basis for this assumption. It seems equally likely that

Betamax owners will play their tapes when there is nothing on television they wish to see and no movie they want to attend. Defendants' survey does not show any negative effect of Betamax ownership on television viewing or theater attendance." Ibid.

38

"The underlying assumptions here are particularly difficult to accept. Plaintiffs explain that the Betamax increases access to the original televised material and that the more people there are in this original audience, the fewer people the rerun will attract. Yet current marketing practices, including the success of syndication, show just the opposite. Today, the larger the audience for the original telecast, the higher the price plaintiffs can demand from broadcasters from rerun rights. There is no survey within the knowledge of this court to show that the rerun audience is comprised of persons who have not seen the program. In any event, if ratings can reflect Betamax recording, original audiences may increase and, given market practices, this should aid plaintiffs rather than harm them." Ibid.

39

"This suggestion lacks merit. By definition, time-shift recording entails viewing and erasing, so the program will no longer be on tape when the later theater run begins. Of course, plaintiffs may fear that the Betamax will keep the tapes long enough to satisfy all their interest in the program and will, therefore, not patronize later theater exhibitions. To the extent this practice involves librarying, it is addressed in section V.C., infra. It should also be noted that there is no evidence to suggest that the public interest in later theatrical exhibitions of motion pictures will be reduced any more by Betamax recording than it already is by the television broadcast of the film." 480 F.Supp., at 467.

40

The Court of Appeals chose not to engage in any "equitable rule of reason" analysis in this case. Instead, it assumed that the category of "fair use" is rigidly circumscribed by a requirement that every such use must be "productive." It therefore concluded that copying a television program merely to enable the viewer to receive information or entertainment that he would otherwise miss because of a personal scheduling conflict could never be fair use. That understanding of "fair use" was erroneous.

Congress has plainly instructed us that fair use analysis calls for a sensitive balancing of interests. The distinction between "productive" and "unproductive" uses may be helpful in calibrating the balance, but it cannot be wholly determinative. Although copying to promote a scholarly endeavor certainly has a stronger claim to fair use than copying to avoid interrupting a poker game, the question is not simply

two-dimensional. For one thing, it is not true that all copyrights are fungible. Some copyrights govern material with broad potential secondary markets. Such material may well have a broader claim to protection because of the greater potential for commercial harm. Copying a news broadcast may have a stronger claim to fair use than copying a motion picture. And, of course, not all uses are fungible. Copying for commercial gain has a much weaker claim to fair use than copying for personal enrichment. But the notion of social "productivity" cannot be a complete answer to this analysis. A teacher who copies to prepare lecture notes is clearly productive. But so is a teacher who copies for the sake of broadening his personal understanding of his specialty. Or a legislator who copies for the sake of broadening her understanding of what her constituents are watching; or a constituent who copies a news program to help make a decision on how to vote.

Making a copy of a copyrighted work for the convenience of a blind person is expressly identified by the House Committee Report as an example of fair use, with no suggestion that anything more than a purpose to entertain or to inform need motivate the copying. In a hospital setting, using a VTR to enable a patient to see programs he would otherwise miss has no productive purpose other than contributing to the psychological well-being of the patient. Virtually any time-shifting that increases viewer access to television programming may result in a comparable benefit. The statutory language does not identify any dichotomy between productive and nonproductive time-shifting, but does require consideration of the economic consequences of copying.

1

The Betamax has three primary components: a tuner that receives television ("RF") signals broadcast over the airwaves; an adapter that converts the RF signals into audio-video signals; and a recorder that places the audio-video signals on magnetic tape. Sony also manufactures VTRs without built-in tuners; these are capable of playing back prerecorded tapes and recording home movies on videotape, but cannot record off the air. Since the Betamax has its own tuner, it can be used to record off one channel while another channel is being watched.

The Betamax is available with auxiliary features, including a timer, a pause control, and a fast-forward control; these allow Betamax owners to record programs without being present, to avoid (if they are present) recording commercial messages, and to skip over commercials while playing back the recording. Videotape is reusable; the user erases its record by recording over it.

2

This case involves only the home recording for home use of television programs broadcast free over the

airwaves. No issue is raised concerning cable or pay television, or the sharing or trading of tapes.

3

At the trial, the Studios proved 32 individual instances where their copyrighted works were recorded on Betamax VTRs. Two of these instances occurred after January 1, 1978, the primary effective date of the 1976 Act; all the others occurred while the 1909 Act was still effective. My analysis focuses primarily on the 1976 Act, but the principles governing copyright protection for these works are the same under either Act.

4

Act of Feb. 3, 1831, ch. 16, 4 Stat. 436; Act of July 8, 1870, §§ 85-111, 16 Stat. 212-217; Act of Mar. 4, 1909, 35 Stat. 1075 (formerly codified as 17 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. (1976 ed.)); Copyright Revision Act of 1976, 90 Stat. 2541 (codified as 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. (1982 ed.)).

5

Section 102(a) provides:

"Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:

"(1) literary works;

"(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;

"(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;

"(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;

"(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;

"(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; and

"(7) sound recordings."

Definitions of terms used in § 102(a)(6) are provided by § 101:¶ "Audiovisual works" are "works that consist of a series of related images which are intrinsically intended to be shown by the use of machines, or devices such as projectors, viewers, or electronic equipment, together with accompanying sounds, if any, regardless of the nature of the material objects, such as films or tapes, in which the works are embodied." And "motion pictures" are "audiovisual works consisting of a series of related images which, when shown in succession, impart an impression of motion, together with accompanying sounds, if any." Most commercial television programs, if fixed on film or tape at the time of broadcast or before, qualify as "audiovisual works." Since the categories set forth in § 102(a) are not mutually exclusive, a particular television program may also qualify for protection as a dramatic, musical, or other type of work.

6

Section 106 provides:

"Subject to sections 107 through 118, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

"(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

"(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

"(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

"(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; and

"(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly."

7

A "phonorecord" is defined by § 101 as a reproduction of sounds other than sounds accompanying an audiovisual work, while a "copy" is a reproduction of a work in any form other than a phonorecord.

8

Section 107 provides:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

"(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

"(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

"(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

"(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

Section 101 makes it clear that the four factors listed in this section are "illustrative and not limitative."

9

The 1976 Act was the product of a revision effort lasting more than 20 years. Spurred by the recognition that "significant developments in technology and communications" had rendered the 1909 Act inadequate, S.Rep. No. 94-473, p. 47 (1975); see H.R.Rep. No. 94-1476, p. 47 (1976), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976, p. 5660, Congress in 1955 authorized the Copyright Office to prepare a series of studies on all aspects of the existing copyright law. Thirty-four studies were prepared and presented to Congress. The Register of Copyrights drafted a comprehensive report with recommendations, House Committee on the Judiciary, Copyright Law Revision, Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (Comm.Print 1961) (Register's 1961 Report), and general revision bills were introduced near the end of the 88th Congress in 1964. H.R.11947/S.3008, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964). The Register issued a second report in 1965, with revised recommendations. House Committee on the Judiciary, Copyright Law Revision, Pt. 6, Supplementary Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law: 1965 Revision Bill, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (Comm.Print 1965) (Register's Supplementary Report). Action on copyright revision was delayed from 1967 to 1974 by a dispute on cable television, see generally Second Supplementary Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law: 1975 Revision Bill, ch. V, pp. 2-26 (Draft Oct.-Dec. 1975) (Register's Second Supplementary Report), but a compromise led to passage of the present Act in 1976.

10

1 U.S.C. § 1 provides in relevant part:

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise . . . words importing the plural include the singular. . . ."

11

The library photocopying provisions of § 108 do not excuse any person who requests "a copy" from a library if the requester's use exceeds fair use. § 108(f)(2). Moreover, a library is absolved from liability for the unsupervised use of its copying equipment provided that the equipment bears a notice informing

users that "the making of a copy" may violate the copyright law. § 108(f)(1).

12

For example, "the making of a single copy or phonorecord by an individual as a free service for a blind person" would be a fair use, as would "a single copy reproduction of an excerpt from a copyrighted work by a calligrapher for a single client" or "a single reproduction of excerpts from a copyrighted work by a student calligrapher or teacher in a learning situation." 1975 Senate Report 66-67; see 1976 House Report 73-74, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976, p. 5687. Application of the fair use doctrine in these situations, of course, would be unnecessary if the 1976 Act created a general exemption for the making of a single copy.

13

Professor Latman made special mention of the "personal use" issue because the area was one that

"has become disturbed by recent developments . . . . Photoduplication devices may make authors' and publishers' groups apprehensive. The Copyright Charter recently approved by [the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers] emphasizes the concern of authors over 'private' uses which, because of technological developments, are said to be competing seriously with the author's economic interests." Latman Fair Use Study 33-34.

14

The one exemption proposed by the Register, permitting a library to make a single photocopy of an out-of-print work and of excerpts that a requester certified were needed for research, met with opposition and was not included in the bills initially introduced in Congress. See Register's 1961 Report 26; H.R. 11947/S. 3008, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964); Register's Supplementary Report 26. A library copying provision was restored to the bill in 1969, after pressure from library associations. Register's Second Supplementary Report, ch. III, pp. 10-11; see S. 543, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., § 108 (Comm.Print Dec. 10, 1969); 1975 Senate Report 48.

15

The 1964 bills provided that the fair use of copyrighted material for purposes "such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research" was not an infringement of copyright, and listed four "factors to be considered" in determining whether any other particular use was fair.

H.R.11947/S.3008, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., § 6 (1964). Revised bills, drafted by the Copyright Office in 1965, contained a fair use provision merely mentioning the doctrine but not indicating its scope: "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the fair use of a copyrighted work is not an infringement of copyright." H.R.4347/S.1006, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., § 107 (1965). The House Judiciary Committee restored the provision to its earlier wording, H.R.Rep. No. 2237, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 5, 58 (1966), and the language adopted by the Committee remained in the bill in later Congresses. See H.R.2512/S.597, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., § 107 (1967); S.543, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., § 107 (1969); S.644, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., § 107 (1971); S.1361, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., § 107 (1973); H.R.2223/S.22, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., § 107 (1975). With a few additions by the House Judiciary Committee in 1976, see 1976 House Report 5; H.R.Conf.Rep. No. 94-1733, p. 70 (1976), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976, p. 5659, the same language appears in § 107 of the 1976 Act.

16

In Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States, 203 Ct.Cl. 74, 487 F.2d 1345 (1973), aff'd by an equally divided Court, 420 U.S. 376, 95 S.Ct. 1344, 43 L.Ed.2d 264 (1975), decided during the process of the revision of the copyright statutes, the Court of Claims suggested that copying for personal use might be outside the scope of copyright protection under the 1909 Act. The court reasoned that because "hand copying" for personal use has always been regarded as permissible,

and because the practice of making personal copies continued after typewriters and photostat machines were developed, the making of personal copies by means other than hand copying should be permissible as well. Id., at 84-88, 487 F.2d, at 1350-1352.

There appear to me to be several flaws in this reasoning. First, it is by no means clear that the making of a "hand copy" of an entire work is permissible; the most that can be said is that there is no reported case on the subject, possibly because no copyright owner ever thought it worthwhile to sue. See Latman Fair Use Study 11-12; 3 M. Nimmer, Copyright § 13.05[E][4][a] (1982). At least one early treatise asserted that infringement would result "if an individual made copies for his personal use, even in his own handwriting, as there is no rule of law excepting manuscript copies from the law of infringment." A. Weil, American Copyright Law § 1066 (1917). Second, hand copying or even copying by typewriter is self-limiting. The drudgery involved in making hand copies ordinarily ensures that only necessary and fairly small portions of a work are taken; it is unlikely that any user would make a hand copy as a substitute for one that could be purchased. The harm to the copyright owner from hand copying thus is minimal. The recent advent of inexpensive and readily available copying machines, however, has changed the dimensions of the problem. See Register's Second Supplementary Report ch. III, p. 3; Hearings on H.R. 2223 before the Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the House Judiciary Committee, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., 194 (1975) (1975 House Hearings)

(remarks of Rep. Danielson); id., at 234 (statement of Robert W. Cairns); id., at 250 (remarks of Rep. Danielson); id., at 354 (testimony of Irwin Karp); id., at 467 (testimony of Rondo Cameron); id., at 1795 (testimony of Barbara Ringer, Register of Copyrights). Thus, "[t]he supposition that there is no tort involved in a scholar copying a copyrighted text by hand does not much advance the question of machine copying." B. Kaplan, An Unhurried View of Copyright 101-102 (1967).

17

In a trio of cases, Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists, 392 U.S. 390, 398, 88 S.Ct. 2084, 2088, 20 L.Ed.2d 1176 (1968); Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 415 U.S. 394, 403-405, 94 S.Ct. 1129, 1135-1136, 39 L.Ed.2d 415 (1974); and Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 95 S.Ct. 2040, 45 L.Ed.2d 84 (1975), this Court had held that the reception of a radio or television broadcast was not a "performance" under the 1909 Act. The Court's "narrow construction" of the word "perform" was "completely overturned by the [1976 Act] and its broad definition of 'perform' in section 101." 1976 House Report 87, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976, p. 5701.

18

A work is performed "publicly" if it takes place "at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered." § 101.

19

One purpose of the exemption for private performances was to permit the home viewing of lawfully made videotapes. The Register noted in 1961 that "[n]ew technical devices will probably make it practical in the future to reproduce televised motion pictures in the home. We do not believe the private use of such a reproduction can or should be precluded by copyright." Register's 1961 Report 30 (emphasis added). The Register did not suggest that the private making of a reproduction of a televised motion picture would be permitted by the copyright law. The Register later reminded Congress that "[i]n general the concept of 'performance' must be distinguished sharply from the reproduction of copies." Register's Supplementary Report 22.

20

During hearings on this provision, Representative Danielson inquired whether it would apply to works of fiction such as "Gone With the Wind," or whether it was limited to "strictly technical types of information." The uncontradicted response was that it would apply only in "general terms of science . . .

[and] the useful arts." 1975 House Hearings 251 (testimony of Robert W. Cairns); cf. id., at 300 (statement of Harry Rosenfield) ("We are not asking . . . for the right to copy 'Gone With the Wind' ").

21

The mention in the Senate and House Reports of situations in which copies for private use would be permissible under the fair use doctrine—for example, the making of a free copy for a blind person, 1975 Senate Report 66; 1975 House Report 73, or the "recordings of performances by music students for purposes of analysis and criticism," 1975 Senate Report 63—would be superfluous as well. See n. 12, supra.

22

The following exchange took place during the testimony of Barbara Ringer, then Assistant Register of Copyrights:

"[Rep.] Biester. . . . I can tell you I must have a small pirate in my own home. My son has a cassette tape recorder, and as a particular record becomes a hit, he will retrieve it onto his little set. . . . [T]his legislation, of course, would not point to his activities, would it?

"Miss Ringer. I think the answer is clearly, 'No, it would not.' I have spoken at a couple of seminars on video cassettes lately, and this question is usually asked: 'What about the home recorders?' The answer I have given and will give again is that this is something you cannot control. You simply cannot control it. My own opinion, whether this is philosophical dogma or not, is that sooner or later there is going to be a crunch here. But that is not what this legislation is addressed to, and I do not see the crunch coming in the immediate future. . . . I do not see anybody going into anyone's home and preventing this sort of thing, or forcing legislation that would engineer a piece of equipment not to allow home taping." Hearings on S. 646 and H.R. 6927 before Subcommittee No. 3 of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., 22-23 (1971) (1971 House Hearings).

23

Shortly before passage of the bill, a colloquy took place between Representative Kastenmeier, chairman of the House subcommittee that produced the bill, and Representative Kazen, who was not on the committee:

"Mr. Kazen. Am I correct in assuming that the bill protects copyrighted material that is duplicated for commercial purposes only?

"Mr. Kastenmeier. Yes.

"Mr. Kazen. In other words, if your child were to record off of a program which comes through the air on the radio or television, and then used it for her own personal pleasure, for listening pleasure, this use would not be included under the penalties of this bill?

"Mr. Kastenmeier. This is not included in the bill. I am glad the gentleman raises the point.

"On page 7 of the report, under 'Home Recordings,' Members will note that under the bill the same practice which prevails today is called for; namely, this is considered both presently and under the proposed law to be fair use. The child does not do this for commercial purposes. This is made clear in the report." 117 Cong.Rec. 34748-34749 (1971).

24

The 1909 Act's grant of an exclusive right to "copy," § 1(a), was of no assistance to the owner of a copyright in a sound recording, because a reproduction of a sound recording was technically considered not to be a "copy." See 1971 House Hearings 18 (testimony of Barbara Ringer, Assistant Register of Copyrights); 1971 Amendment, § 1(e), 85 Stat. 391 (formerly codified as 17 U.S.C. § 26 (1976 ed.)) ("For the purposes of [specified sections, not including § 1(a) ], but not for any other purpose, a reproduction of a [sound recording] shall be considered to be a copy thereof"). This concept is carried forward into the 1976 Act, which distinguishes between "copies" and "phonorecords." See n. 7, supra.

25

During consideration of the 1976 Act, Congress, of course, was well aware of the limited nature of the protection granted to sound recordings under the 1971 Amendment. See 1975 House Hearings 113 (testimony of Barbara Ringer, Register of Copyrights) (1971 Amendment "created a copyright in a sound recording . . . but limited it to the particular situation of so-called piracy"); id., at 1380 (letter from John Lorenz, Acting Librarian of Congress) (under 1971 Amendment "only the unauthorized reproduction and distribution to the public of copies of the sound recording is prohibited. Thus, the duplication of sound recordings for private, personal use and the performance of sound recordings through broadcasting or

other means are outside the scope of the amendment").

26

Representative Kastenmeier, the principal House sponsor of the 1976 revision bill and chairman of the House subcommittee that produced it, made this explicit on the opening day of the House hearings:

"[F]rom time to time, certain areas have not been covered in the bill. But is it not the case, this being a unified code, that the operation of the bill does apply whether or not we specifically deal with a subject or not? . . .

"Therefore, we can really not fail to deal with an issue. It will be dealt with one way or the other. The code, title 17, will cover it. So we have made a conscious decision even by omission. . . .

"By virtue of passing this bill, we will deal with every issue. Whether we deal with it completely or not for the purpose of resolving the issues involved is the only question, not whether it has dealt with the four corners of the bill because the four corners of the bill will presume to deal with everything in copyright." 1975 House Hearings 115.

27

The precise phrase "fair use" apparently did not enter the case law until 1869, see Lawrence v. Dana, 15 F.Cas. 26, 60 (No. 8,136) (CC Mass.), but the doctrine itself found early expression in Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342 (No. 4,901) (CC Mass.1841). Justice Story was faced there with the "intricate and embarrassing questio[n]" whether a biography containing copyrighted letters was "a justifiable use of the original materials, such as the law recognizes as no infringement of the copyright of the plaintiffs." Id., at 344, 348. In determining whether the use was permitted, it was necessary, said Justice Story, to consider "the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work. . . . Much must, in such cases, depend upon the nature of the new work, the value and extent of the copies, and the degree in which the original authors may be injured thereby." Id., at 348-349.

Similar lists were compiled by later courts. See, e.g., Tennessee Fabricating Co. v. Moultrie Mfg. Co., 421 F.2d 279, 283 (CA5), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 928, 90 S.Ct. 1819, 26 L.Ed.2d 91 (1970); Mathews Conveyer

Co. v. Palmer-Bee Co., 135 F.2d 73, 85 (CA6 1943); Columbia Pictures Corp. v. National Broadcasting Co., 137 F.Supp. 348 (SD Cal.1955); Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. P.F. Collier & Son Co., 26 U.S.P.Q. 40, 43 (SDNY 1934); Hill v. Whalen & Martell, Inc., 220 F. 359, 360 (SDNY 1914).

28

"The world goes ahead because each of us builds on the work of our predecessors. 'A dwarf standing on the shoulders of a giant can see farther than the giant himself.' " Chafee, Reflections on the Law of Copyright: I, 45 Colum.L.Rev. 503, 511 (1945).

29

Quoting from the Register's 1961 Report, the Senate and House Reports give examples of possible fair uses:

" 'quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being recorded.' " 1975 Senate Report 61-62; 1976 House Report 65, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976, p. 5678.

30

See, e.g., Triangle Publications, Inc. v. Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Inc., 626 F.2d 1171 (CA5 1980) (comparative advertising).

31

Professor Seltzer has characterized these lists of uses as "reflect[ing] what in fact the subject matter of fair use has in the history of its adjudication consisted in: it has always had to do with the use by a second author of a first author's work." L. Seltzer, Exemptions and Fair Use in Copyright 24 (1978) (emphasis removed). He distinguishes "the mere reproduction of a work in order to use it for its intrinsic purpose—to make what might be called the 'ordinary' use of it." When copies are made for "ordinary"

use of the work, "ordinary infringement has customarily been triggered, not notions of fair use" (emphasis in original). Ibid. See also M. Nimmer, Copyright § 13.05[A][1] (1982) ("Use of a work in each of the foregoing contexts either necessarily or usually involves its use in a derivative work").

32

Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States, 203 Ct.Cl. 74, 487 F.2d 1345 (1973), aff'd by an equally divided Court, 420 U.S. 376, 95 S.Ct. 1344, 43 L.Ed.2d 264 (1975), involved the photocopying of scientific journal articles; the Court of Claims stressed that the libraries performing the copying were "devoted solely to the advancement and dissemination of medical knowledge," 203 Ct.Cl., at 91, 487 F.2d, at 1354, and that "medical science would be seriously hurt if such library photocopying were stopped." Id., at 95, 487 F.2d, at 1356.

The issue of library copying is now covered by § 108 of the 1976 Act. That section, which Congress regarded as "authoriz[ing] certain photocopying practices which may not qualify as a fair use," 1975 Senate Report 67; 1976 House Report 74, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976, p. 5688, permits the making of copies only for "private study, scholarship, or research." §§ 108(d)(1) and (e)(1).

33

In the words of Lord Mansfield: "[W]e must take care to guard against two extremes equally prejudicial; the one, that men of ability, who have employed their time for the service of the community, may not be deprived of their just merits, and the reward of their ingenuity and labour; the other, that the world may not be deprived of improvements, nor the progress of the arts be retarded." Sayre v. Moore, 1 East 361 n. (b), 102 Eng.Rep. 139, 140 n. (b) (K.B.1785). See Register's Supplementary Report 13.

34

This point was brought home repeatedly by the Register of Copyrights. Mentioning the "multitude of technological developments" since passage of the 1909 Act, including "remarkable developments in the use of video tape," Register's Supplementary Report xiv-xv, the Register cautioned:

"I realize, more clearly now than I did in 1961, that the revolution in communications has brought with it a serious challenge to the author's copyright. This challenge comes not only from the ever-growing commercial interests who wish to use the author's works for private gain. An equally serious attack has come from people with a sincere interest in the public welfare who fully recognize . . . 'that the real

heart of civilization . . . owes its existence to the author'; ironically, in seeking to make the author's works widely available by freeing them from copyright restrictions, they fail to realize that they are whittling away the very thing that nurtures authorship in the first place. An accommodation among conflicting demands must be worked out, true enough, but not by denying the fundamental constitutional directive: to encourage cultural progress by securing the author's exclusive rights to him for a limited time." Id., at xv; see 1975 House Hearings 117 (testimony of Barbara Ringer, Register of Copyrights).

35

A VTR owner who has taped a favorite movie for repeated viewing will be less likely to rent or buy a tape containing the same movie, watch a televised rerun, or pay to see the movie at a theater. Although time-shifting may not replace theater or rerun viewing or the purchase of prerecorded tapes or discs, it may well replace rental usage; a VTR user who has recorded a first-run movie for later viewing will have no need to rent a copy when he wants to see it. Both library-builders and time-shifters may avoid commercials; the library builder may use the pause control to record without them, and all users may fast-forward through commercials on playback.

The Studios introduced expert testimony that both time-shifting and librarying would tend to decrease their revenue from copyrighted works. See 480 F.Supp., at 440. The District Court's findings also show substantial library-building and avoidance of commercials. Both sides submitted surveys showing that the average Betamax user owns between 25 and 32 tapes. The Studios' survey showed that at least 40% of users had more than 10 tapes in a "library"; Sony's survey showed that more than 40% of users planned to view their tapes more than once; and both sides' surveys showed that commercials were avoided at least 25% of the time. Id., at 438-439.

36

Concern over the impact of a use upon "potential" markets is to be found in cases decided both before and after § 107 lent Congress' imprimatur to the judicially-created doctrine of fair use. See, e.g., Iowa State University Research Foundation, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., 621 F.2d 57, 60 (CA2 1980) ("the effect of the use on the copyright holder's potential market for the work"); Meeropol v. Nizer, 560 F.2d 1061, 1070 (CA2 1977) ("A key issue in fair use cases is whether the defendant's work tends to diminish or prejudice the potential sale of plaintiff's work"), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1013, 98 S.Ct. 727, 54 L.Ed.2d 756 (1978); Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States, 203 Ct.Cl. 74, 88, 487 F.2d 1345, 1352 (1973) ("the effect of the use on a copyright owner's potential market for and value of his work"), aff'd by an equally divided Court, 420 U.S. 376, 95 S.Ct. 1344, 43 L.Ed.2d 264 (1975); Encyclopaedia Britannica Educational Corp. v. Crooks, 542 F.Supp. 1156, 1173 (WDNY 1982) ("[T]he concern here must be focused

on a copyrighted work's potential market. It is perfectly possible that plaintiffs' profits would have been greater, but for the kind of videotaping in question") (emphasis in original).

37

This intent is manifested further by provisions of the 1976 Act that exempt from liability persons who, while not participating directly in any infringing activity, could otherwise be charged with contributory infringement. See § 108(f)(1) (library not liable "for the unsupervised use of reproducing equipment located on its premises," provided that certain warnings are posted); § 110(6) ("governmental body" or "nonprofit agricultural or horticultural organization" not liable for infringing performance by concessionaire "in the course of an annual agricultural or horticultural fair or exhibition").

38

In Screen Gems, on which the Gershwin court relied, the court held that liability could be imposed on a shipper of unauthorized "bootleg" records and a radio station that broadcast advertisements of the records, provided they knew or should have known that the records were infringing. The court concluded that the records' low price and the manner in which the records were marketed could support a finding of "constructive knowledge" even if actual knowledge were not shown.

39

See, e.g., Famous Music Corp. v. Bay State Harness Horse Racing & Breeding Assn., Inc., 554 F.2d 1213 (CA1 1977); Dreamland Ball Room, Inc. v. Shapiro, Bernstein & Co., 36 F.2d 354 (CA7 1929); M. Witmark & Sons v. Tremont Social & Athletic Club, 188 F.Supp. 787, 790 (Mass.1960); see also Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at 157, 95 S.Ct., at 2044; Buck v. Jewell-LaSalle Realty Co., 283 U.S. 191, 198-199, 51 S.Ct. 410, 411-412, 75 L.Ed. 971 (1931); 3 M. Nimmer, Copyright § 12.04[A], pp. 12-35 (1982).

Courts have premised liability in these cases on the notion that the defendant had the ability to supervise or control the infringing activities, see, e.g., Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. H.L. Green Co., 316 F.2d 304, 307 (CA2 1963); KECA Music, Inc. v. Dingus McGee's Co., 432 F.Supp. 72, 74 (WD Mo.1977). This notion, however, is to some extent fictional; the defendant cannot escape liability by instructing the performers not to play copyrighted music, or even by inserting a provision to that effect into the performers' contract. Famous Music Corp. v. Bay State Harness Horse Racing & Breeding Assn., Inc., 554 F.2d, at 1214-1215; KECA Music, Inc. v. Dingus McGee's Co., 432 F.Supp., at 75; Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. Veltin, 47 F.Supp. 648, 649 (WD La.1942). Congress expressly rejected a proposal to exempt

proprietors from this type of liability under the 1976 Act. See 1975 Senate Report 141-142; 1976 House Report 159-160; 1975 House Hearings 1812-1813 (testimony of Barbara Ringer, Register of Copyrights); id., at 1813 (colloquy between Rep. Pattison and Barbara Ringer).

The Court's attempt to distinguish these cases on the ground of "control," ante, at 437, is obviously unpersuasive. The direct infringer ordinarily is not employed by the person held liable; instead, he is an independent contractor. Neither is he always an agent of the person held liable; Screen Gems makes this apparent.

40

My conclusion respecting contributory infringement does not include the retailer defendants. The District Court found that one of the retailer defendants had assisted in the advertising campaign for the Betamax, but made no other findings respecting their knowledge of the Betamax's intended uses. I do not agree with the Court of Appeals, at least on this record, that the retailers "are sufficiently engaged in the enterprise to be held accountable," 659 F.2d, at 976. In contrast, the advertising agency employed to promote the Betamax was far more actively engaged in the advertising campaign, and petitioners have not argued that the agency's liability differs in any way from that of Sony Corporation and Sony Corporation of America.

41

The "staple article of commerce" doctrine protects those who manufacture products incorporated into or used with patented inventions—for example, the paper and ink used with patented printing machines, Henry v. A.B. Dick Co., 224 U.S. 1, 32 S.Ct. 364, 56 L.Ed. 645 (1912), or the dry ice used with patented refrigeration systems, Carbice Corp. v. American Patents Corp., 283 U.S. 27, 51 S.Ct. 334, 75 L.Ed. 819 (1931). Because a patent-holder has the right to control the use of the patented item as well as its manufacture, see Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Co., 243 U.S. 502, 509-510, 37 S.Ct. 416, 417-418, 61 L.Ed. 871 (1917); 35 U.S.C. 271(a), such protection for the manufacturer of the incorporated product is necessary to prevent patent-holders from extending their monopolies by suppressing competition in unpatented components and supplies suitable for use with the patented item. See Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 448 U.S. 176, 197-198, 100 S.Ct. 2601, 2613-2614, 65 L.Ed.2d 696 (1980). The doctrine of contributory patent infringement has been the subject of attention by the courts and by Congress, see id., at 202-212, 100 S.Ct., at 2616-2621, and has been codified since 1952, 66 Stat. 792, but was never mentioned during the copyright law revision process as having any relevance to contributory copyright infringement.

42

Although VTRs also may be used to watch prerecorded video cassettes and to make home motion pictures, these uses do not require a tuner such as the Betamax contains. See n. 1, supra. The Studios do not object to Sony's sale of VTRs without tuners. Brief for Respondents 5, n. 9. In considering the noninfringing uses of the Betamax, therefore, those uses that would remain possible without the Betamax's built-in tuner should not be taken into account.

43

Noninfringing uses would include, for example, recording works that are not protected by copyright, recording works that have entered the public domain, recording with permission of the copyright owner, and, of course, any recording that qualifies as fair use. See, e.g., Bruzzone v. Miller Brewing Co., 202 U.S.P.Q. 809 (N.D.Cal.1979) (use of home VTR for market research studies).

44

Sony asserts that much or most television broadcasting is available for home recording because (1) no copyright owner other than the Studios has brought an infringement action, and (2) much televised material is ineligible for copyright protection because videotapes of the broadcasts are not kept. The first of these assertions is irrelevant; Sony's liability does not turn on the fact that only two copyright owners thus far have brought suit. The amount of infringing use must be determined through consideration of the television market as a whole. Sony's second assertion is based on a faulty premise; the Copyright Office permits audiovisual works transmitted by television to be registered by deposit of sample frames plus a description of the work. See 37 CFR §§ 202.20(c)(2)(ii) and 202.21(g) (1982). Moreover, although an infringement action cannot be brought unless the work is registered, 17 U.S.C. § 411(a), registration is not a condition of copyright protection. § 408(a). Copying an unregistered work still may be infringement. Cf. § 506(a) (liability for criminal copyright infringement; not conditioned on prior registration).

45

Even if concern with remedy were appropriate at the liability stage, the Court's use of the District Court's findings is somewhat cavalier. The Court relies heavily on testimony by representatives of professional sports leagues to the effect that they have no objection to VTR recording. The Court never states, however, whether the sports leagues are copyright holders, and if so, whether they have exclusive copyrights to sports broadcasts. Of course, one who does not hold an exclusive copyright does not have authority to consent to copying.

Assuming that the various sports leagues do have exclusive copyrights in some of their broadcasts, the amount of authorized time-shifting still would not be overwhelming. Sony's own survey indicated that only 7.3 percent of all Betamax use is to record sports events of all kinds. Def. Exh. OT, Table 20. Because Sony's witnesses did not represent all forms of sports events, moreover, this figure provides only a tenuous basis for this Court to engage in fact-finding of its own.

The only witness at trial who was clearly an exclusive copyright owner and who expressed no objection to unauthorized time-shifting was the owner of the copyright in Mister Rogers' Neighborhood. But the Court cites no evidence in the record to the effect that anyone makes VTR copies of that program. The simple fact is that the District Court made no findings on the amount of authorized time-shifting that takes place. The Court seems to recognize this gap in its reasoning, and phrases its argument as a hypothetical. The Court states: "If there are millions of owners of VTR's who make copies of televised sports events, religious broadcasts, and educational programs such as Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, and if the proprietors of those programs welcome the practice," the sale of VTR's "should not be stifled" in order to protect respondent's copyrights. Ante, at 446 (emphasis supplied). Given that the Court seems to recognize that its argument depends on findings that have not been made, it seems that a remand is inescapable.

46

As has been explained, some uses of time-shifting, such as copying an old newspaper clipping for a friend, are fair use because of their de minimis effect on the copyright holder. The scale of copying involved in this case, of course, is of an entirely different magnitude, precluding application of such an exception.

47

Home Recording of Copyrighted Works: Hearing before Subcomm. on Courts, Civil Liberties and the Administration of Justice of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 2, p. 1250 (1982) (memorandum of Prof. Laurence H. Tribe).

48

See A Survey of Betamax Owners, R. 2353, Def. Exh. OT, Table 20, cited in Brief for Respondents 52.

49

The Court's one oblique acknowledgement of this third factor, ante, at 447, seems to suggest that the fact that time-shifting involves copying complete works is not very significant because the viewers already have been asked to watch the initial broadcast free. This suggestion misses the point. As has been noted, a book borrowed from a public library may not be copied any more freely than one that has been purchased. An invitation to view a showing is completely different from an invitation to copy a copyrighted work.

50

The Court implicitly has recognized that this market is very significant. The central concern underlying the Court's entire opinion is that there is a large audience who would like very much to be able to view programs at times other than when they are broadcast. Ante, at 446. The Court simply misses the implication of its own concerns.

51

Other Nations have imposed royalties on the manufacturers of products used to infringe copyright. See, e.g., Copyright Laws and Treaties of the World (UNESCO/BNA 1982) (English translation), reprinting Federal Act On Copyright in Works of Literature and Art and on Related Rights (Austria), § 42(5)-(7), and An Act dealing with Copyright and Related Rights (Federal Republic of Germany), Art. 53(5). A study produced for the Commission of European Communities has recommended that these requirements "serve as a pattern" for the European community. A. Dietz, Copyright Law in the European Community 135 (1978). While these royalty systems ordinarily depend on the existence of authors' collecting societies, see id., at 119, 136, such collecting societies are a familiar part of our copyright law. See generally Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 441 U.S. 1, 4-5, 99 S.Ct. 1551, 1554, 60 L.Ed.2d 1 (1979). Fashioning relief of this sort, of course, might require bringing other copyright owners into court through certification of a class or otherwise.

471 U.S. 539

105 S.Ct. 2218

85 L.Ed.2d 588

HARPER & ROW, PUBLISHERS, INC. and the Reader's Digest Association, Inc., Petitioners

v.

NATION ENTERPRISES and the Nation Associates, Inc.

No. 83-1632.

Argued Nov. 6, 1984.

Decided May 20, 1985.

Syllabus

In 1977, former President Ford contracted with petitioners to publish his as yet unwritten memoirs. The agreement gave petitioners the exclusive first serial right to license prepublication excerpts. Two years later, as the memoirs were nearing completion, petitioners, as the copyright holders, negotiated a prepublication licensing agreement with Time Magazine under which Time agreed to pay $25,000 ($12,500 in advance and the balance at publication) in exchange for the right to excerpt 7,500 words from Mr. Ford's account of his pardon of former President Nixon. Shortly before the Time article's scheduled release, an unauthorized source provided The Nation Magazine with the unpublished Ford manuscript. Working directly from this manuscript, an editor of The Nation produced a 2,250-word article, at least 300 to 400 words of which consisted of verbatim quotes of copyrighted expression taken from the manuscript. It was timed to "scoop" the Time article. As a result of the publication of The Nation's article, Time canceled its article and refused to pay the remaining $12,500 to petitioners. Petitioners then brought suit in Federal District Court against respondent publishers of The Nation, alleging, inter alia, violations of the Copyright Act (Act). The District Court held that the Ford memoirs were protected by copyright at the time of The Nation publication and that respondents' use of the copyrighted material constituted an infringement under the Act, and the court awarded actual damages of $12,500. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that The Nation's publication of the 300 to 400 words it identified as copyrightable expression was sanctioned as a "fair use" of the copyrighted material under § 107 of the Act. Section 107 provides that notwithstanding the provisions of § 106 giving a copyright owner the exclusive right to reproduce the copyrighted work and to prepare derivative works based on the copyrighted work, the fair use of a copyrighted work for purposes such as comment and news reporting is not an infringement of copyright. Section 107 further provides that in determining whether the use was fair the factors to be considered shall include: (1) the purpose and character of the

use; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Held: The Nation's article was not a "fair use" sanctioned by § 107. Pp. 542-569.

(a) In using generous verbatim excerpts of Mr. Ford's unpublished expression to lend authenticity to its account of the forthcoming memoirs, The Nation effectively arrogated to itself the right of first publication, an important marketable subsidiary right. Pp. 545-549.

(b) Though the right of first publication, like other rights enumerated in § 106, is expressly made subject to the fair use provisions of § 107, fair use analysis must always be tailored to the individual case. The nature of the interest at stake is highly relevant to whether a given use is fair. The unpublished nature of a work is a key, though not necessarily determinative, factor tending to negate a defense of fair use. And under ordinary circumstances, the author's right to control the first public appearance of his undisseminated expression will outweigh a claim of fair use. Pp. 549-555.

(c) In view of the First Amendment's protections embodied in the Act's distinction between copyrightable expression and uncopyrightable facts and ideas, and the latitude for scholarship and comment traditionally afforded by fair use, there is no warrant for expanding, as respondents contend should be done, the fair use doctrine to what amounts to a public figure exception to copyright. Whether verbatim copying from a public figure's manuscript in a given case is or is not fair must be judged according to the traditional equities of fair use. Pp. 555-560.

(d) Taking into account the four factors enumerated in § 107 as especially relevant in determining fair use, leads to the conclusion that the use in question here was not fair. (i) The fact that news reporting was the general purpose of The Nation's use is simply one factor. While The Nation had every right to be the first to publish the information, it went beyond simply reporting uncopyrightable information and actively sought to exploit the headline value of its infringement, making a "news event" out of its unauthorized first publication. The fact that the publication was commercial as opposed to nonprofit is a separate factor tending to weigh against a finding of fair use. Fair use presupposes good faith. The Nation's unauthorized use of the undisseminated manuscript had not merely the incidental effect but the intended purpose of supplanting the copyright holders' commercially valuable right of first publication. (ii) While there may be a greater need to disseminate works of fact than works of fiction, The Nation's taking of copyrighted expression exceeded that necessary to disseminate the facts and

infringed the copyright holders' interests in confidentiality and creative control over the first public appearance of the work. (iii) Although the verbatim quotes in question were an insubstantial portion of the Ford manuscript, they qualitatively embodied Mr. Ford's distinctive expression and played a key role in the infringing article. (iv) As to the effect of The Nation's article on the market for the copyrighted work, Time's cancellation of its projected article and its refusal to pay $12,500 were the direct effect of the infringing publication. Once a copyright holder establishes a causal connection between the infringement and loss of revenue, the burden shifts to the infringer to show that the damage would have occurred had there been no taking of copyrighted expression. Petitioners established a prima facie case of actual damage that respondents failed to rebut. More important, to negate a claim of fair use it need only be shown that if the challenged use should become widespread, it would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work. Here, The Nation's liberal use of verbatim excerpts posed substantial potential for damage to the marketability of first serialization rights in the copyrighted work. Pp. 560-569.

723 F.2d 195 (CA2 1983), reversed and remanded.

Edward A. Miller, New York City, for petitioners.

Floyd Abrams, New York City, for respondents.

Justice O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

1

This case requires us to consider to what extent the "fair use" provision of the Copyright Revision Act of 1976, (hereinafter the Copyright Act) 17 U.S.C. § 107, sanctions the unauthorized use of quotations from a public figure's unpublished manuscript. In March 1979, an undisclosed source provided The Nation Magazine with the unpublished manuscript of "A Time to Heal: The Autobiography of Gerald R. Ford." Working directly from the purloined manuscript, an editor of The Nation produced a short piece entitled "The Ford Memoirs—Behind the Nixon Pardon." The piece was timed to "scoop" an article scheduled shortly to appear in Time Magazine. Time had agreed to purchase the exclusive right to print prepublication excerpts from the copyright holders, Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. (hereinafter Harper & Row), and Reader's Digest Association, Inc. (hereinafter Reader's Digest). As a result of The Nation article, Time canceled its agreement. Petitioners brought a successful copyright action against The Nation. On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed the lower court's finding of infringement, holding that

The Nation's act was sanctioned as a "fair use" of the copyrighted material. We granted certiorari, 467 U.S. 1214, 104 S.Ct. 2655, 81 L.Ed.2d 362 (1984), and we now reverse.

2

* In February 1977, shortly after leaving the White House, former President Gerald R. Ford contracted with petitioners Harper & Row and Reader's Digest, to publish his as yet unwritten memoirs. The memoirs were to contain "significant hitherto unpublished material" concerning the Watergate crisis, Mr. Ford's pardon of former President Nixon and "Mr. Ford's reflections on this period of history, and the morality and personalities involved." App. to Pet. for Cert. C-14—C-15. In addition to the right to publish the Ford memoirs in book form, the agreement gave petitioners the exclusive right to license prepublication excerpts, known in the trade as "first serial rights." Two years later, as the memoirs were nearing completion, petitioners negotiated a prepublication licensing agreement with Time, a weekly news magazine. Time agreed to pay $25,000, $12,500 in advance and an additional $12,500 at publication, in exchange for the right to excerpt 7,500 words from Mr. Ford's account of the Nixon pardon. The issue featuring the excerpts was timed to appear approximately one week before shipment of the full length book version to bookstores. Exclusivity was an important consideration; Harper & Row instituted procedures designed to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript, and Time retained the right to renegotiate the second payment should the material appear in print prior to its release of the excerpts.

3

Two to three weeks before the Time article's scheduled release, an unidentified person secretly brought a copy of the Ford manuscript to Victor Navasky, editor of The Nation, a political commentary magazine. Mr. Navasky knew that his possession of the manuscript was not authorized and that the manuscript must be returned quickly to his "source" to avoid discovery. 557 F.Supp. 1067, 1069 (SDNY 1983). He hastily put together what he believed was "a real hot news story" composed of quotes, paraphrases, and facts drawn exclusively from the manuscript. Ibid. Mr. Navasky attempted no independent commentary, research or criticism, in part because of the need for speed if he was to "make news" by "publish[ing] in advance of publication of the Ford book." App. 416-417. The 2,250-word article, reprinted in the Appendix to this opinion, appeared on April 3, 1979. As a result of The Nation's article, Time canceled its piece and refused to pay the remaining $12,500.

4

Petitioners brought suit in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging conversion, tortious interference with contract, and violations of the Copyright Act. After a 6-day bench trial, the District Judge found that "A Time to Heal" was protected by copyright at the time of The Nation

publication and that respondents' use of the copyrighted material constituted an infringement under the Copyright Act, §§ 106(1), (2), and (3), protecting respectively the right to reproduce the work, the right to license preparation of derivative works, and the right of first distribution of the copyrighted work to the public. App. to Pet. for Cert. C-29 C-30. The District Court rejected respondents' argument that The Nation's piece was a "fair use" sanctioned by § 107 of the Act. Though billed as "hot news," the article contained no new facts. The magazine had "published its article for profit," taking "the heart" of "a soon-to-be-published" work. This unauthorized use "caused the Time agreement to be aborted and thus diminished the value of the copyright." 557 F.Supp., at 1072. Although certain elements of the Ford memoirs, such as historical facts and memoranda, were not per se copyrightable, the District Court held that it was "the totality of these facts and memoranda collected together with Ford's reflections that made them of value to The Nation, [and] this . . . totality . . . is protected by the copyright laws." Id., at 1072-1073. The court awarded actual damages of $12,500.

5

A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. The majority recognized that Mr. Ford's verbatim "reflections" were original "expression" protected by copyright. But it held that the District Court had erred in assuming the "coupling [of these reflections] with uncopyrightable fact transformed that information into a copyrighted 'totality.' " 723 F.2d 195, 205 (CA2 1983). The majority noted that copyright attaches to expression, not facts or ideas. It concluded that, to avoid granting a copyright monopoly over the facts underlying history and news, " 'expression' [in such works must be confined] to its barest elements—the ordering and choice of the words themselves." Id., at 204. Thus similarities between the original and the challenged work traceable to the copying or paraphrasing of uncopyrightable material, such as historical facts, memoranda and other public documents, and quoted remarks of third parties, must be disregarded in evaluating whether the second author's use was fair or infringing.

6

"When the uncopyrighted material is stripped away, the article in The Nation contains, at most, approximately 300 words that are copyrighted. These remaining paragraphs and scattered phrases are all verbatim quotations from the memoirs which had not appeared previously in other publications. They include a short segment of Ford's conversations with Henry Kissinger and several other individuals. Ford's impressionistic depictions of Nixon, ill with phlebitis after the resignation and pardon, and of Nixon's character, constitute the major portion of this material. It is these parts of the magazine piece on which [the court] must focus in [its] examination of the question whether there was a 'fair use' of copyrighted matter." Id., at 206.

7

Examining the four factors enumerated in § 107, see infra, at 547, n. 2, the majority found the purpose of the article was "news reporting," the original work was essentially factual in nature, the 300 words appropriated were insubstantial in relation to the 2,250-word piece, and the impact on the market for the original was minimal as "the evidence [did] not support a finding that it was the very limited use of expression per se which led to Time's decision not to print the excerpt." The Nation's borrowing of verbatim quotations merely "len[t] authenticity to this politically significant material . . . complementing the reporting of the facts." 723 F.2d, at 208. The Court of Appeals was especially influenced by the "politically significant" nature of the subject matter and its conviction that it is not "the purpose of the Copyright Act to impede that harvest of knowledge so necessary to a democratic state" or "chill the activities of the press by forbidding a circumscribed use of copyrighted words." Id., at 197, 209.

II

8

We agree with the Court of Appeals that copyright is intended to increase and not to impede the harvest of knowledge. But we believe the Second Circuit gave insufficient deference to the scheme established by the Copyright Act for fostering the original works that provide the seed and substance of this harvest. The rights conferred by copyright are designed to assure contributors to the store of knowledge a fair return for their labors. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 156, 95 S.Ct. 2040, 2043, 45 L.Ed.2d 84 (1975).

9

Article I, § 8, of the Constitution provides:

10

"The Congress shall have Power . . . to Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

11

As we noted last Term: "[This] limited grant is a means by which an important public purpose may be achieved. It is intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors by the provision of a

special reward, and to allow the public access to the products of their genius after the limited period of exclusive control has expired." Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 429, 104 S.Ct. 774, 782, 78 L.Ed.2d 574 (1984). "The monopoly created by copyright thus rewards the individual author in order to benefit the public." Id., at 477, 104 S.Ct., at 807 (dissenting opinion). This principle applies equally to works of fiction and nonfiction. The book at issue here, for example, was two years in the making, and began with a contract giving the author's copyright to the publishers in exchange for their services in producing and marketing the work. In preparing the book, Mr. Ford drafted essays and word portraits of public figures and participated in hundreds of taped interviews that were later distilled to chronicle his personal viewpoint. It is evident that the monopoly granted by copyright actively served its intended purpose of inducing the creation of new material of potential historical value.

12

Section 106 of the Copyright Act confers a bundle of exclusive rights to the owner of the copyright.1 Under the Copyright Act, these rights—to publish, copy, and distribute the author's work—vest in the author of an original work from the time of its creation. § 106. In practice, the author commonly sells his rights to publishers who offer royalties in exchange for their services in producing and marketing the author's work. The copyright owner's rights, however, are subject to certain statutory exceptions. §§ 107-118. Among these is § 107 which codifies the traditional privilege of other authors to make "fair use" of an earlier writer's work.2 In addition, no author may copyright facts or ideas. § 102. The copyright is limited to those aspects of the work—termed "expression"—that display the stamp of the author's originality.

13

Creation of a nonfiction work, even a compilation of pure fact, entails originality. See, e.g., Schroeder v. William Morrow & Co., 566 F.2d 3 (CA7 1977) (copyright in gardening directory); cf. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 58, 4 S.Ct. 279, 281, 28 L.Ed. 349 (1884) (originator of a photograph may claim copyright in his work). The copyright holders of "A Time to Heal" complied with the relevant statutory notice and registration procedures. See §§ 106, 401, 408; App. to Pet. for Cert. C-20. Thus there is no dispute that the unpublished manuscript of "A Time to Heal," as a whole, was protected by § 106 from unauthorized reproduction. Nor do respondents dispute that verbatim copying of excerpts of the manuscript's original form of expression would constitute infringement unless excused as fair use. See 1 M. Nimmer, Copyright § 2.11[B], p. 2-159 (1984) (hereinafter Nimmer). Yet copyright does not prevent subsequent users from copying from a prior author's work those constituent elements that are not original—for example, quotations borrowed under the rubric of fair use from other copyrighted works, facts, or materials in the public domain—as long as such use does not unfairly appropriate the author's original contributions. Ibid.; A. Latman, Fair Use of Copyrighted Works (1958), reprinted as Study No. 14 in Copyright Law Revision Studies Nos. 14-16, prepared for the Senate

Committee on the Judiciary, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., 7 (1960) (hereinafter Latman). Perhaps the controversy between the lower courts in this case over copyrightability is more aptly styled a dispute over whether The Nation's appropriation of unoriginal and uncopyrightable elements encroached on the originality embodied in the work as a whole. Especially in the realm of factual narrative, the law is currently unsettled regarding the ways in which uncopyrightable elements combine with the author's original contributions to form protected expression. Compare Wainwright Securities Inc. v. Wall Street Transcript Corp., 558 F.2d 91 (CA2 1977) (protection accorded author's analysis, structuring of material and marshaling of facts), with Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 972 (CA2 1980) (limiting protection to ordering and choice of words). See, e.g., 1 Nimmer § 2.11[D], at 2-164—2-165.

14

We need not reach these issues, however, as The Nation has admitted to lifting verbatim quotes of the author's original language totaling between 300 and 400 words and constituting some 13% of The Nation article. In using generous verbatim excerpts of Mr. Ford's unpublished manuscript to lend authenticity to its account of the forthcoming memoirs, The Nation effectively arrogated to itself the right of first publication, an important marketable subsidiary right. For the reasons set forth below, we find that this use of the copyrighted manuscript, even stripped to the verbatim quotes conceded by The Nation to be copyrightable expression, was not a fair use within the meaning of the Copyright Act.

III

A.

15

Fair use was traditionally defined as "a privilege in others than the owner of the copyright to use the copyrighted material in a reasonable manner without his consent." H. Ball, Law of Copyright and Literary Property 260 (1944) (hereinafter Ball). The statutory formulation of the defense of fair use in the Copyright Act reflects the intent of Congress to codify the common-law doctrine. 3 Nimmer § 13.05. Section 107 requires a case-by-case determination whether a particular use is fair, and the statute notes four nonexclusive factors to be considered. This approach was "intended to restate the [pre-existing] judicial doctrine of fair use, not to change, narrow, or enlarge it in any way." H.R.Rep. No. 94-1476, p. 66 (1976) (hereinafter House Report), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976, pp. 5659, 5680.

16

"[T]he author's consent to a reasonable use of his copyrighted works ha[d] always been implied by the courts as a necessary incident of the constitutional policy of promoting the progress of science and the useful arts, since a prohibition of such use would inhibit subsequent writers from attempting to improve upon prior works and thus . . . frustrate the very ends sought to be attained." Ball 260. Professor Latman, in a study of the doctrine of fair use commissioned by Congress for the revision effort, see Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S., at 462-463, n. 9, 104 S.Ct., at 781, n. 9 (dissenting opinion), summarized prior law as turning on the "importance of the material copied or performed from the point of view of the reasonable copyright owner. In other words, would the reasonable copyright owner have consented to the use?" Latman 15.3

17

As early as 1841, Justice Story gave judicial recognition to the doctrine in a case that concerned the letters of another former President, George Washington.

18

"[A] reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticise, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy." Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342, 344-345 (No. 4,901) (CC Mass.)

19

As Justice Story's hypothetical illustrates, the fair use doctrine has always precluded a use that "supersede[s] the use of the original." Ibid. Accord, S.Rep. No. 94-473, p. 65 (1975) (hereinafter Senate Report).

20

Perhaps because the fair use doctrine was predicated on the author's implied consent to "reasonable and customary" use when he released his work for public consumption, fair use traditionally was not recognized as a defense to charges of copying from an author's as yet unpublished works.4 Under common-law copyright, "the property of the author . . . in his intellectual creation [was] absolute until he voluntarily part[ed] with the same." American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister, 207 U.S. 284, 299, 28 S.Ct. 72, 77, 52 L.Ed. 208 (1907); 2 Nimmer § 8.23, at 8-273. This absolute rule, however, was tempered in practice by the equitable nature of the fair use doctrine. In a given case, factors such as implied

consent through de facto publication on performance or dissemination of a work may tip the balance of equities in favor of prepublication use. See Copyright Law Revision—Part 2: Discussion and Comments on Report of the Register of Copyrights on General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 27 (H.R.Comm. Print 1963) (discussion suggesting works disseminated to the public in a form not constituting a technical "publication" should nevertheless be subject to fair use); 3 Nimmer § 13.05, at 13-62, n. 2. But it has never been seriously disputed that "the fact that the plaintiff's work is unpublished . . . is a factor tending to negate the defense of fair use." Ibid. Publication of an author's expression before he has authorized its dissemination seriously infringes the author's right to decide when and whether it will be made public, a factor not present in fair use of published works.5 Respondents contend, however, that Congress, in including first publication among the rights enumerated in § 106, which are expressly subject to fair use under § 107, intended that fair use would apply in pari materia to published and unpublished works. The Copyright Act does not support this proposition.

21

The Copyright Act represents the culmination of a major legislative reexamination of copyright doctrine. See Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder, 469 U.S. 153, 159-160, 105 S.Ct. 638, at ----, 83 L.Ed.2d 556 (1985); Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S., at 462-463, n. 9, 104 S.Ct., at 781, n. 9 (dissenting opinion). Among its other innovations, it eliminated publication "as a dividing line between common law and statutory protection," House Report, at 129 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976, p. 5745, extending statutory protection to all works from the time of their creation. It also recognized for the first time a distinct statutory right of first publication, which had previously been an element of the common-law protections afforded unpublished works. The Report of the House Committee on the Judiciary confirms that "Clause (3) of section 106, establishes the exclusive right of publications. . . . Under this provision the copyright owner would have the right to control the first public distribution of an authorized copy . . . of his work." Id., at 62 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976, p. 5675.

22

Though the right of first publication, like the other rights enumerated in § 106, is expressly made subject to the fair use provision of § 107, fair use analysis must always be tailored to the individual case. Id., at 65; 3 Nimmer § 13.05[A]. The nature of the interest at stake is highly relevant to whether a given use is fair. From the beginning, those entrusted with the task of revision recognized the "overbalancing reasons to preserve the common law protection of undisseminated works until the author or his successor chooses to disclose them." Copyright Law Revision, Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 41 (Comm. Print 1961). The right of first publication implicates a threshold decision by the author whether and in what form to release his work. First publication is inherently different from other § 106 rights in that only one person can be the first publisher; as the contract with Time illustrates, the commercial value of the right lies primarily in exclusivity. Because the potential damage to the author from judicially enforced "sharing" of the first

publication right with unauthorized users of his manuscript is substantial, the balance of equities in evaluating such a claim of fair use inevitably shifts.

23

The Senate Report confirms that Congress intended the unpublished nature of the work to figure prominently in fair use analysis. In discussing fair use of photocopied materials in the classroom the Committee Report states:

24

"A key, though not necessarily determinative, factor in fair use is whether or not the work is available to the potential user. If the work is 'out of print' and unavailable for purchase through normal channels, the user may have more justification for reproducing it. . . . The applicability of the fair use doctrine to unpublished works is narrowly limited since, although the work is unavailable, this is the result of a deliberate choice on the part of the copyright owner. Under ordinary circumstances, the copyright owner's 'right of first publication' would outweigh any needs of reproduction for classroom purposes." Senate Report, at 64.

25

Although the Committee selected photocopying of classroom materials to illustrate fair use, it emphasized that "the same general standards of fair use are applicable to all kinds of uses of copyrighted material." Id., at 65. We find unconvincing respondents' contention that the absence of the quoted passage from the House Report indicates an intent to abandon the traditional distinction between fair use of published and unpublished works. It appears instead that the fair use discussion of photocopying of classroom materials was omitted from the final Report because educators and publishers in the interim had negotiated a set of guidelines that rendered the discussion obsolete. House Report, at 67. The House Report nevertheless incorporates the discussion by reference, citing to the Senate Report and stating: "The Committee has reviewed this discussion, and considers it still has value as an analysis of various aspects of the [fair use] problem." Ibid.

26

Even if the legislative history were entirely silent, we would be bound to conclude from Congress' characterization of § 107 as a "restatement" that its effect was to preserve existing law concerning fair use of unpublished works as of other types of protected works and not to "change, narrow, or enlarge it." Id., at 66. We conclude that the unpublished nature of a work is "[a] key, though not necessarily

determinative, factor" tending to negate a defense of fair use. Senate Report, at 64. See 3 Nimmer § 13.05, at 13-62, n. 2; W. Patry, The Fair Use Privilege in Copyright Law 125 (1985) (hereinafter Patry).

27

We also find unpersuasive respondents' argument that fair use may be made of a soon-to-be-published manuscript on the ground that the author has demonstrated he has no interest in nonpublication. This argument assumes that the unpublished nature of copyrighted material is only relevant to letters or other confidential writings not intended for dissemination. It is true that common-law copyright was often enlisted in the service of personal privacy. See Brandeis & Warren, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv.L.Rev. 193, 198-199 (1890). In its commercial guise, however, an author's right to choose when he will publish is no less deserving of protection. The period encompassing the work's initiation, its preparation, and its grooming for public dissemination is a crucial one for any literary endeavor. The Copyright Act, which accords the copyright owner the "right to control the first public distribution" of his work, House Report, at 62, echos the common law's concern that the author or copyright owner retain control throughout this critical stage. See generally Comment, The Stage of Publication as a "Fair Use" Factor: Harper & Row, Publishers v. Nation Enterprises, 58 St. John's L.Rev. 597 (1984). The obvious benefit to author and public alike of assuring authors the leisure to develop their ideas free from fear of expropriation outweighs any short-term "news value" to be gained from premature publication of the author's expression. See Goldstein, Copyright and the First Amendment, 70 Colum.L.Rev. 983, 1004-1006 (1970) (The absolute protection the common law accorded to soon-to-be published works "[was] justified by [its] brevity and expedience"). The author's control of first public distribution implicates not only his personal interest in creative control but his property interest in exploitation of prepublication rights, which are valuable in themselves and serve as a valuable adjunct to publicity and marketing. See Belushi v. Woodward, 598 F.Supp. 36 (DC 1984) (successful marketing depends on coordination of serialization and release to public); Marks, Subsidiary Rights and Permissions, in What Happens in Book Publishing 230 (C. Grannis ed. 1967) (exploitation of subsidiary rights is necessary to financial success of new books). Under ordinary circumstances, the author's right to control the first public appearance of his undisseminated expression will outweigh a claim of fair use.

B

28

Respondents, however, contend that First Amendment values require a different rule under the circumstances of this case. The thrust of the decision below is that "[t]he scope of [fair use] is undoubtedly wider when the information conveyed relates to matters of high public concern." Consumers Union of the United States, Inc. v. General Signal Corp., 724 F.2d 1044, 1050 (CA2 1983)

(construing 723 F.2d 195 (CA2 1983) (case below) as allowing advertiser to quote Consumer Reports), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 823, 104 S.Ct. 2655, 81 L.Ed.2d 362 (1984). Respondents advance the substantial public import of the subject matter of the Ford memoirs as grounds for excusing a use that would ordinarily not pass muster as a fair use—the piracy of verbatim quotations for the purpose of "scooping" the authorized first serialization. Respondents explain their copying of Mr. Ford's expression as essential to reporting the news story it claims the book itself represents. In respondents' view, not only the facts contained in Mr. Ford's memoirs, but "the precise manner in which [he] expressed himself [were] as newsworthy as what he had to say." Brief for Respondents 38-39. Respondents argue that the public's interest in learning this news as fast as possible outweighs the right of the author to control its first publication.

29

The Second Circuit noted, correctly, that copyright's idea/expression dichotomy "strike[s] a definitional balance between the First Amendment and the Copyright Act by permitting free communication of facts while still protecting an author's expression." 723 F.2d, at 203. No author may copyright his ideas or the facts he narrates. 17 U.S.C. § 102(b). See, e.g., New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 726, n. , 91 S.Ct. 2140, 2147, n. , 29 L.Ed.2d 822 (1971) (BRENNAN, J., concurring) (Copyright laws are not restrictions on freedom of speech as copyright protects only form of expression and not the ideas expressed); 1 Nimmer § 1.10[B][2]. As this Court long ago observed: "[T]he news element—the information respecting current events contained in the literary production—is not the creation of the writer, but is a report of matters that ordinarily are publici juris; it is the history of the day." International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, 234, 39 S.Ct. 68, 71, 63 L.Ed. 211 (1918). But copyright assures those who write and publish factual narratives such as "A Time to Heal" that they may at least enjoy the right to market the original expression contained therein as just compensation for their investment. Cf. Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562, 575, 97 S.Ct. 2849, 2857, 53 L.Ed.2d 965 (1977).

30

Respondents' theory, however, would expand fair use to effectively destroy any expectation of copyright protection in the work of a public figure. Absent such protection, there would be little incentive to create or profit in financing such memoirs, and the public would be denied an important source of significant historical information. The promise of copyright would be an empty one if it could be avoided merely by dubbing the infringement a fair use "news report" of the book. See Wainwright Securities Inc. v. Wall Street Transcript Corp., 558 F.2d 91 (CA2 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1014, 98 S.Ct 730, 54 L.Ed.2d 759 (1978).

31

Nor do respondents assert any actual necessity for circumventing the copyright scheme with respect to the types of works and users at issue here.6 Where an author and publisher have invested extensive resources in creating an original work and are poised to release it to the public, no legitimate aim is served by pre-empting the right of first publication. The fact that the words the author has chosen to clothe his narrative may of themselves be "newsworthy" is not an independent justification for unauthorized copying of the author's expression prior to publication. To paraphrase another recent Second Circuit decision:

32

"[Respondent] possessed an unfettered right to use any factual information revealed in [the memoirs] for the purpose of enlightening its audience, but it can claim no need to 'bodily appropriate' [Mr. Ford's] 'expression' of that information by utilizing portions of the actual [manuscript]. The public interest in the free flow of information is assured by the law's refusal to recognize a valid copyright in facts. The fair use doctrine is not a license for corporate theft, empowering a court to ignore a copyright whenever it determines the underlying work contains material of possible public importance." Iowa State University Research Foundation, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 621 F.2d 57, 61 (CA2 1980) (citations omitted).

33

Accord, Roy Export Co. Establishment v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 503 F.Supp. 1137 (SDNY 1980) ("newsworthiness" of material copied does not justify copying), aff'd, 672 F.2d 1095 (CA2), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 826, 103 S.Ct. 60, 74 L.Ed.2d 63 (1982); Quinto v. Legal Times of Washington, Inc., 506 F.Supp. 554 (DC 1981) (same).

34

In our haste to disseminate news, it should not be forgotten that the Framers intended copyright itself to be the engine of free expression. By establishing a marketable right to the use of one's expression, copyright supplies the economic incentive to create and disseminate ideas. This Court stated in Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 219, 74 S.Ct. 460, 471, 98 L.Ed. 630 (1954):

35

"The economic philosophy behind the clause empowering Congress to grant patents and copyrights is

the conviction that encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance public welfare through the talents of authors and inventors in 'Science and useful Arts.' "

36

And again in Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken:

37

"The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate [the creation of useful works] for the general public good." 422 U.S., at 156, 95 S.Ct., at 2043.

38

It is fundamentally at odds with the scheme of copyright to accord lesser rights in those works that are of greatest importance to the public. Such a notion ignores the major premise of copyright and injures author and public alike. "[T]o propose that fair use be imposed whenever the 'social value [of dissemination] . . . outweighs any detriment to the artist,' would be to propose depriving copyright owners of their right in the property precisely when they encounter those users who could afford to pay for it." Gordon, Fair Use as Market Failure: A Structural and Economic Analysis of the Betamax Case and its Predecessors, 82 Colum.L.Rev. 1600, 1615 (1982). And as one commentator has noted: "If every volume that was in the public interest could be pirated away by a competing publisher, . . . the public [soon] would have nothing worth reading." Sobel, Copyright and the First Amendment: A Gathering Storm?, 19 ASCAP Copyright Law Symposium 43, 78 (1971). See generally Comment, Copyright and the First Amendment; Where Lies the Public Interest?, 59 Tulane L.Rev. 135 (1984).

39

Moreover, freedom of thought and expression "includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all." Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 714, 97 S.Ct. 1428, 1435, 51 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977) (BURGER, C.J.). We do not suggest this right not to speak would sanction abuse of the copyright owner's monopoly as an instrument to suppress facts. But in the words of New York's Chief Judge Fuld:

40

"The essential thrust of the First Amendment is to prohibit improper restraints on the voluntary public

expression of ideas; it shields the man who wants to speak or publish when others wish him to be quiet. There is necessarily, and within suitably defined areas, a concomitant freedom not to speak publicly, one which serves the same ultimate end as freedom of speech in its affirmative aspect." Estate of Hemingway v. Random House, Inc., 23 N.Y.2d 341, 348, 296 N.Y.S.2d 771, 776, 244 N.E.2d 250, 255 (1968).

41

Courts and commentators have recognized that copyright, and the right of first publication in particular, serve this countervailing First Amendment value. See Schnapper v. Foley, 215 U.S.App.D.C. 59, 667 F.2d 102 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 948, 102 S.Ct. 1448, 71 L.Ed.2d 661 (1982); 1 Nimmer § 1.10[B], at 1-70, n. 24; Patry 140-142.

42

In view of the First Amendment protections already embodied in the Copyright Act's distinction between copyrightable expression and uncopyrightable facts and ideas, and the latitude for scholarship and comment traditionally afforded by fair use, we see no warrant for expanding the doctrine of fair use to create what amounts to a public figure exception to copyright. Whether verbatim copying from a public figure's manuscript in a given case is or is not fair must be judged according to the traditional equities of fair use.

IV

43

Fair use is a mixed question of law and fact. Pacific & Southern Co. v. Duncan, 744 F.2d 1490, 1495, n. 8 (CA11 1984). Where the district court has found facts sufficient to evaluate each of the statutory factors, an appellate court "need not remand for further factfinding . . . [but] may conclude as a matter of law that [the challenged use] do[es] not qualify as a fair use of the copyrighted work." Id., at 1495. Thus whether The Nation article constitutes fair use under § 107 must be reviewed in light of the principles discussed above. The factors enumerated in the section are not meant to be exclusive: "[S]ince the doctrine is an equitable rule of reason, no generally applicable definition is possible, and each case raising the question must be decided on its own facts." House Report, at 65, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976, p. 5678. The four factors identified by Congress as especially relevant in determining whether the use was fair are: (1) the purpose and character of the use; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; (4) the

effect on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. We address each one separately.

44

Purpose of the Use. The Second Circuit correctly identified news reporting as the general purpose of The Nation's use. News reporting is one of the examples enumerated in § 107 to "give some idea of the sort of activities the courts might regard as fair use under the circumstances." Senate Report, at 61. This listing was not intended to be exhaustive, see ibid.; § 101 (definition of "including" and "such as"), or to single out any particular use as presumptively a "fair" use. The drafters resisted pressures from special interest groups to create presumptive categories of fair use, but structured the provision as an affirmative defense requiring a case-by-case analysis. See H.R.Rep. No. 83, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 37 (1967); Patry 477, n. 4. "[W]hether a use referred to in the first sentence of section 107 is a fair use in a particular case will depend upon the application of the determinative factors, including those mentioned in the second sentence." Senate Report, at 62. The fact that an article arguably is "news" and therefore a productive use is simply one factor in a fair use analysis.

45

We agree with the Second Circuit that the trial court erred in fixing on whether the information contained in the memoirs was actually new to the public. As Judge Meskill wisely noted, "[c]ourts should be chary of deciding what is and what is not news." 723 F.2d, at 215 (dissenting). Cf. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 345-346, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3009-3010, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974). "The issue is not what constitutes 'news,' but whether a claim of newsreporting is a valid fair use defense to an infringement of copyrightable expression." Patry 119. The Nation has every right to seek to be the first to publish information. But The Nation went beyond simply reporting uncopyrightable information and actively sought to exploit the headline value of its infringement, making a "news event" out of its unauthorized first publication of a noted figure's copyrighted expression.

46

The fact that a publication was commercial as opposed to nonprofit is a separate factor that tends to weigh against a finding of fair use. "[E]very commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively an unfair exploitation of the monopoly privilege that belongs to the owner of the copyright." Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S., at 451, 104 S.Ct., at 793. In arguing that the purpose of news reporting is not purely commercial, The Nation misses the point entirely. The crux of the profit/nonprofit distinction is not whether the sole motive of the use is monetary gain but whether the user stands to profit from exploitation of the copyrighted material without paying the customary price. See Roy Export Co. Establishment v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 503 F.Supp., at 1144; 3 Nimmer § 13.05[A][1], at 13-71, n. 25.3.

47

In evaluating character and purpose we cannot ignore The Nation's stated purpose of scooping the forthcoming hardcover and Time abstracts.7 App. to Pet. for Cert. C-27. The Nation's use had not merely the incidental effect but the intended purpose of supplanting the copyright holder's commercially valuable right of first publication. See Meredith Corp. v. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 378 F.Supp. 686, 690 (SDNY) (purpose of text was to compete with original), aff'd, 500 F.2d 1221 (CA2 1974). Also relevant to the "character" of the use is "the propriety of the defendant's conduct." 3 Nimmer § 13.05[A], at 13-72. "Fair use presupposes 'good faith' and 'fair dealing.' " Time Inc. v. Bernard Geis Associates, 293 F.Supp. 130, 146 (SDNY 1968), quoting Schulman, Fair Use and the Revision of the Copyright Act, 53 Iowa L.Rev. 832 (1968). The trial court found that The Nation knowingly exploited a purloined manuscript. App. to Pet. for Cert. B-1, C-20—C-21, C-28—C-29. Unlike the typical claim of fair use, The Nation cannot offer up even the fiction of consent as justification. Like its competitor newsweekly, it was free to bid for the right of abstracting excerpts from "A Time to Heal." Fair use "distinguishes between 'a true scholar and a chiseler who infringes a work for personal profit.' " Wainwright Securities Inc. v. Wall Street Transcript Corp., 558 F.2d, at 94, quoting from Hearings on Bills for the General Revision of the Copyright Law before the House Committee on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., ser. 8, pt. 3, p. 1706 (1966) (statement of John Schulman).

48

Nature of the Copyrighted Work. Second, the Act directs attention to the nature of the copyrighted work. "A Time to Heal" may be characterized as an unpublished historical narrative or autobiography. The law generally recognizes a greater need to disseminate factual works than works of fiction or fantasy. See Gorman, Fact or Fancy? The Implications for Copyright, 29 J. Copyright Soc. 560, 561 (1982).

49

"[E]ven within the field of fact works, there are gradations as to the relative proportion of fact and fancy. One may move from sparsely embellished maps and directories to elegantly written biography. The extent to which one must permit expressive language to be copied, in order to assure dissemination of the underlying facts, will thus vary from case to case." Id., at 563.

50

Some of the briefer quotes from the memoirs are arguably necessary adequately to convey the facts; for example, Mr. Ford's characterization of the White House tapes as the "smoking gun" is perhaps so

integral to the idea expressed as to be inseparable from it. Cf. 1 Nimmer § 1.10[C]. But The Nation did not stop at isolated phrases and instead excerpted subjective descriptions and portraits of public figures whose power lies in the author's individualized expression. Such use, focusing on the most expressive elements of the work, exceeds that necessary to disseminate the facts.

51

The fact that a work is unpublished is a critical element of its "nature." 3 Nimmer § 13.05[A]; Comment, 58 St. John's L.Rev., at 613. Our prior discussion establishes that the scope of fair use is narrower with respect to unpublished works. While even substantial quotations might qualify as fair use in a review of a published work or a news account of a speech that had been delivered to the public or disseminated to the press, see House Report, at 65, the author's right to control the first public appearance of his expression weighs against such use of the work before its release. The right of first publication encompasses not only the choice whether to publish at all, but also the choices of when, where, and in what form first to publish a work.

52

In the case of Mr. Ford's manuscript, the copyright holders' interest in confidentiality is irrefutable; the copyright holders had entered into a contractual undertaking to "keep the manuscript confidential" and required that all those to whom the manuscript was shown also "sign an agreement to keep the manuscript confidential." App. to Pet. for Cert. C-19—C-20. While the copyright holders' contract with Time required Time to submit its proposed article seven days before publication, The Nation's clandestine publication afforded no such opportunity for creative or quality control. Id., at C-18. It was hastily patched together and contained "a number of inaccuracies." App. 300b-300c (testimony of Victor Navasky). A use that so clearly infringes the copyright holder's interests in confidentiality and creative control is difficult to characterize as "fair."

53

Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used. Next, the Act directs us to examine the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. In absolute terms, the words actually quoted were an insubstantial portion of "A Time to Heal." The District Court, however, found that "[T]he Nation took what was essentially the heart of the book." 557 F.Supp., at 1072. We believe the Court of Appeals erred in overruling the District Judge's evaluation of the qualitative nature of the taking. See, e.g., Roy Export Co. Establishment v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 503 F.Supp., at 1145 (taking of 55 seconds out of 1 hour and 29-minute film deemed qualitatively substantial). A Time editor described the chapters on the pardon as "the most interesting and moving parts of the entire manuscript." Reply Brief for Petitioners 16, n. 8. The portions actually quoted were selected by Mr.

Navasky as among the most powerful passages in those chapters. He testified that he used verbatim excerpts because simply reciting the information could not adequately convey the "absolute certainty with which [Ford] expressed himself," App. 303; or show that "this comes from President Ford," id., at 305; or carry the "definitive quality" of the original, id., at 306. In short, he quoted these passages precisely because they qualitatively embodied Ford's distinctive expression.

54

As the statutory language indicates, a taking may not be excused merely because it is insubstantial with respect to the infringing work. As Judge Learned Hand cogently remarked, "no plagiarist can excuse the wrong by showing how much of his work he did not pirate." Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 81 F.2d 49, 56 (CA2), cert. denied, 298 U.S. 669, 56 S.Ct. 835, 80 L.Ed. 1392 (1936). Conversely, the fact that a substantial portion of the infringing work was copied verbatim is evidence of the qualitative value of the copied material, both to the originator and to the plagiarist who seeks to profit from marketing someone else's copyrighted expression.

55

Stripped to the verbatim quotes,8 the direct takings from the unpublished manuscript constitute at least 13% of the infringing article. See Meeropol v. Nizer, 560 F.2d 1061, 1071 (CA2 1977) (copyrighted letters constituted less than 1% of infringing work but were prominently featured). The Nation article is structured around the quoted excerpts which serve as its dramatic focal points. See Appendix to this opinion, post, p. 570. In view of the expressive value of the excerpts and their key role in the infringing work, we cannot agree with the Second Circuit that the "magazine took a meager, indeed an infinitesimal amount of Ford's original language." 723 F.2d, at 209.

56

Effect on the Market. Finally, the Act focuses on "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." This last factor is undoubtedly the single most important element of fair use.9 See 3 Nimmer § 13.05[A], at 13-76, and cases cited therein. "Fair use, when properly applied, is limited to copying by others which does not materially impair the marketability of the work which is copied." 1 Nimmer § 1.10[D], at 1-87. The trial court found not merely a potential but an actual effect on the market. Time's cancellation of its projected serialization and its refusal to pay the $12,500 were the direct effect of the infringement. The Court of Appeals rejected this factfinding as clearly erroneous, noting that the record did not establish a causal relation between Time's nonperformance and respondents' unauthorized publication of Mr. Ford's expression as opposed to the facts taken from the memoirs. We disagree. Rarely will a case of copyright infringement present such clear-cut evidence of actual damage. Petitioners assured Time that there would be no other authorized publication of any

portion of the unpublished manuscript prior to April 23, 1979. Any publication of material from chapters 1 and 3 would permit Time to renegotiate its final payment. Time cited The Nation's article, which contained verbatim quotes from the unpublished manuscript, as a reason for its nonperformance. With respect to apportionment of profits flowing from a copyright infringement, this Court has held that an infringer who commingles infringing and noninfringing elements "must abide the consequences, unless he can make a separation of the profits so as to assure to the injured party all that justly belongs to him." Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 309 U.S. 390, 406, 60 S.Ct. 681, 687, 84 L.Ed. 825 (1940). Cf. 17 U.S.C. § 504(b) (the infringer is required to prove elements of profits attributable to other than the infringed work). Similarly, once a copyright holder establishes with reasonable probability the existence of a causal connection between the infringement and a loss of revenue, the burden properly shifts to the infringer to show that this damage would have occurred had there been no taking of copyrighted expression. See 3 Nimmer § 14.02, at 14-7—14-8.1. Petitioners established a prima facie case of actual damage that respondents failed to rebut. See Stevens Linen Associates, Inc. v. Mastercraft Corp., 656 F.2d 11, 15 (CA2 1981). The trial court properly awarded actual damages and accounting of profits. See 17 U.S.C. § 504(b).

57

More important, to negate fair use one need only show that if the challenged use "should become widespread, it would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work." Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S., at 451, 104 S.Ct., at 793 (emphasis added); id., at 484, and n. 36, 104 S.Ct., at 810, and n. 36 (collecting cases) (dissenting opinion). This inquiry must take account not only of harm to the original but also of harm to the market for derivative works. See Iowa State University Research Foundation, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., 621 F.2d 57 (CA2 1980); Meeropol v. Nizer, supra, at 1070; Roy Export v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 503 F.Supp., at 1146. "If the defendant's work adversely affects the value of any of the rights in the copyrighted work (in this case the adaptation [and serialization] right) the use is not fair." 3 Nimmer § 13.05[B], at 13-77—13-78 (footnote omitted).

58

It is undisputed that the factual material in the balance of The Nation's article, besides the verbatim quotes at issue here, was drawn exclusively from the chapters on the pardon. The excerpts were employed as featured episodes in a story about the Nixon pardon—precisely the use petitioners had licensed to Time. The borrowing of these verbatim quotes from the unpublished manuscript lent The Nation's piece a special air of authenticity as Navasky expressed it, the reader would know it was Ford speaking and not The Nation. App. 300c. Thus it directly competed for a share of the market for prepublication excerpts. The Senate Report states:

59

"With certain special exceptions . . . a use that supplants any part of the normal market for a copyrighted work would ordinarily be considered an infringement." Senate Report, at 65.

60

Placed in a broader perspective, a fair use doctrine that permits extensive prepublication quotations from an unreleased manuscript without the copyright owner's consent poses substantial potential for damage to the marketability of first serialization rights in general. "Isolated instances of minor infringements, when multiplied many times, become in the aggregate a major inroad on copyright that must be prevented." Ibid.

V

61

The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that The Nation's use of the copyrighted material was excused by the public's interest in the subject matter. It erred, as well, in overlooking the unpublished nature of the work and the resulting impact on the potential market for first serial rights of permitting unauthorized prepublication excerpts under the rubric of fair use. Finally, in finding the taking "infinitesimal," the Court of Appeals accorded too little weight to the qualitative importance of the quoted passages of original expression. In sum, the traditional doctrine of fair use, as embodied in the Copyright Act, does not sanction the use made by The Nation of these copyrighted materials. Any copyright infringer may claim to benefit the public by increasing public access to the copyrighted work. See Pacific & Southern Co. v. Duncan, 744 F.2d, at 1499-1500. But Congress has not designed, and we see no warrant for judicially imposing, a "compulsory license" permitting unfettered access to the unpublished copyrighted expression of public figures.

62

The Nation conceded that its verbatim copying of some 300 words of direct quotation from the Ford manuscript would constitute an infringement unless excused as a fair use. Because we find that The Nation's use of these verbatim excerpts from the unpublished manuscript was not a fair use, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

63

It is so ordered. APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT

64

The portions of The Nation article which were copied verbatim from "A Time to Heal," excepting quotes from Government documents and quotes attributed by Ford to third persons, are identified in boldface in the text. See ante, at 562, n. 7. The corresponding passages in the Ford manuscript are footnoted.

THE FORD MEMOIRS BEHIND THE NIXON PARDON

65

In his memoirs, A Time To Heal, which Harper & Row will publish in late May or early June, former President Gerald R. Ford says that the idea of giving a blanket pardon to Richard M. Nixon was raised before Nixon resigned from the Presidency by Gen. Alexander Haig, who was then the White House chief of staff.

66

Ford also writes that, but for a misunderstanding, he might have selected Ronald Reagan as his 1976 running mate, that Washington lawyer Edward Bennett Williams, a Democrat, was his choice for head of the Central Intelligence Agency, that Nixon was the one who first proposed Rockefeller for Vice President, and that he regretted his "cowardice"1 in allowing Rockefeller to remove himself from Vice Presidential contention. Ford also describes his often prickly relations with Henry Kissinger.

67

The Nation obtained the 655-page typescript before publication. Advance excerpts from the book will appear in Time in mid-April and in The Reader's Digest thereafter. Although the initial print order has not been decided, the figure is tentatively set at 50,000; it could change, depending upon the public reaction to the serialization.

68

Ford's account of the Nixon pardon contains significant new detail on the negotiations and considerations that surrounded it. According to Ford's version, the subject was first broached to him by General Haig on August 1, 1974, a week before Nixon resigned. General Haig revealed that the newly transcribed White House tapes were the equivalent of the "smoking gun"2 and that Ford should prepare himself to become President.

69

Ford was deeply hurt by Haig's revelation: "Over the past several months Nixon had repeatedly assured me that he was not involved in Watergate, that the evidence would prove his innocence, that the matter would fade from view."3 Ford had believed him, but he let Haig explain the President's alternatives.

70

He could "ride it out"4 or he could resign, Haig said. He then listed the different ways Nixon might resign and concluded by pointing out that Nixon could agree to leave in return for an agreement that the new President, Ford, would pardon him.5 Although Ford said it would be improper for him to make any recommendation, he basically agreed with Haig's assessment and adds, "Because of his references to the pardon authority, I did ask Haig about the extent of a President's pardon power."6

71

"It's my understanding from a White House lawyer," Haig replied, "that a President does have authority to grant a pardon even before criminal action has been taken against an individual." But because Ford had neglected to tell Haig he thought the idea of a resignation conditioned on a pardon was improper, his press aide, Bob Hartmann, suggested that Haig might well have returned to the White House and told President Nixon that he had mentioned the idea and Ford seemed comfortable with it. "Silence implies assent."

72

Ford then consulted with White House special counsel James St. Clair, who had no advice one way or the other on the matter more than pointing out that he was not the lawyer who had given Haig the opinion on the pardon. Ford also discussed the matter with Jack Marsh, who felt that the mention of a pardon in this context was a "time bomb," and with Bryce Harlow, who had served six Presidents and who agreed that the mere mention of a pardon "could cause a lot of trouble."7

73

As a result of these various conversations, Vice President Ford called Haig and read him a written statement: "I want you to understand that I have no intention of recommending what the President should do about resigning or not resigning and that nothing we talked about yesterday afternoon should be given any consideration in whatever decision the President may wish to make."

74

Despite what Haig had told him about the "smoking gun" tapes, Ford told a Jackson, Mich., luncheon audience later in the day that the President was not guilty of an impeachable offense. "Had I said otherwise at that moment," he writes, "the whole house of cards might have collapsed."8

75

In justifying the pardon, Ford goes out of his way to assure the reader that "compassion for Nixon as an individual hhadn't prompted my decision at all."9 Rather, he did it because he had "to get the monkey off my back one way or the other."10

76

The precipitating factor in his decision was a series of secret meetings his general counsel, Phil Buchen, held with Watergate Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski in the Jefferson Hotel, where they were both staying at the time. Ford attributes Jaworski with providing some "crucial" information11—i.e., that Nixon was under investigation in ten separate areas, and that the court process could "take years."12 Ford cites a memorandum from Jaworski's assistant, Henry S. Ruth Jr., as being especially persuasive. Ruth had written:

77

"If you decide to recommend indictment I think it is fair and proper to notify Jack Miller and the White House sufficiently in advance so that pardon action could be taken before the indictment." He went on to say: "One can make a strong argument for leniency and if President Ford is so inclined, I think he ought to do it early rather than late."

78

Ford decided that court proceedings against Nixon might take six years, that Nixon "would not spend time quietly in San Clemente,"13 and "it would be virtually impossible for me to direct public attention on anything else."14

79

Buchen, Haig and Henry Kissinger agreed with him. Hartmann was not so sure.

80

Buchen wanted to condition the pardon on Nixon agreeing to settle the question of who would retain custody and control over the tapes and Presidential papers that might be relevant to various Watergate proceedings, but Ford was reluctant to do that.

81

At one point a plan was considered whereby the Presidential materials would be kept in a vault at a Federal facility near San Clemente, but the vault would require two keys to open it. One would be retained by the General Services Administration, the other by Richard Nixon.

82

The White House did, however, want Nixon to make a full confession on the occasion of his pardon or, at a minimum, express true contrition. Ford tells of the negotiation with Jack Miller, Nixon's lawyer, over the wording of Nixon's statement. But as Ford reports Miller's response. Nixon was not likely to yield. "His few meetings with his client had shown him that the former President's ability to discuss Watergate objectively was almost nonexistent."15

83

The statement they really wanted was never forthcoming. As soon as Ford's emissary arrived in San Clemente, he was confronted with an ultimatum by Ron Zeigler, Nixon's former press secretary. "Lets get one thing straight immediately," Zeigler said. "President Nixon is not issuing any statement whatsoever regarding Watergate, whether Jerry Ford pardons him or not." Zeigler proposed a draft, which was turned down on the ground that "no statement would be better than that."16 They went through three more drafts before they agreed on the statement Nixon finally made, which stopped far short of a full confession.

84

When Ford aide Benton Becker tried to explain to Nixon that acceptance of a pardon was an admission of guilt, he felt the President wasn't really listening. Instead, Nixon wanted to talk about the Washington Redskins. And when Becker left, Nixon pressed on him some cuff links and a tiepin "out of my own jewelry box."

85

Ultimately, Ford sums up the philosophy underlying his decision as one he picked up as a student at Yale Law School many years before. "I learned that public policy often took precedence over a rule of law. Although I respected the tenet that no man should be above the law, public policy demanded that I put Nixon and Watergate—behind us as quickly as possible."17

86

Later, when Ford learned that Nixon's phlebitis had acted up and his health was seriously impaired, he debated whether to pay the ailing former President a visit. "If I made the trip it would remind everybody of Watergate and the pardon. If I didn't, people would say I lacked compassion."18 Ford went:

87

He was stretched out flat on his back. There were tubes in his nose and mouth, and wires led from his arms, chest and legs to machines with orange lights that blinked on and off. His face was ashen, and I thought I had never seen anyone closer to death.19

88

The manuscript made available to The Nation includes many references to Henry Kissinger and other personalities who played a major role during the Ford years.

89

On Kissinger. Immediately after being informed by Nixon of his intention to resign, Ford returned to the Executive Office Building and phoned Henry Kissinger to let him know how he felt. "Henry," he said, "I need you. The country needs you. I want you to stay. I'll do everything I can to work with you ."20

90

"Sir," Kissinger replied, "it is my job to get along with you and not yours to get along with me."

91

"We'll get along," Ford said. "I know we'll get along." Referring to Kissinger's joint jobs as Secretary of State and National Security Adviser to the President, Ford said, "I don't want to make any change. I think it's worked out well, so let's keep it that way."21

92

Later Ford did make the change and relieved Kissinger of his responsibilities as National Security Adviser at the same time that he fired James Schlesinger as Secretary of Defense. Shortly thereafter, he reports, Kissinger presented him with a "draft" letter of resignation, which he said Ford could call upon at will if he felt he needed it to quiet dissent from conservatives who objected to Kissinger's role in the firing of Schlesinger.

93

On John Connally. When Ford was informed that Nixon wanted him to replace Agnew, he told the President he had "no ambition to hold office after January 1977."22 Nixon replied that that was good since his own choice for his running mate in 1976 was John Connally. "He'd be excellent," observed Nixon. Ford says he had "no problem with that."

94

On the Decision to Run Again. Ford was, he tells us, so sincere in his intention not to run again that he thought he would announce it and enhance his credibility in the country and the Congress, as well as keep the promise he had made to his wife, Betty.

95

Kissinger talked him out of it. "You can't do that. It would be disastrous from a foreign policy point of view. For the next two and a half years foreign governments would know that they were dealing with a lame-duck President. All our initiatives would be dead in the water, and I wouldn't be able to implement

your foreign policy. It would probably have the same consequences in dealing with the Congress on domestic issues. You can't reassert the authority of the Presidency if you leave yourself hanging out on a dead limb. You've got to be an affirmative President." On David Kennerly, the White House photographer. Schlesinger was arguing with Kissinger and Ford over the appropriate response to the seizure of the Mayaguez. At issue was whether airstrikes against the Cambodians were desirable; Schlesinger was opposed to bombings. Following a lull in the conversation, Ford reports, up spoke the 30-year-old White House photographer, David Kennerly, who had been taking pictures for the last hour.

96

"Has anyone considered," Kennerly asked, "that this might be the act of a local Cambodian commander who has just taken it into his own hands to stop any ship that comes by?" Nobody, apparently, had considered it, but following several seconds of silence, Ford tells us, the view carried the day. "Massive airstrikes would constitute overkill," Ford decided. "It would be far better to have Navy jets from the Coral Sea make surgical strikes against specific targets."23

97

On Nixon's Character. Nixon's flaw, according to Ford, was "pride." "A terribly proud man," writes Ford, "he detested weakness in other people. I'd often heard him speak disparagingly of those whom he felt to be soft and expedient. (Curiously, he didn't feel that the press was weak. Reporters, he sensed, were his adversaries. He knew they didn't like him, and he responded with reciprocal disdain.)"24

98

Nixon felt disdain for the Democratic leadership of the House, whom he also regarded as weak. According to Ford, "His pride and personal contempt for weakness had overcome his ability to tell the difference between right and wrong,"25 all of which leads Ford to wonder whether Nixon had known in advance about Watergate.

99

On hearing Nixon's resignation speech, which Ford felt lacked an adequate plea for forgiveness, he was persuaded that "Nixon was out of touch with reality."26

100

In February of last year, when The Washington Post obtained and printed advance excerpts from H.R. Haldeman's memoir, The Ends of Power, on the eve of its publication by Times Books, The New York Times called The Post's feat "a second-rate burglary."

101

The Post disagreed, claiming that its coup represented "first-rate enterprise" and arguing that it had burglarized nothing, that publication of the Haldeman memoir came under the Fair Comment doctrine long recognized by the courts, and that "There is a fundamental journalistic principle here—a First Amendment principle that was central to the Pentagon Papers case."

102

In the issue of The Nation dated May 5, 1979, our special Spring Books number, we will discuss some of the ethical problems raised by the issue of disclosure.

103

Justice BRENNAN, with whom Justice WHITE and Justice MARSHALL join, dissenting.

104

The Court holds that The Nation's quotation of 300 words from the unpublished 200,000-word manuscript of President Gerald R. Ford infringed the copyright in that manuscript, even though the quotations related to a historical event of undoubted significance the resignation and pardon of President Richard M. Nixon. Although the Court pursues the laudable goal of protecting "the economic incentive to create and disseminate ideas," ante, at 558, this zealous defense of the copyright owner's prerogative will, I fear, stifle the broad dissemination of ideas and information copyright is intended to nurture. Protection of the copyright owner's economic interest is achieved in this case through an exceedingly narrow definition of the scope of fair use. The progress of arts and sciences and the robust public debate essential to an enlightened citizenry are ill served by this constricted reading of the fair use doctrine. See 17 U.S.C. § 107. I therefore respectfully dissent.

105

* A.

106

This case presents two issues. First, did The Nation's use of material from the Ford manuscript in forms other than direct quotation from that manuscript infringe Harper & Row's copyright. Second, did the quotation of approximately 300 words from the manuscript infringe the copyright because this quotation did not constitute "fair use" within the meaning of § 107 of the Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. § 107. The Court finds no need to resolve the threshold copyrightability issue. The use of 300 words of quotation was, the Court finds, beyond the scope of fair use and thus a copyright infringement.1 Because I disagree with the Court's fair use holding, it is necessary for me to decide the threshold copyrightability question.

B

107

"The enactment of copyright legislation by Congress under the terms of the Constitution is not based upon any natural right that the author has in his writings . . . but upon the ground that the welfare of the public will be served and progress of science and useful arts will be promoted by securing to authors for limited periods the exclusive rights to their writings." H.R.Rep. No. 2222, 60th Cong., 2d Sess., 7 (1909). Congress thus seeks to define the rights included in copyright so as to serve the public welfare and not necessarily so as to maximize an author's control over his or her product. The challenge of copyright is to strike the "difficult balance between the interests of authors and inventors in the control and exploitation of their writings and discoveries on the one hand, and society's competing interest in the free flow of ideas, information, and commerce on the other hand." Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 429, 104 S.Ct. 774, 782, 78 L.Ed.2d 574 (1984).

108

The "originality" requirement now embodied in § 102 of the Copyright Act is crucial to maintenance of the appropriate balance between these competing interests.2 Properly interpreted in the light of the legislative history, this section extends copyright protection to an author's literary form but permits free use by others of the ideas and information the author communicates. See S.Rep. No. 93-983, pp. 107-108 (1974) ("Copyright does not preclude others from using the ideas or information revealed by the author's work. It pertains to the literary . . . form in which the author expressed intellectual concepts"); H.R.Rep. No. 94-1476, pp. 56-57 (1976) (same); New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 726, n. *, 91 S.Ct. 2140, 2147, n. *, 29 L.Ed.2d 822 (1971) (BRENNAN, J., concurring) ("[T]he copyright laws, of course, protect only the form of expression and not the ideas expressed"). This limitation of protection

to literary form precludes any claim of copyright in facts, including historical narration.

109

"It is not to be supposed that the framers of the Constitution, when they empowered Congress 'to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries' (Const., Art. I, § 8, par. 8), intended to confer upon one who might happen to be the first to report a historic event the exclusive right for any period to spread the knowledge of it." International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, 234, 39 S.Ct. 68, 70, 63 L.Ed. 211 (1918).

110

Accord, Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc., 366 F.2d 303, 309 (CA2 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 1009, 87 S.Ct. 714, 17 L.Ed.2d 546 (1967). See 1 Nimmer § 2.11[A], at 2-158.3

111

The "promotion of science and the useful arts" requires this limit on the scope of an author's control. Were an author able to prevent subsequent authors from using concepts, ideas, or facts contained in his or her work, the creative process would wither and scholars would be forced into unproductive replication of the research of their predecessors. See Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 972, 979 (CA2 1980). This limitation on copyright also ensures consonance with our most important First Amendment values. Cf. Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562, 577, n. 13, 97 S.Ct. 2849, 2858 n. 13, 53 L.Ed.2d 965 (1977). Our "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open," New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270, 84 S.Ct. 710, 721, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964), leaves no room for a statutory monopoly over information and ideas. "The arena of public debate would be quiet, indeed, if a politician could copyright his speeches or a philosopher his treatises and thus obtain a monopoly on the ideas they contained." Lee v. Runge, 404 U.S. 887, 893, 92 S.Ct. 197, 200, 30 L.Ed.2d 169 (1971) (Douglas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). A broad dissemination of principles, ideas, and factual information is crucial to the robust public debate and informed citizenry that are "the essence of self-government." Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74-75, 85 S.Ct. 209, 215-216, 13 L.Ed.2d 125 (1964). And every citizen must be permitted freely to marshal ideas and facts in the advocacy of particular political choices.4

112

It follows that infringement of copyright must be based on a taking of literary form, as opposed to the

ideas or information contained in a copyrighted work. Deciding whether an infringing appropriation of literary form has occurred is difficult for at least two reasons. First, the distinction between literary form and information or ideas is often elusive in practice. Second, infringement must be based on a substantial appropriation of literary form. This determination is equally challenging. Not surprisingly, the test for infringement has defied precise formulation.5 In general, though, the inquiry proceeds along two axes: how closely has the second author tracked the first author's particular language and structure of presentation; and how much of the first author's language and structure has the second author appropriated.6

113

In the present case the infringement analysis must be applied to a historical biography in which the author has chronicled the events of his White House tenure and commented on those events from his unique perspective. Apart from the quotations, virtually all of the material in The Nation's article indirectly recounted Mr. Ford's factual narrative of the Nixon resignation and pardon, his latter-day reflections on some events of his Presidency, and his perceptions of the personalities at the center of those events. See ante, at 570-579. No copyright can be claimed in this information qua information. Infringement would thus have to be based on too close and substantial a tracking of Mr. Ford's expression of this information.7

114

The Language. Much of the information The Nation conveyed was not in the form of paraphrase at all, but took the form of synopsis of lengthy discussions in the Ford manuscript.8 In the course of this summary presentation, The Nation did use occasional sentences that closely resembled language in the original Ford manuscript.9 But these linguistic similarities are insufficient to constitute an infringement for three reasons. First, some leeway must be given to subsequent authors seeking to convey facts because those "wishing to cexpress the ideas contained in a factual work often can choose from only a narrow range of expression." Landsberg v. Scrabble Crossword Game Players, Inc., 736 F.2d 485, 488 (CA9 1984). Second, much of what The Nation paraphrased was material in which Harper & Row could claim no copyright.10 Third, The Nation paraphrased nothing approximating the totality of a single paragraph, much less a chapter or the work as a whole. At most The Nation paraphrased disparate isolated sentences from the original. A finding of infringement based on paraphrase generally requires far more close and substantial a tracking of the original language than occurred in this case. See, e.g., Wainwright Securities Inc. v. Wall Street Transcript Corp., 558 F.2d 91 (CA2 1977).

115

The Structure of Presentation. The article does not mimic Mr. Ford's structure. The information The

Nation presents is drawn from scattered sections of the Ford work and does not appear in the sequence in which Mr. Ford presented it.11 Some of The Nation's discussion of the pardon does roughly track the order in which the Ford manuscript presents information about the pardon. With respect to this similarity, however, Mr. Ford has done no more than present the facts chronologically and cannot claim infringement when a subsequent author similarly presents the facts of history in a chronological manner. Also, it is difficult to suggest that a 2,000-word article could bodily appropriate the structure of a 200,000-word book. Most of what Mr. Ford created, and most of the history he recounted, were simply not represented in The Nation's article.12

116

When The Nation was not quoting Mr. Ford, therefore, its efforts to convey the historical information in the Ford manuscript did not so closely and substantially track Mr. Ford's language and structure as to constitute an appropriation of literary form.

II

117

The Nation is thus liable in copyright only if the quotation of 300 words infringed any of Harper & Row's exclusive rights under § 106 of the Act. Section 106 explicitly makes the grant of exclusive rights "[s]ubject to section 107 through 118." 17 U.S.C. § 106. Section 107 states: "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship or research, is not an infringement of copyright." The question here is whether The Nation's quotation was a noninfringing fair use within the meaning of § 107.

118

Congress "eschewed a rigid, bright-line approach to fair use." Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S., at 449, n. 31, 104 S.Ct., at 792, n. 31. A court is to apply an "equitable rule of reason" analysis, id., at 448, 104 S.Ct., at 792 guided by four statutorily prescribed factors:

119

"(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

120

"(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

121

"(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

122

"(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." 17 U.S.C. § 107.

123

These factors are not necessarily the exclusive determinants of the fair use inquiry and do not mechanistically resolve fair use issues; "no generally applicable definition is possible, and each case raising the question must be decided on its own facts." H.R.Rep. No. 94-1476, at 65. See also id., at 66 ("[T]he endless variety of situations and combinations of circumstances that can arise in particular cases precludes the formulation of exact rules in the statute"); S.Rep. No. 94-473, p. 62 (1975). The statutory factors do, however, provide substantial guidance to courts undertaking the proper fact-specific inquiry.

124

With respect to a work of history, particularly the memoirs of a public official, the statutorily prescribed analysis cannot properly be conducted without constant attention to copyright's crucial distinction between protected literary form and unprotected information or ideas. The question must always be: Was the subsequent author's use of literary form a fair use within the meaning of § 107, in light of the purpose for the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount of literary form used, and the effect of this use of literary form on the value of or market for the original? Limiting the inquiry to the propriety of a subsequent author's use of the copyright owner's literary form is not easy in the case of a work of history. Protection against only substantial appropriation of literary form does not ensure historians a return commensurate with the full value of their labors. The literary form contained in works like "A Time to Heal" reflects only a part of the labor that goes into the book. It is the labor of collecting, sifting, organizing, and reflecting that predominates in the creation of works of history such as this one. The value this labor produces lies primarily in the information and ideas revealed, and not in

the particular collocation of words through which the information and ideas are expressed. Copyright thus does not protect that which is often of most value in a work of history, and courts must resist the tendency to reject the fair use defense on the basis of their feeling that an author of history has been deprived of the full value of his or her labor. A subsequent author's taking of information and ideas is in no sense piratical because copyright law simply does not create any property interest in information and ideas.

125

The urge to compensate for subsequent use of information and ideas is perhaps understandable. An inequity seems to lurk in the idea that much of the fruit of the historian's labor may be used without compensation. This, however, is not some unforeseen byproduct of a statutory scheme intended primarily to ensure a return for works of the imagination. Congress made the affirmative choice that the copyright laws should apply in this way: "Copyright does not preclude others from using the ideas or information revealed by the author's work. It pertains to the literary . . . form in which the author expressed intellectual concepts." H.R.Rep. No. 94-1476, at 56-57. This distinction is at the essence of copyright. The copyright laws serve as the "engine of free expression," ante, at 558, only when the statutory monopoly does not choke off multifarious indirect uses and consequent broad dissemination of information and ideas. To ensure the progress of arts and sciences and the integrity of First Amendment values, ideas and information must not be freighted with claims of proprietary right.13

126

In my judgment, the Court's fair use analysis has fallen to the temptation to find copyright violation based on a minimal use of literary form in order to provide compensation for the appropriation of information from a work of history. The failure to distinguish between information and literary form permeates every aspect of the Court's fair use analysis and leads the Court to the wrong result in this case. Application of the statutorily prescribed analysis with attention to the distinction between information and literary form leads to a straightforward finding of fair use within the meaning of § 107.

127

The Purpose of the Use. The Nation's purpose in quoting 300 words of the Ford manuscript was, as the Court acknowledges, news reporting. See ante, at 651. The Ford work contained information about important events of recent history. Two principals, Mr. Ford and General Alexander Haig, were at the time of The Nation's publication in 1979 widely thought to be candidates for the Presidency. That The Nation objectively reported the information in the Ford manuscript without independent commentary in no way diminishes the conclusion that it was reporting news. A typical newsstory differs from an editorial precisely in that it presents newsworthy information in a straightforward and unelaborated

manner. Nor does the source of the information render The Nation's article any less a news report. Often books and manuscripts, solicited and unsolicited, are the subject matter of news reports. E.g., New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 91 S.Ct. 2140, 29 L.Ed.2d 822 (1971). Frequently the manuscripts are unpublished at the time of the news report.14

128

Section 107 lists news reporting as a prime example of fair use of another's expression. Like criticism and all other purposes Congress explicitly approved in § 107, news reporting informs the public; the language of § 107 makes clear that Congress saw the spread of knowledge and information as the strongest justification for a properly limited appropriation of expression. The Court of Appeals was therefore correct to conclude that the purpose of The Nation's use—dissemination of the information contained in the quotations of Mr. Ford's work furthered the public interest. 723 F.2d 195, 207-208 (CA2 1983). In light of the explicit congressional endorsement in § 107, the purpose for which Ford's literary form was borrowed strongly favors a finding of fair use.

129

The Court concedes the validity of the news reporting purpose15 but then quickly offsets it against three purportedly countervailing considerations. First, the Court asserts that because The Nation publishes for profit, its publication of the Ford quotes is a presumptively unfair commercial use. Second, the Court claims that The Nation's stated desire to create a "news event" signaled an illegitimate purpose of supplanting the copyright owner's right of first publication. Ante, at 562-563. Third, The Nation acted in bad faith, the Court claims, because its editor "knowingly exploited a purloined manuscript." Ante, at 563

130

The Court's reliance on the commercial nature of The Nation's use as "a separate factor that tends to weigh against a finding of fair use," ante, at 562, is inappropriate in the present context. Many uses § 107 lists as paradigmatic examples of fair use, including criticism, comment, and news reporting, are generally conducted for profit in this country, a fact of which Congress was obviously aware when it enacted § 107. To negate any argument favoring fair use based on news reporting or criticism because that reporting or criticism was published for profit is to render meaningless the congressional imprimatur placed on such uses.16

131

Nor should The Nation's intent to create a "news event" weigh against a finding of fair use. Such a rule, like the Court's automatic presumption against news reporting for profit, would undermine the congressional validation of the news reporting purpose. A news business earns its reputation, and therefore its readership, through consistent prompt publication of news—and often through "scooping" rivals. More importantly, the Court's failure to maintain the distinction between information and literary form colors the analysis of this point. Because Harper & Row had no legitimate copyright interest in the information and ideas in the Ford manuscript, The Nation had every right to seek to be the first to disclose these facts and ideas to the public. The record suggests only that The Nation sought to be the first to reveal the information in the Ford manuscript. The Nation's stated purpose of scooping the competition should under those circumstances have no negative bearing on the claim of fair use. Indeed the Court's reliance on this factor would seem to amount to little more than distaste for the standard journalistic practice of seeking to be the first to publish news.

132

The Court's reliance on The Nation's putative bad faith is equally unwarranted. No court has found that The Nation possessed the Ford manuscript illegally or in violation of any common-law interest of Harper & Row; all common-law causes of action have been abandoned or dismissed in this case. 723 F.2d, at 199-201. Even if the manuscript had been "purloined" by someone, nothing in this record imputes culpability to The Nation.17 On the basis of the record in this case, the most that can be said is that The Nation made use of the contents of the manuscript knowing the copyright owner would not sanction the use.

133

At several points the Court brands this conduct thievery. See, e.g., ante, at 556, 563. This judgment is unsupportable, and is perhaps influenced by the Court's unspoken tendency in this case to find infringement based on the taking of information and ideas. With respect to the appropriation of information and ideas other than the quoted words, The Nation's use was perfectly legitimate despite the copyright owner's objection because no copyright can be claimed in ideas or information. Whether the quotation of 300 words was an infringement or a fair use within the meaning of § 107 is a close question that has produced sharp division in both this Court and the Court of Appeals. If the Copyright Act were held not to prohibit the use, then the copyright owner would have had no basis in law for objecting. The Nation's awareness of an objection that has a significant chance of being adjudged unfounded cannot amount to bad faith. Imputing bad faith on the basis of no more than knowledge of such an objection, the Court impermissibly prejudices the inquiry and impedes arrival at the proper conclusion that the "purpose" factor of the statutorily prescribed analysis strongly favors a finding of fair use in this case.

134

The Nature of the Copyrighted Work. In Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., we stated that "not . . . all copyrights are fungible" and that "[c]opying a news broadcast may have a stronger claim to fair use than copying a motion picture." 464 U.S., at 455, n. 40, 104 S.Ct., at 795, n. 40. These statements reflect the principle, suggested in § 107(2) of the Act, that the scope of fair use is generally broader when the source of borrowed expression is a factual or historical work. See 3 Nimmer § 13.05[A][2], at 13-73—13-74. "[I]nformational works," like the Ford manuscript, "that readily lend themselves to productive use by others, are less protected." Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S., at 496-497, 104 S.Ct., at 816 (BLACKMUN, J., dissenting). Thus the second statutory factor also favors a finding of fair use in this case.

135

The Court acknowledges that "[t]he law generally recognizes a greater need to disseminate factual works than works of fiction or fantasy," ante, at 563, and that "[s]ome of the briefer quotations from the memoir are arguably necessary to convey the facts," ibid. But the Court discounts the force of this consideration, primarily on the ground that "[t]he fact that a work is unpublished is a crucial element of its 'nature.' " Ante, at 564.18 At this point the Court introduces into analysis of this case a categorical presumption against prepublication fair use. See ante, at 555 ("Under ordinary circumstances, the author's right to control the first public appearance of his undisseminated expression will outweigh a claim of fair use").

136

This categorical presumption is unwarranted on its own terms and unfaithful to congressional intent.19 Whether a particular prepublication use will impair any interest the Court identifies as encompassed within the right of first publication, see ante, at 552-555,20 will depend on the nature of the copyrighted work, the timing of prepublication use, the amount of expression used and the medium in which the second author communicates. Also, certain uses might be tolerable for some purposes but not for others. See Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., supra, at 490, n. 40, 104 S.Ct., at 813, n. 40. The Court is ambiguous as to whether it relies on the force of the presumption against prepublication fair use or an analysis of the purpose and effect of this particular use. Compare ante, at 552-555, with ante, at 564. To the extent the Court relies on the presumption, it presumes intolerable injury—in particular the usurpation of the economic interest21 based on no more than a quick litmus test for prepublication timing. Because "Congress has plainly instructed us that fair use analysis calls for a sensitive balancing of interests," we held last Term that the fair use inquiry could never be resolved on the basis of such a "two dimensional" categorical approach. See Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S., at 455, n. 40, 104 S.Ct., at 795, n. 40 (rejecting categorical requirement of "productive use").

137

To the extent the Court purports to evaluate the facts of this case, its analysis relies on sheer speculation. The quotation of 300 words from the manuscript infringed no privacy interest of Mr. Ford. This author intended the words in the manuscript to be a public statement about his Presidency. Lacking, therefore, is the "deliberate choice on the part of the copyright owner" to keep expression confidential, a consideration that the Senate Report—in the passage on which the Court places great reliance, see ante, at 553 —recognized as the impetus behind narrowing fair use for unpublished works. See S.Rep. No. 94-473, at 64. See also 3 Nimmer § 13.05[A], at 13-73 ("[T]he scope of the fair use doctrine is considerably narrower with respect to unpublished works which are held confidential by their copyright owners ") (emphasis added). What the Court depicts as the copyright owner's "confidentiality" interest, see ante, at 564, is not a privacy interest at all. Rather, it is no more than an economic interest in capturing the full value of initial release of information to the public, and is properly analyzed as such. See infra, at 602-603. Lacking too is any suggestion that The Nation's use interfered with the copyright owner's interest in editorial control of the manuscript. The Nation made use of the Ford quotes on the eve of official publication.

138

Thus the only interest The Nation's prepublication use might have infringed is the copyright owner's interest in capturing the full economic value of initial release. By considering this interest as a component of the "nature" of the copyrighted work, the Court's analysis deflates The Nation's claim that the informational nature of the work supports fair use without any inquiry into the actual or potential economic harm of The Nation's particular prepublication use. For this reason, the question of economic harm is properly considered under the fourth statutory factor—the effect on the value of or market for the copyrighted work, 17 U.S.C. § 107(4)—and not as a presumed element of the "nature" of the copyright.

139

The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used. More difficult questions arise with respect to judgments about the importance to this case of the amount and substantiality of the quotations used. The Nation quoted only approximately 300 words from a manuscript of more than 200,000 words, and the quotes are drawn from isolated passages in disparate sections of the work. The judgment that this taking was quantitatively "infinitesimal," 723 F.2d, at 209, does not dispose of the inquiry, however. An evaluation of substantiality in qualitative terms is also required. Much of the quoted material was Mr. Ford's matter-of-fact representation of the words of others in conversations with him; such quotations are "arguably necessary adequately to convey the facts," ante, at 563, and are not rich in expressive

content. Beyond these quotations a portion of the quoted material was drawn from the most poignant expression in the Ford manuscript; in particular The Nation made use of six examples of Mr. Ford's expression of his reflections on events or perceptions about President Nixon.22 The fair use inquiry turns on the propriety of the use of these quotations with admittedly strong expressive content.

140

The Court holds that "in view of the expressive value of the excerpts and their key role in the infringing work," this third statutory factor disfavors a finding of fair use.23 To support this conclusion, the Court purports to rely on the District Court factual findings that The Nation had taken "the heart of the book." 557 F.Supp. 1062, 1072 (SDNY 1983). This reliance is misplaced, and would appear to be another result of the Court's failure to distinguish between information and literary form. When the District Court made this finding, it was evaluating not the quoted words at issue here but the "totality" of the information and reflective commentary in the Ford work. Ibid. The vast majority of what the District Court considered the heart of the Ford work, therefore, consisted of ideas and information The Nation was free to use. It may well be that, as a qualitative matter, most of the value of the manuscript did lie in the information and ideas The Nation used. But appropriation of the "heart" of the manuscript in this sense is irrelevant to copyright analysis because copyright does not preclude a second author's use of information and ideas.

141

Perhaps tacitly recognizing that reliance on the District Court finding is unjustifiable, the Court goes on to evaluate independently the quality of the expression appearing in The Nation's article. The Court states that "[t]he portions actually quoted were selected by Mr. Navasky as among the most powerful passages." Ante, at 565. On the basis of no more than this observation, and perhaps also inference from the fact that the quotes were important to The Nation's article,24 the Court adheres to its conclusion that The Nation appropriated the heart of the Ford manuscript.

142

At least with respect to the six particular quotes of Mr. Ford's observations and reflections about President Nixon, I agree with the Court's conclusion that The Nation appropriated some literary form of substantial quality. I do not agree, however, that the substantiality of the expression taken was clearly excessive or inappropriate to The Nation's news reporting purpose.

143

Had these quotations been used in the context of a critical book review of the Ford work, there is little question that such a use would be fair use within the meaning of § 107 of the Act. The amount and substantiality of the use—in both quantitative and qualitative terms—would have certainly been appropriate to the purpose of such a use. It is difficult to see how the use of these quoted words in a news report is less appropriate. The Court acknowledges as much: "[E]ven substantial quotations might qualify as a fair use in a review of a published work or a news account of a speech that had been delivered to the public." See ante, at 564. With respect to the motivation for the pardon and the insights into the psyche of the fallen President, for example, Mr. Ford's reflections and perceptions are so laden with emotion and deeply personal value judgments that full understanding is immeasurably enhanced by reproducing a limited portion of Mr. Ford's own words. The importance of the work, after all, lies not only in revelation of previously unknown fact but also in revelation of the thoughts, ideas, motivations, and fears of two Presidents at a critical moment in our national history. Thus, while the question is not easily resolved, it is difficult to say that the use of the six quotations was gratuitous in relation to the news reporting purpose.

144

Conceding that even substantial quotation is appropriate in a news report of a published work, the Court would seem to agree that this quotation was not clearly inappropriate in relation to The Nation's news reporting purpose. For the Court, the determinative factor is again that the substantiality of the use was inappropriate in relation to the prepublication timing of that use. That is really an objection to the effect of this use on the market for the copyrighted work, and is properly evaluated as such.

145

The Effect on the Market. The Court correctly notes that the effect on the market "is undoubtedly the single most important element of fair use." Ante, at 566, citing 3 Nimmer § 13.05[A], at 13-76, and the Court properly focuses on whether The Nation's use adversely affected Harper & Row's serialization potential and not merely the market for sales of the Ford work itself. Ante, at 566-567. Unfortunately, the Court's failure to distinguish between the use of information and the appropriation of literary form badly skews its analysis of this factor.

146

For purposes of fair use analysis, the Court holds, it is sufficient that the entire article containing the quotes eroded the serialization market potential of Mr. Ford's work. Ante, at 567. On the basis of Time's cancellation of its serialization agreement, the Court finds that "[r]arely will a case of copyright infringement present such clear-cut evidence of actual damage." Ibid. In essence, the Court finds that by using some quotes in a story about the Nixon pardon, The Nation "competed for a share of the market

of prepublication excerpts" ante, at 568, because Time planned to excerpt from the chapters about the pardon.

147

The Nation's publication indisputably precipitated Time's eventual cancellation. But that does not mean that The Nation's use of the 300 quoted words caused this injury to Harper & Row. Wholly apart from these quoted words, The Nation published significant information and ideas from the Ford manuscript. If it was this publication of information, and not the publication of the few quotations, that caused Time to abrogate its serialization agreement, then whatever the negative effect on the serialization market, that effect was the product of wholly legitimate activity.

148

The Court of Appeals specifically held that "the evidence does not support a finding that it was the very limited use of expression per se which led to Time's decision not to print excerpts." 723 F.2d, at 208. I fully agree with this holding. If The Nation competed with Time, the competition was not for a share of the market in excerpts of literary form but for a share of the market in the new information in the Ford work. That the information, and not the literary form, represents most of the real value of the work in this case is perhaps best revealed by the following provision in the contract between Harper & Row and Mr. Ford:

149

"Author acknowledges that the value of the rights granted to publisher hereunder would be substantially diminished by Author's public discussion of the unique information not previously disclosed about Author's career and personal life which will be included in the Work, and Author agrees that Author will endeavor not to disseminate any such information in any media, including television, radio and newspaper and magazine interviews prior to the first publication of the work hereunder." App. 484.

150

The contract thus makes clear that Harper & Row sought to benefit substantially from monopolizing the initial revelation of information known only to Ford.

151

Because The Nation was the first to convey the information in this case, it did perhaps take from Harper & Row some of the value that publisher sought to garner for itself through the contractual arrangement with Ford and the license to Time. Harper & Row had every right to seek to monopolize revenue from that potential market through contractual arrangements but it has no right to set up copyright as a shield from competition in that market because copyright does not protect information. The Nation had every right to seek to be the first to publish that information.25

152

Balancing the Interests. Once the distinction n between information and literary form is made clear, the statutorily prescribed process of weighing the four statutory fair use factors discussed above leads naturally to a conclusion that The Nation's limited use of literary form was not an infringement. Both the purpose of the use and the nature of the copyrighted work strongly favor the fair use defense here. The Nation appropriated Mr. Ford's expression for a purpose Congress expressly authorized in § 107 and borrowed from a work whose nature justifies some appropriation to facilitate the spread of information. The factor that is perhaps least favorable to the claim of fair use is the amount and substantiality of the expression used. Without question, a portion of the expression appropriated was among the most poignant in the Ford manuscript. But it is difficult to conclude that this taking was excessive in relation to the news reporting purpose. In any event, because the appropriation of literary form—as opposed to the use of information—was not shown to injure Harper & Row's economic interest, any uncertainty with respect to the propriety of the amount of expression borrowed should be resolved in favor of a finding of fair use.26 In light of the circumscribed scope of the quotation in The Nation's article and the undoubted validity of the purpose motivating that quotation, I must conclude that the Court has simply adopted an exceedingly narrow view of fair use in order to impose liability for what was in essence a taking of unprotected information.

III

153

The Court's exceedingly narrow approach to fair use permits Harper & Row to monopolize information. This holding "effect[s] an important extension of property rights and a corresponding curtailment in the free use of knowledge and of ideas." International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S., at 263, 39 S.Ct., at 81 (Brandeis, J., dissenting). The Court has perhaps advanced the ability of the historian—or at least the public official who has recently left office—to capture the full economic value of information in his or her possession. But the Court does so only by risking the robust debate of public issues that is the "essence of self-government." Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S., at 74-75, 85 S.Ct., at 215-216. The Nation was providing the grist for that robust debate. The Court imposes liability upon The Nation for no other

reason than that The Nation succeeded in being the first to provide certain information to the public. I dissent.

1

Section 106 provides in pertinent part:

"Subject to sections 107 through 118, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and authorize any of the following:

"(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies . . . ;

"(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

"(3) to distribute copies . . . of the copyrighted work to the public. . . ."

2

Section 107 states:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

"(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

"(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

"(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

"(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

3

Professor Nimmer notes: "[Perhaps] no more precise guide can be stated than Joseph McDonald's clever paraphrase of the Golden Rule: 'Take not from others to such an extent and in such a manner that you would be resentful if they so took from you.' " 3 Nimmer § 13.05[A], at 13-66, quoting McDonald, Non-infringing Uses, 9 Bull. Copyright Soc. 466, 467 (1962). This "equitable rule of reason," Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S., at 448, 104 S.Ct., at 792, "permits courts to avoid rigid application of the copyright statute when, on occasion, it would stifle the very creativity which that law is designed to foster." Iowa State University Research Foundation, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., 621 F.2d 57, 60 (CA2 1980). See generally L. Seltzer, Exemptions and Fair Use in Copyright 18-48 (1978).

4

See Latman 7; Strauss, Protection of Unpublished Works (1957), reprinted as Study No. 29 in Copyright Law Revision Studies Nos. 29-31, prepared for the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., 4, n. 32 (1961) (citing cases); R. Shaw, Literary Property in the United States 67 (1950) ("[T]here can be no 'fair use' of unpublished material"); Ball 260, n. 5 ("[T]he doctrine of fair use does not apply to unpublished works"); A. Weil, American Copyright Law § 276, p. 115 (1917) (the author of an unpublished work "has, probably, the right to prevent even a 'fair use' of the work by others"). Cf., M. Flint, A User's Guide to Copyright ¶ 10.06 (1979) (United Kingdom) ("no fair dealing with unpublished works"); Beloff v. Pressdram Ltd., [1973] All E.R. 241, 263 (Ch. 1972) (same).

5

See, e.g., Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591, 657, 8 L.Ed. 1055 (1834) (distinguishing the author's common-law right to "obtain redress against anyone who . . . by improperly obtaining a copy [of his unpublished work] endeavors to realize a profit by its publication" from rights in a published work, which are prescribed by statute); Press Publishing Co. v. Monroe, 73 F. 196, 199 (CA2), writ of error dism'd, 164 U.S. 105, 17 S.Ct. 40, 41 L.Ed. 367 (1896); Stanley v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 35 Cal.2d 653, 660-661, 221 P.2d 73, 77-78 (1950) (en banc); Golding v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., 193 P.2d 153, 162 (Cal.App.1948) ("An unauthorized appropriation of [an unpublished work] is not to be neutralized on the plea that 'it is such a little one' "), aff'd, 35 Cal.2d 690, 221 P.2d 95 (1950); Fendler v. Morosco, 253 N.Y.

281, 291, 171 N.E. 56, 59 ("Since plaintiff had not published or produced her play, perhaps any use that others made of it might be unfair"), rehearing denied, 254 N.Y. 563, 173 N.E. 867 (1930).

6

It bears noting that Congress in the Copyright Act recognized a public interest warranting specific exemptions in a number of areas not within traditional fair use, see, e.g., 17 U.S.C. § 115 (compulsory license for records); § 105 (no copyright in Government works). No such exemption limits copyright in personal narratives written by public servants after they leave Government service.

7

The dissent excuses The Nation's unconsented use of an unpublished manuscript as "standard journalistic practice," taking judicial notice of New York Times articles regarding the memoirs of John Erlichman, John Dean's "Blind Ambition," and Bernstein and Woodward's "The Final Days" as proof of such practice. Post, at 590-593, and n. 14. Amici curiae sought to bring this alleged practice to the attention of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, citing these same articles. The Court of Appeals, at Harper & Row's motion, struck these exhibits for failure of proof at trial, Record Doc. No. 19; thus they are not a proper subject for this Court's judicial notice.

8

See Appendix to this opinion, post, p. 570. The Court of Appeals found that only "approximately 300 words" were copyrightable but did not specify which words. The court's discussion, however, indicates it excluded from consideration those portions of The Nation's piece that, although copied verbatim from Ford's manuscript, were quotes attributed by Ford to third persons and quotations from Government documents. At oral argument, counsel for The Nation did not dispute that verbatim quotes and very close paraphrase could constitute infringement. Tr. of Oral Arg. 24-25. Thus the Appendix identifies as potentially infringing only verbatim quotes or very close paraphrase and excludes from consideration Government documents and words attributed to third persons. The Appendix is not intended to endorse any particular rule of copyrightability but is intended merely as an aid to facilitate our discussion.

9

Economists who have addressed the issue believe the fair use exception should come into play only in those situations in which the market fails or the price the copyright holder would ask is near zero. See, e.g., T. Brennan, Harper & Row v. The Nation, Copyrightability and Fair Use, Dept. of Justice Economic Policy Office Discussion Paper 13-17 (1984); Gordon, Fair Use as Market Failure: A Structural and

Economic Analysis of the Betamax Case and its Predecessors, 82 Colum.L.Rev. 1600, 1615 (1982). As the facts here demonstrate, there is a fully functioning market that encourages the creation and dissemination of memoirs of public figures. In the economists' view, permitting "fair use" to displace normal copyright channels disrupts the copyright market without a commensurate public benefit.

1

I was angry at myself for showing cowardice in not saying to the ultra-conservatives, "It's going to be Ford and Rockefeller, whatever the consequences." p. 496.

2

[I]t contained the so-called smoking gun. p. 3.

3

[O]ver the past several months Nixon had repeatedly assured me that he was not involved in Watergate, that the evidence would prove his innocence, that the matter would fade from view. p. 7.

4

The first [option] was that he could try to "ride it out" by letting impeachment take its natural course through the House and the Senate trial, fighting against conviction all the way. p. 4.

5

Finally, Haig said that according to some on Nixon's White House staff, Nixon could agree to leave in return for an agreement that the new President—Gerald Ford—would pardon him. p. 5.

6

Because of his references to pardon authority, I did ask Haig about the extent of a President's pardon power. pp. 5-6.

7

Only after I had finished did [Bryce Harlow] let me know in no uncertain terms that he agreed with Bob and Jack, that the mere mention of the pardon option could cause a lot of trouble in the days ahead. p. 18.

8

During the luncheon I repeated my assertion that the President was not guilty of an impeachable offense. Had I said otherwise at that moment, the whole house of cards might have collapsed. p. 21.

9

But compassion for Nixon as an individual hadn't prompted my decision at all. p. 266.

10

I had to get the monkey off my back one way or another. p. 236.

11

Jaworski gave Phil several crucial pieces of information. p. 246.

12

And if the verdict was Guilty, one had to assume that Nixon would appeal. That process would take years. p. 248.

13

The entire process would no doubt require years: a minimum of two, a maximum of six. And Nixon would not spend time quietly in San Clemente. p. 238.

14

It would be virtually impossible for me to direct public attention on anything else. p. 239.

15

But [Miller] wasn't optimistic about getting such a statement. His few meetings with his client had shown him that the former President's ability to discuss Watergate objectively was almost nonexistent. p. 246.

16

When Zeigler asked Becker what he thought of it, Becker replied that no statement would be better than that. p. 251.

17

Years before, at Yale Law School, I'd learned that public policy often took precedence over a rule of law. Although I respected the tenet that no man should be above the law, public policy demanded that I put Nixon—and Watergate—behind us as quickly as possible. p. 256.

18

My staff debated whether or not I ought to visit Nixon at the Long Beach Hospital, only half an hour away. If I made the trip, it would remind everyone of Watergate and the pardon. If I didn't, people would say I lacked compassion. I ended their debate as soon as I found out it had begun. Of course I would go. p. 298.

19

He was stretched out flat on his back. There were tubes in his nose and mouth, and wires led from his arms, chest and legs to machines with orange lights that blinked on and off. His face was ashen, and I thought I had never seen anyone closer to death. p. 299.

20

"Henry," I said when he came on the line, "I need you. The country needs you. I want you to stay. I'll do everything I can to work with you." p. 46.

21

"We'll get along," I said. "I know we can get along." We talked about the two hats he wore, as Secretary of State and National Security Adviser to the President. "I don't want to make any change," I said. "I think it's worked out well, so let's keep it that way." p. 46.

22

I told him about my promise to Betty and said that I had no ambitions to hold office after January 1977. p. 155.

23

Subjectively, I felt that what Kennerly had said made a lot of sense. Massive airstrikes would constitute overkill. It would be far better to have Navy jets from the Coral Sea make surgical strikes against specific targets in the vicinity of Kompong Som. p. 416.

24

In Nixon's case, that flaw was pride. A terribly proud man, he detested weakness in other people. I'd often heard him speak disparagingly of those whom he felt to be soft and expedient. (Curiously, he didn't feel that the press was weak. Reporters, he sensed, were his adversaries. He knew they didn't like him, and he responded with reciprocal disdain.) p. 53.

25

His pride and personal contempt for weakness had overcome his ability to tell the difference between right and wrong. p. 54.

26

The speech lasted fifteen minutes, and at the end I was convinced Nixon was out of touch with reality. p. 57.

1

In bypassing the threshold issue, the Court certainly does not intimate that The Nation's use of ideas and information other than the quoted material would constitute a violation of the copyright laws. At one point in its opinion the Court correctly states the governing principles with respect to the copyrightability question. See ante, at 556 ("No author may copyright his ideas or the facts he narrates").

2

Section 102(b) states: "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." 17 U.S.C. § 102(b). The doctrines of fair use, see 17 U.S.C. § 107, and substantial similarity, see 3 M. Nimmer, Copyright § 13.05 (1984) (hereinafter Nimmer), also function to accommodate these competing considerations. See generally Gorman, Fact or Fancy? The Implications for Copyright, 29 J. Copyright Soc. 560 (1982).

3

By the same token, an author may not claim copyright in statements made by others and reported verbatim in the author's work. See Suid v. Newsweek Magazine, 503 F.Supp. 146, 148 (DC 1980); Rokeach v. Avco Embassy Pictures Corp., 197 USPQ 155, 161 (SDNY 1978).

4

It would be perverse to prohibit government from limiting the financial resources upon which a political speaker may draw, see FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee, 470 U.S. 480, 105 S.Ct. 1459, 84 L.Ed.2d 455 (1985), but to permit government to limit the intellectual resources upon which that speaker may draw.

5

The protection of literary form must proscribe more than merely word-for-word appropriation of substantial portions of an author's work. Otherwise a plagiarist could avoid infringement by immaterial variations. Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119, 121 (CA2 1930). The step beyond the narrow and clear prohibition of wholesale copying is, however, a venture onto somewhat uncertain terrain. Compare Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 972, 974 (CA2 1980), with Wainwright Securities Inc. v. Wall Street Transcript Corp., 558 F.2d 91 (CA2 1977). See also 1 Nimmer § 1.10B, at 1-73—1-74 ("It is the particular selection and arrangement of ideas, as well as a given specificity in the form of their expression, which warrants protection"); Chafee, Reflections on the Law of Copyright: I, 45

Colum.L.Rev. 503, 513 (1945) ("[T]he line . . . lie[s] somewhere between the author's idea and the precise form in which he wrote it down. . . . [T]he protection covers the 'pattern' of the work"); Gorman, supra, at 593 ("too literal and substantial copying and paraphrasing of . . . language").

6

The inquiry into the substantiality of appropriation has a quantitative and a qualitative aspect.

7

Neither the District Court nor the dissent in the Court of Appeals approached the question in this way. Despite recognizing that this material was not "per se copyrightable," the District Court held that the "totality of these facts and memoranda collected together with Mr. Ford's reflections . . . is protected by the copyright laws." 557 F.Supp. 1067, 1072-1073 (SDNY 1983). The dissent in the Court of Appeals signaled approval of this approach. 723 F.2d 195, 213-214 (CA2 1983) (Meskill, J., dissenting). Such an approach must be rejected. Copyright protection cannot be extended to factual information whenever that information is interwoven with protected expression (purportedly in this case Mr. Ford's reflections) into an expressive "totality." Most works of history or biography blend factual narrative and reflective or speculative commentary in this way. Precluding subsequent use of facts so presented cannot be squared with the specific legislative intent, expressed in both House and Senate Reports, that "[c]opyright does not preclude others from using the . . . information revealed by the author's work." See S.Rep. No. 93-983, pp. 107-108 (1974); H.R.Rep. No. 94-1476, pp. 56-57 (1976). The core purposes of copyright would be thwarted and serious First Amendment concerns would arise. An author could obtain a monopoly on narration of historical events simply by being the first to discuss them in a reflective or analytical manner.

8

For example, the Ford manuscript expends several hundred words discussing relations between Mr. Ford and Ronald Reagan in the weeks before the Republican Convention of 1976:

"About a month before the convention, my aides had met with Reagan's representatives to discuss the need for party unity. And they had reached an agreement. At the end of the Presidential balloting, the winner would go to the loser's hotel suite and congratulate his opponent for waging a fine campaign. Together, they would appear at a press conference and urge all Republicans to put aside their differences and rally behind the ticket. That was the only way we could leave Kansas City with a hope of victory. When it appeared I was going to win, Sears contacted Cheney and refined the scenario. He

insisted on two conditions. The first was that I had to see Reagan alone; there could be no aides from either camp in the room. Secondly, under no circumstances should I offer him the nomination to be

Vice President. Reagan had said all along that he wasn't interested in the job. He had meant what he said. If I tried to talk him out of it, he would have to turn me down, and that would be embarrassing because it would appear that he was refusing to help the GOP. When Cheney relayed those conditions to me, I agreed to go along with them. I would need Reagan's assistance in the fall campaign. It would be stupid to anger him or his followers at this moment.

"Later I was told that just before my arrival at the Californian's hotel, one of his closest advisors, businessman Justin Dart, had urged him to say yes if I asked him to be my running mate, Regardless of anything he'd said before, Dart had insisted, it was his patriotic duty to accept the number two post. Finally, according to Dart, Reagan had agreed. But at the time, no one mentioned this new development to me. Had I been aware of the Dart-Reagan conversation, would I have chosen him? I can't say for sure—I thought his challenge had been divisive, and that it would probably hurt the party in the fall campaign; additionally, I resented some of the things that he'd been saying about me and my Administration's policies—but I certainly would have considered him." App. 628-629.

The Nation encapsulated this discussion in the following sentence: "Ford also writes that, but for a misunderstanding, he might have selected Ronald Reagan as his 1976 running mate." Id., at 627. In most other instances, a single sentence or brief paragraph in The Nation's article similarly conveys the gist of a discussion in the Ford manuscript that runs into the hundreds of words. See generally Addendum B to Defendant's Post-Trial Memorandum, id., at 627-704.

9

For example, at one point The Nation's article reads: "Ford told a Jackson, Mich., luncheon audience later in the day that the President was not guilty of an impeachable offense." Ante, at 572. The portion of the Ford manuscript discussed stated: "Representative Thad Cochran . . . escorted me to a luncheon at the Jackson Hilton Hotel. During the luncheon I repeated my assertion that the President was not guilty of an impeachable offense." App. 649. In several other places the language in The Nation's article parallels Mr. Ford's original expression to a similar degree. Compare ante, at 570-579, with App. 627-704.

10

Often the paraphrasing was of statements others had made to Mr. Ford. E.g., ante, at 571 ("He could 'ride it out' or he could resign, Haig said"). See generally ante, at 570-579. No copyright can be asserted in the verbatim representation of such statements of others. 17 U.S.C. § 102. See Suid v. Newsweek Magazine, 503 F.Supp., at 148; Rokeach v. Avco Embassy Pictures Corp., 197 USPQ, at 161. Other paraphrased material came from Government documents in which no copyright interest can be claimed. For example, the article quotes from a memorandum prepared by Henry S. Ruth, Jr., in his official capacity as assistant to Watergate Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski. See ante, at 573. This document is a work of the United States Government. See 17 U.S.C. § 105.

11

According to an exhibit Harper & Row introduced at trial the pages in the Ford manuscript that correspond to consecutive sections of the article are as follows: 607-608, 401, 44, 496, 1, 2-3, 4, 8, 7, 4-5, 5, 5-6, 8, 14, 15, 16, 16, 18, 19, 21, 266, 236, 246, 248, 249, 238-239, 239, 243, 245, 246, 250, 250-251, 251, 252, 253, 254, 256, 298, 299, 46, 494, 537, 155-156, 216, 415, 416, 416, 53-54, 57. See App. to Pet. for Cert. E-1 to E-41.

12

In one sense The Nation "copied" Mr. Ford's selection of facts because it reported on only those facts Mr. Ford chose to select for presentation. But this tracking of a historian's selection of facts generally should not supply the basis for a finding of infringement. See Myers v. Mail & Express Co., 36 Copyright Off.Bull. 478 (SDNY 1919) (L. Hand, J.). To hold otherwise would be to require a second author to duplicate the research of the first author so as to avoid reliance on the first author's judgment as to what facts are particularly pertinent. " 'It is just such wasted effort that the proscription against the copyright of ideas and facts . . . are designed to prevent.' " Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 650 F.2d 1365, 1371 (CA5 1981), quoting Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc., 366 F.2d 303, 310 (CA2 1966). See Gorman, 29 J. Copyright Soc., at 594-595.

13

This congressional limitation on the scope of copyright does not threaten the production of history. That this limitation results in significant diminution of economic incentives is far from apparent. In any event noneconomic incentives motivate much historical research and writing. For example, former public officials often have great incentive to "tell their side of the story." And much history is the product of academic scholarship. Perhaps most importantly, the urge to preserve the past is as old as humankind.

14

E.g., N.Y. Times, Aug. 2, 1984, p. C20, col. 5 (article about revelations in forthcoming biography of Cardinal Spellman); N.Y. Times, Dec. 10, 1981, p. A18, col. 1 (article about revelations in forthcoming book by John Erlichman); N.Y. Times, Sept. 29, 1976, p. 1, col. 2 (article about revelations in forthcoming autobiography of President Nixon); N.Y. Times, Mar. 27, 1976, p. 9, col. 1 (article about revelations concerning President Nixon's resignation in forthcoming book The Final Days); N.Y. Times, Sept. 23, 1976, p. 36, col. 1 (article about revelations concerning President Ford in forthcoming book Blind Ambition by John Dean).

15

The Court properly rejects the argument that this is not legitimate news. Courts have no business making such evaluations of journalistic quality. See ante, at 561. The Court also properly rejects the argument that this use is nonproductive. See ibid. News reporting, which encompasses journalistic judgment with respect to selection, organization, and presentation of facts and ideas, is certainly a productive use. See Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S., at 478-479, 104 S.Ct., at 807-808 (BLACKMUN, J., dissenting).

16

To support this claim the Court refers to some language in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., supra, to the effect that "every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively an unfair exploitation." Id., at 451, 104 S.Ct., at 793. See ante, at 562. Properly understood, this language does not support the Court's position in this case. The Court in Sony Corp. dealt with a use—video recording of copyrighted television programs for personal use—about which Congress had expressed no policy judgment. When a court evaluates uses that Congress has not specifically addressed, the presumption articulated in Sony Corp. is appropriate to effectuate the congressional instruction to consider "whether such use is of a commercial nature." 17 U.S.C. § 107(1). Also, the Court made that statement in the course of evaluating a use that appropriated the entirety of the copyrighted work in a form identical to that of the original; the presumption articulated may well have been intended to apply to takings under these circumstances. But, in light of the specific language of § 107, this presumption is not appropriately employed to negate the weight Congress explicitly gave to news reporting as a justification for limited use of another's expression.

17

This case is a far cry from Time Inc. v. Bernard Geis Associates, 293 F.Supp. 130, 146 (SDNY 1968), the only case the Court cites to support consideration of The Nation's purported bad faith. In that case the

publisher claiming fair use had personally stolen film negatives from the offices of Time and then published graphic representations of the stolen photographic images. And the court found fair use despite these circumstances. Ibid.

18

The Court also discounts this factor in part because the appropriation of The Nation, "focusing on the most expressive elements of the work, exceeds that necessary to disseminate the facts." Ante, at 564. Whatever the propriety of this view of The Nation's use, it is properly analyzed under the third statutory fair use factor—the amount and substantiality of the expression taken in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, 17 U.S.C. § 107(3)—and will be analyzed as such in this opinion.

19

The Court lays claim to specific congressional intent supporting the presumption against prepublication fair use. See ante, at 553, quoting S.Rep. No. 94-473, p. 64 (1975); ante, at 551, n. 4, 553-554. The argument based on congressional intent is unpersuasive for three reasons.

First, the face of the statute clearly allows for prepublication fair use. The right of first publication, like all other rights § 106 of the Act specifically grants copyright owners, is explicitly made "subject to section 107," the statutory fair use provision. See 17 U.S.C. § 106.

Second, the language from the Senate Report on which the Court relies so heavily, see ante, at 553, simply will not bear the weight the Court places on it. The Senate Report merely suggests that prepublication photocopying for classroom purposes will not generally constitute fair use when the author has an interest in the confidentiality of the unpublished work, evidenced by the author's "deliberate choice" not to publish. Given that the face of § 106 specifically allows for prepublication fair use, it would be unfaithful to the intent of Congress to draw from this circumscribed suggestion in the Senate Report a blanket presumption against any amount of prepublication fair use for any purpose and irrespective of the effect of that use on the copyright owner's privacy, editorial, or economic interests.

Third, the Court's reliance on congressional adoption of the common law is also unpersuasive. The common law did not set up the monolithic barrier to prepublication fair use that the Court wishes it did. See, e.g., Estate of Hemingway v. Random House, Inc., 53 Misc.2d 462, 279 N.Y.S.2d 51 (S.Ct.N.Y.Cty.), aff'd, 29 App.Div.2d 633, 285 N.Y.S.2d 568 (1st Jud.Dept.1967), aff'd on other grounds, 23 N.Y.2d 341, 296 N.Y.S.2d 771, 244 N.E.2d 250 (1968).

The statements of general principle the Court cites to support its contrary representation of the common law, see ante, at 551, n. 4, are themselves unsupported by reference to substantial judicial authority. Congressional endorsement of the common law of fair use should not be read as adoption of any rigid presumption against prepublication use. If read that way, the broad statement that the Copyright Act was intended to incorporate the common law would in effect be given the force of nullifying Congress' repeated methodological prescription that definite rules are inappropriate and fact-specific analysis is required. The broad language adopting the common-law approach to fair use is best understood as an endorsement of the essential fact-specificity and case-by-case methodology of the common law of fair use.

20

The Court finds the right of first publication particularly weighty because it encompasses three important interests: (i) a privacy interest in whether to make expression public at all; (ii) an editorial interest in ensuring control over the work while it is being groomed for public dissemination; and (iii) an economic interest in capturing the full remunerative potential of initial release to the public. Ante, at 552-555.

21

Perhaps most inappropriate is the Court's apocalyptic prophesy that permitting any prepublication use for news reporting will "effectively destroy any expectation of copyright protection in the work of a public figure." Ante, at 557. The impact of a prepublication use for purposes of news reporting will obviously vary with the circumstances. A claim of news reporting should not be a fig leaf for substantial plagiarism, see Wainwright Securities Inc. v. Wall Street Transcript Corp., 558 F.2d 91 (CA2 1977), but there is no warrant for concluding that prepublication quotation of a few sentences will usually drain all value from a copyright owner's right of first publication.

22

These six quotes are:

(1) " '[C]ompassion for Nixon as an individual hadn't prompted my decision at all.' Rather, he did it because he had 'to get the monkey off my back one way or the other.' " Ante, at 572-573.

(2) "Nixon 'would not spend the time quietly in San Clemente,' and 'it would be virtually impossible for me to direct public attention on anything else.' " Ante, at 573.

(3) " 'I learned that public policy often took precedence over a rule of law. Although I respected the tenet that no man should be above the law, public policy demanded that I put Nixon and Watergate—behind us as quickly as possible.' " Ante, at 575.

(4) " 'If I made the trip it would remind everybody of Watergate and the pardon. If I didn't people would say I lacked compassion.' " Ibid.

(5) "He was stretched out flat on his back. There were tubes in his nose and mouth, and wires led from his arms, chest and legs to machines with orange lights that blinked on and off. His face was ashen, and I thought I had never seen anyone closer to death." Ibid.

(6) " 'A terribly proud man,' writes Ford, 'he detested weakness in other people. I'd often heard him speak disparagingly of those whom he felt to be soft and expedient. (Curiously, he didn't feel that the press was weak. Reporters, he sensed, were his adversaries. He knew they didn't like him, and he responded with reciprocal disdain.)'. . . 'His pride and personal contempt for weakness had overcome his ability to tell the difference between right and wrong.'. . . 'Nixon was out of touch with reality.' " Ante, at 578.

23

The Court places some emphasis on the fact that the quotations from the Ford work constituted a substantial portion of The Nation's article. Superficially, the Court would thus appear to be evaluating The Nation's quotation of 300 words in relation to the amount and substantiality of expression used in relation to the second author's work as a whole. The statute directs the inquiry into "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole," 17 U.S.C. § 107(3) (emphasis added). As the statutory directive implies, it matters little whether the second author's use is 1 or 100-percent appropriated expression if the taking of that expression had no adverse effect on the copyrighted work. See Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 104 S.Ct. 774, 78 L.Ed.2d 574 (1984) (100% of expression taken). I presume, therefore, that the Court considered the role of the expression "in the infringing work" only as indirect evidence of the qualitative value of the expression taken in this case. If read this way, the point dovetails with the Court's major argument that The Nation appropriated the most valuable sentences of the work.

24

See n. 23, supra.

25

The Court's reliance on the principle that "an infringer who mingles infringing and noninfringing elements 'must abide the consequences,' " ante, at 567 (citation omitted), is misconceived. Once infringement of a § 106 exclusive right has been shown, it is entirely appropriate to shift to the infringer the burden of showing that the infringement did not cause all the damages shown. But the question in this case is whether this particular use infringed any § 106 rights. Harper & Row may have shown actual damage flowing from The Nation's use of information, but they have not shown actual damage flowing from an infringement of a § 106 exclusive right.

26

Had The Nation sought to justify a more substantial appropriation of expression on a news reporting rationale, a different case might be presented. The substantiality of the taking would certainly dilute the claim of need to use the first author's exact words to convey a particular thought or sentiment. Even if the claim of need were plausible, the equities would have to favor the copyright owner in order to prevent erosion of virtually all copyright protection for works of former public officials. In this case, however, the need is manifest and the integrity of copyright protection for the works of public officials is not threatened.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. Nos. 76649-51 August 19, 1988

20TH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS, EDUARDO M. BARRETO, RAUL SAGULLO and FORTUNE LEDESMA, respondents.

Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako Law Office for petitioner.

B.C. Salazar & Associates for respondents.

 

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

The petitioner questions the application of the constitutional provision against illegal searches and seizures to raids conducted in connection with the government's anti-film piracy campaign. The main issue hinges on whether or not the judge properly lifted the search warrants he issued earlier upon the application of the National Bureau of Investigation on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner.

In a letter-complaint dated August 26, 1985, petitioner 20th Century Fox Film Corporation through counsel sought the National Bureau of Investigation's (NBI) assistance in the conduct of searches and seizures in connection with the latter's anti-film piracy campaign. Specifically, the letter-complaint alleged that certain videotape outlets all over Metro Manila are engaged in the unauthorized sale and renting out of copyrighted films in videotape form which constitute a flagrant violation of Presidential Decree No. 49 (otherwise known as the Decree on the Protection of Intellectual Property).

Acting on the letter-complaint, the NBI conducted surveillance and investigation of the outlets pinpointed by the petitioner and subsequently filed three (3) applications for search warrants against the video outlets owned by the private respondents. The applications were consolidated and heard by the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 132.

On September 4, 1985, the lower court issued the desired search warrants.

Armed with the search warrants, the NBI accompanied by the petitioner's agents, raided the video outlets and seized the items described therein. An inventory of the items seized was made and left with the private respondents.

Acting on a motion to lift search warrants and release seized properties filed by the private respondents, the lower court issued an order dated October 8, 1985, lifting the three (3) search warrants issued earlier against the private respondents by the court. The dispositive portion of the order reads:

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby orders that Search Warrants Nos. SW- 85-024; issued against Eduardo M. Barreto of the Junction Video, etc., Paranaque, Metro Manila; SW No. 85-025, issued against Raul M. Sagullo of South Video Bug Center, Inc., etc., also of No. 5355 Pres. Avenue BF Homes, Parañaque, Metro Manila; and SW No. 85-026, issued against Fortune A. Ledesma of Sonix Video Services of San Antonio Plaza, Forbes Park, Makati, Metro Manila, be lifted.

Consequently, the articles listed in the returns of the three search warrants which could not be a basis of any criminal prosecution, now in the possession of the National Bureau of Investigation which under the law must be delivered to this Court, but which the NBI failed to do, are hereby ordered to be returned to their owners through their lawyer, Atty. Benito Salazar or his agents or representatives, against proper receipt, to be forwarded to this Court for record purposes, as proof that said properties have been returned to the possession of the rightful owners." (p. 34, Rollo)

The lower court denied a motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner in its order dated January 2, 1986.

The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals to annul the October 8, 1985 and January 2, 1986 orders of the lower court. The petition was dismissed.

Hence, this petition.

The main issue hinges on the meaning of "probable cause" within the context of the constitutional provision against illegal searches and seizures (Section 3, Article IV, 1973 Constitution, now, Section 2, Article Ill, 1987 Constitution.

The petitioner maintains that the lower court issued the questioned search warrants after finding the existence of a probable cause justifying their issuance. According to the petitioner, the lower court arrived at this conclusion on the basis of the depositions of applicant NBI's two witnesses which were taken through searching questions and answers by the lower court.

Section 2, Article III of the present Constitution which substantially reproduces Section 3, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution on illegal searches and seizures provides:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

This constitutional right protects a citizen against wanton and unreasonable invasion of his privacy and liberty as to his person, papers and effects. We have explained in the case of  People v. Burgos (144 SCRA 1) citing Villanueva v. Querubin (48 SCRA 345) why the right is so important:

It is deference to one's personality that lies at the core of this right, but it could be also looked upon as a recognition of a constitutionally protected area, primarily one's home, but not necessarily thereto confined. (Cf. Hoffa v. United States, 385 US 293 119661) What is sought to be guarded is a man's prerogative to choose who is allowed entry to his residence. In that haven of refuge, his individuality can assert itself not only in the choice of who shall be welcome but likewise in the kind of objects he wants around him. There the state, however powerful, does not as such have access except under the circumstances above noted, for in the traditional formulation, his house, however humble, is his castle. Thus is outlawed any unwarranted intrusion by government, which is called upon to refrain from any invasion of his dwelling and to respect the privacies of his life. (Cf Schmerber v. California, 384 US 757 [1966], Brennan, J. and Boyd v. United States, 116 630 [1886]). In the same vein, Landynski in his authoritative work (Search and Seizure and the Supreme Court [1966]), could fitly characterize constitutional right as the embodiment of a "spiritual concept: the belief that to value the privacy of home and person and to afford its constitutional protection against the long reach of government is no less than to value human dignity, and that his privacy must not be disturbed except in case of overriding social need, and then only under stringent procedural safeguards."(ibid, p. 74).

The government's right to issue search warrants against a citizen's papers and effects is circumscribed by the requirements mandated in the searches and seizures provision of the Constitution.

In the case of Burgos, Sr. v. Chief of Staff, AFP (133 SCRA 800), we defined probable cause for a valid search "as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched." This constitutional provision also demands "no less than personal knowledge by the complainant or his witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of a search warrant may be justified" in order to convince the judge, not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant, of the existence of a probable cause. (Alvarez v. Court of First Instance, 64 Phil. 33; Burgos, Sr. v. Chief of Staff, AFP, supra).

In the instant case, the lower court lifted the three questioned search warrants against the private respondents on the ground that it acted on the application for the issuance of the said search warrants and granted it on the misrepresentations of applicant NBI and its witnesses that infringement of copyright or a piracy of a particular film have been committed. Thus the lower court stated in its questioned order dated January 2,1986:

According to the movant, all three witnesses during the proceedings in the application for the three search warrants testified of their own personal knowledge. Yet, Atty. Albino Reyes of the NBI stated that the counsel or representative of the Twentieth Century Fox Corporation will testify on the video cassettes that were pirated, so that he did not have personal knowledge of the alleged piracy. The witness Bacani also said that the video cassettes were pirated without stating the manner it was pirated and that it was Atty. Domingo that has knowledge of that fact.

On the part of Atty. Domingo, he said that the re-taping of the allegedly pirated tapes was from master tapes allegedly belonging to the Twentieth Century Fox, because, according to him, it is of his personal knowledge.

At the hearing of the Motion for Reconsideration, Senior NBI Agent Atty. Albino Reyes testified that when the complaint for infringement was brought to the NBI, the master tapes of the allegedly pirated tapes were shown to him and he made comparisons of the tapes with those purchased by their man Bacani. Why the master tapes or at least the film reels of the allegedly pirated tapes were not shown to the Court during the application gives some misgivings as to the truth of that bare statement of the NBI agent on the witness stand. "

Again as the application and search proceedings is a prelude to the filing of criminal cases under PD 49, the copyright infringement law, and although what is required for the issuance thereof is merely the presence of probable cause, that probable cause must be satisfactory to the Court, for it is a time- honored precept that proceedings to put a man to task as an offender under our laws should be interpreted in strictissimi juris against the government and liberally in favor of the alleged offender.

xxx xxx xxx

This doctrine has never been overturned, and as a matter of fact it had been enshrined in the Bill of Rights in our 1973 Constitution.

So that lacking in persuasive effect, the allegation that master tapes were viewed by the NBI and were compared to the purchased and seized video tapes from the respondents' establishments, it should be dismissed as not supported by competent evidence and for that matter the probable cause hovers in that grey debatable twilight zone between black and white resolvable in favor of respondents herein.

But the glaring fact is that 'Cocoon,' the first video tape mentioned in the search warrant, was not even duly registered or copyrighted in the Philippines. (Annex C of Opposition p. 152 record). So, that lacking in the requisite presentation to the Court of an alleged master tape for purposes of comparison with the purchased evidence of the video tapes allegedly pirated and those seized from respondents, there was no way to determine whether there really was piracy, or copying of the film of the complainant Twentieth Century Fox." (pp. 37-39, Rollo)

xxx xxx xxx

The lower court, therefore, lifted the three (3) questioned search warrants in the absence of probable cause that the private respondents violated P.D. 49. As found out by the court, the NBI agents who acted as witnesses did not have personal knowledge of the subject matter of their testimony which was the alleged commission of the offense by the private respondents. Only the petitioner's counsel who was also a witness during the application for the issuance of the search warrants stated that he had personal knowledge that the confiscated tapes owned by the private respondents were pirated tapes taken from master tapes belonging to the petitioner. However, the lower court did not give much credence to his testimony in view of the fact that the master tapes of the allegedly pirated tapes were not shown to the court during the application.

All these factors were taken into consideration by the lower court when it lifted the three questioned search warrants. There is no truth, therefore, to the petitioner's allegation that the lower court based its January 2, 1986 order only "on the fact that the original or master copies of the copyrighted films were not presented during the application for search warrants, thus leading it to conclude that it had been "misled by the applicant and his witnesses." (p. 17, Rollo)

The presentation of the master tapes of the copyrighted films from which the pirated films were allegedly copied, was necessary for the validity of search warrants against those who have in their possession the pirated films. The petitioner's argument to the effect that the presentation of the master tapes at the time of application may not be necessary as these would be merely evidentiary in nature and not determinative of whether or not a probable cause exists to justify the issuance of the search warrants is not meritorious. The court cannot presume that duplicate or copied tapes were necessarily reproduced from master tapes that it owns.

The application for search warrants was directed against video tape outlets which allegedly were engaged in the unauthorized sale and renting out of copyrighted films belonging to the petitioner pursuant to P.D. 49.

The essence of a copyright infringement is the similarity or at least substantial similarity of the purported pirated works to the copyrighted work. Hence, the applicant must present to the court the copyrighted films to compare them with the purchased evidence of the video tapes allegedly pirated to determine whether the latter is an unauthorized reproduction of the former. This linkage of the copyrighted films to the pirated films must be established to satisfy the requirements of probable cause. Mere allegations as to the existence of the copyrighted films cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant.

Furthermore, we note that the search warrants described the articles sought to be seized as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

c) Television sets, Video Cassettes Recorders, rewinders, tape head cleaners, accessories, equipments and other machines used or intended to be used in the unlawful reproduction, sale, rental/lease distribution of the above-mentioned video tapes which she is keeping and concealing in the premises above-described." (p. 26, Rollo)

In the case of Burgos v. Chief of Staff, AFP supra, we stated:

xxx xxx xxx

Another factor which makes the search warrants under consideration constitutionally objectionable is that they are in the nature of general warrants. The search warrants describe the articles sought to be seized in this wise:

l] All printing equipment, paraphernalia, paper, ink, photo equipment, typewriters, cabinets, tables communications/recording equipment, tape recorders, dictaphone and the like used and/or connected in the printing of the 'WE FORUM' newspaper and any and all document/communications, letters and facsimile of prints related to "WE FORUM" newspaper.

2] Subversive documents, pamphlets, leaflets, books, and other publications to promote the objectives and purposes of the subversive organizations known as Movement for Free Philippines, Light-a-Fire Movement and April 6 Movement; and

3] Motor vehicles used in the distribution/circulation of the 'WE FORUM and other subversive materials and propaganda, more particularly,

1] Toyota-Corolla, colored yellow with Plate No. NKA 892;

2] DATSUN pick-up colored white with Plate No. NKV 969;

3] A delivery truck with Plate No. NBS 542;

4] TOYOTA-TAMARAW, colored white with Plate No. PBP 665;and,

5] TOYOTA Hi-Lux, pick-up truck with Plate No. NGV 472 with marking "Bagong Silang."

In Stanford v. State of Texas (379 U.S. 476,13 L ed 2nd 431), the search warrant which authorized the search for 'books, records, pamphlets, cards, receipts, lists, memoranda, pictures, recordings and other written instruments concerning the Communist Parties of Texas, and the operations of the Community Party in Texas," was declared void by the U.S. Supreme Court for being too general. In like manner, directions to "seize any evidence in connection with the violation of SDC 13-3703 or otherwise' have been held too general, and that portion of a search warrant which authorized the seizure of any "paraphernalia which could be used to violate Sec. 54-197 of the Connecticut General Statutes [the statute dealing with the crime of conspiracy]"' was held to be a general warrant, and therefore invalid (68 Am. Jur. 2d., pp. 736-737). The description of the articles sought to be seized under the search warrants in question cannot be characterized differently. (at pp. 814-815)

Undoubtedly, a similar conclusion can be deduced from the description of the articles sought to be confiscated under the questioned search warrants.

Television sets, video cassette recorders, reminders and tape cleaners are articles which can be found in a video tape store engaged in the legitimate business of lending or renting out betamax tapes. In short, these articles and appliances are generally connected with, or related to a legitimate business not necessarily involving piracy of intellectual property or infringement of copyright laws. Hence, including these articles without specification and/or particularity that they were really instruments in violating an Anti-Piracy law makes The search warrant too general which could result in the confiscation of all items found in any video store. In fact, this actually happened in the instant case. Thus, the lower court, in its questioned order dated October 8, 1985 said:

Although the applications and warrants themselves covered certain articles of property usually found in a video store, the Court believes that the search party should have confined themselves to articles that are according to them, evidence constitutive of infringement of copyright laws or the piracy of intellectual property, but not to other articles that are usually connected with, or related to, a legitimate business, not involving piracy of intellectual property, or infringement of copyright laws. So that a television set, a rewinder, and a whiteboard listing Betamax tapes, video cassette cleaners video cassette recorders as reflected in the Returns of Search Warrants, are items of legitimate business engaged in the video tape industry, and which could not be the subject of seizure, The applicant and his agents therefore exceeded their authority in seizing perfectly legitimate personal property usually found in a video cassette store or business establishment." (p. 33, Rollo)

All in all, we find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the lower court when it lifted the search warrants it earlier issued against the private respondents. We agree with the appellate court's findings to the effect that:

An assiduous examination of the assailed orders reveal that the main ground upon which the respondent Court anchored said orders was its subsequent findings that it was misled by the applicant (NBI) and its witnesses 'that infringement of copyright or a piracy of a particular film have been committed when it issued the questioned warrants.' Stated differently, the respondent Court merely corrected its erroneous findings as to the existence of probable cause and declared the search and seizure to be unreasonable. Certainly, such action is within the power and authority of the respondent Court to perform, provided that it is not exercised in an oppressive or arbitrary manner. Indeed, the order of the respondent Court declaring the existence of probable cause is not final and does not constitute res judicata.

A careful review of the record of the case shows that the respondent Court did not commit a grave abuse of discretion when it issued the questioned orders. Grave abuse of discretion' implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or, in other words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.' But far from being despotic or arbitrary, the assailed orders were motivated by a noble desire of rectifying an error, much so when the erroneous findings collided with the constitutional rights of the private respondents. In fact, the petitioner did not even contest the righteousness and legality of the questioned orders but instead concentrated on the alleged denial of due process of law." (pp. 44-45, Rollo)

The proliferation of pirated tapes of films not only deprives the government of much needed revenues but is also an indication of the widespread breakdown of national order and discipline. Courts should not impose any unnecessary roadblocks in the way of the anti-film piracy campaign. However, the campaign cannot ignore or violate constitutional safeguards. To say that the problem of pirated films can be solved only by the use of unconstitutional shortcuts is to denigrate the long history and experience behind the searches and seizures clause of the Bill of Rights. The trial court did not commit reversible error.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED. The questioned decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Feliciano, Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

THIRD DIVISION

 

G.R. No. 96597-99 October 6, 1994

COLUMBIA PICTURES, INC., ORION PICTURES CORP., PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORP., TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORP., UNITED ARTISTS CORP., UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., WALT DISNEY COMPANY and WARNER BROS., INC., petitioners, vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS, TUBE VIDEO ENTERPRISES and EDWARD CHAM, BLOOMING ROSE TAPE CENTER and MA. JAJORIE T. UY, and VIDEO CHANNEL and LYDIA NABONG, respondents.

G.R. No. 97156 October 6, 1994

COLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES, INC., ORION PICTURES CORPORATION, PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORP., TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORP., MGM/UA COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, and WARNER BROS., INC., petitioners, vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS, FOX'S VIDEO, INC. and ALFREDO ONGYANGCO., respondents.

Castillo, Laman, Tan & Pantaleon for petitioners.

Herminio T. Banico, Jr. & Associates for private respondent Lydia Nabong.

Molo, Padua, Salazar, Roldan & Associates for Blooming Rose Tape Center/Ma. J.T. Uy.

R E S O L U T I O N

 

VITUG, J.:

On 07 April 1988, the National Bureau of Investigation ("NBI"), through its Agent Lauro C. Reyes, filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig(Branch 159) three applications for search warrant against private respondents Tube Video Enterprises and Edward C. Cham (ASW No. 95), the Blooming Rose Tape Center and Ma. Jajorie T. Uy (ASW No. 96), and the VideoChannel and Lydia Nabong (ASW No. 97), charging said respondents with violation of Section 56 of Presidential Decree ("P.D.") No. 49, otherwise known as the Decree on the Protection of Intellectual Property, as amended by P.D. No. 1988.

In the three applications for search warrant, NBI Agent Reyes stated under oath that the respondents had in their possession and control —

1. (p)irated video tapes of the copyrighted motion pictures/films the titles of which are mentioned in the attached list;

2. (p)osters, advertising leaflets, flyers, brochures, invoices, journals, ledgers, job order slips, delivery slips, stickers and books of account bearing and/or mentioned the pirated films with titles . . ., or otherwise used in the videogram business or activities of the defendants; sold, leased, distributed or possessed for the purpose of sale, lease, distribution, circulation or public exhibition, journals, ledgers, job order slips, delivery slips, stickers and books of accounts used in the unlawful videogram business or activities of the defendants; (and)

3. (t)elevision sets, video cassette and/or laser disc recorders, dubbing machines, rewinders, film projectors, U-matic machines, image enhancers, dubbing machines, tape head cleaners, converters, accessories, equipment and other machines and paraphernalia, materials or empty/erasable video tapes and master copies used or intended to be used in the unlawful exhibition, showing, reproduction, sale lease or disposition of videograms they are keeping and concealing in the premises abovedescribed. 1

Acting on the applications, then Regional Trial Court Judge MariaAlicia M. Austria conducted a joint hearing during which she made a personal examination of the applicant and his witnesses. Finding just and probable cause for granting the application at the time, Judge Austria issued the corresponding Search Warrants ("SW") numbered 95, 96, and 97.

Private respondents filed their respective motions to quash the three search warrants, citing as grounds therefor the following:

In SW No. 95

1. There is no probable cause nor the existence of a satisfactory fact upon which the search warrant is based;

2. The National Bureau of Investigation has no authority nor the jurisdiction to initiate the filing of suit against the defendants;

3. The confiscation of defendants' seized articles based on the questioned search warrant violated the latter's constitutional right against deprivation of properties without due process.

4. The films in question are not protected by Pres. DecreeNo. 1988 in that they were never registered in the National Library as a condition precedent to the availment of the protection secured by that decree. The complaint has acquired no right under the same.

5. The mere publication by complainant of its alleged ownership over the films in question does not ipso facto vest in the right to proceed under P.D. No. 49 as that law requires official registration. Moreover, the said publication took place only after the application for the questioned search warrant. 2

In SW No. 96

1. The complainants, one Rico V. Domingo and one Rene C. Baltazar, in representation of the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc., have not proven nor established their ownership over the films listed in Annex "A" of the search warrant issued by this Honorable Court against the defendants herein.

2. The information provided by the National Bureau of Investigation agents and the representatives of the MPAA, Inc. are replete with generalities insofar as the description of the items to be concerned in violation of the provisions of Sec. 3 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. Their allegations as to the offense are presumptuous and speculative in violation of the same section of the Rules of Court. 3

Private respondents in SW No. 97 adopted the motions filed for the quashal of both SW No. 95 and SW No. 96.

Herein petitioners (the private complainants in the three cases), namely, Columbia Pictures Entertainment, Inc., Orion Pictures Corporation, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, MGM/UA Communications Company, Universal City Studios, Inc., Walt Disney Company and Warner Bros., Inc., submitted their oppositions to the motions to quash. The movants, herein private respondents, filed their replies to the oppositions and sought, simultaneously, the release of the items seized. After a rejoinder was filed, the court a quo considered all the incidents submitted for resolution.

In a Joint Order, issued on 09 December 1988, Judge Austria defined the issues raised in the motions to quash thusly:

1. Whether or not the NBI had authority to file the application for search warrant; whether or not it is the Videogram Regulatory Board under P.D. No. 1987 which has exclusive jurisdiction to file suits against violators of said law.

2. Whether or not this Court observed due process of law before issuing the search warrants in question.

3. Whether or not search warrants Nos. 95, 96 and 97 are general warrants and therefore void.

4. Whether or not there was probable cause in the issuance of the search warrants pursuant to Section 3, Rule 126 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure and Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.

5. Whether or not private complainants who are members of the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (MPAA for brevity) through their counsel, Atty. Rico

Domingo, have sufficiently proven their ownership over the alleged pirated video tapes of the copyrighted motion pictures/films.

6. Whether or not the items seized by the NBI agents by virtue of SW Nos. 95, 96 and 97 may be ordered released to defendants. 4

Anent the first three issues, Judge Austria ruled that the NBI had the authority to apply for the search warrants; that in the issuance of the search warrants, due process of law was duly observed; and that the questioned search warrants were not general in character since the provision of law violated, i.e., Sec. 56 of P.D. No. 49, as amended by P.D. No. 1988, was clearly specified. Judge Austria, nonetheless, reversed her former stand initially finding probable cause for the issuance of the search warrants and ordered the quashal of the search warrants giving the following reasons:

1. Private complainants were uncertain of their ownership of the titles subject of the seized video tapes;

2. Complainants did not comply with the requirement that the master tapes should be presented during the application for search warrants; and

3. Private complainants cannot seek the protection of Philippine laws as they failed to comply with the deposit and registration requirements of P.D. No. 49 as amended by P.D. No. 1988. 5

Judge Austria thus ordered the return of all the items seized by virtue of the warrants.

Petitioners appealed the order of Judge Austria to the Court of Appeals, docketed CA-G.R. CV No. 22133-22135, assigning the following alleged errors:

1. The Court a quo erred in ruling that private complainants were uncertain of their ownership of the titles subject of the pirated video tapes.

2. The Court a quo erred in ordering the quashal of the search warrants on the ground that the requirement of producing the "master tapes" during the application for a search warrant, as enunciated in the 20th Century Fox case, promulgated on 19 August 1988, was applicable to the facts of the instant case which transpired on 07 April 1988, and that the same was not complied with.

3. The Court a quo erred in ruling that appellants do not have a protectable copyright under Philippine laws for their failure to comply with the deposit and registration requirements of Presidential Decree No. 49, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1988. 6

On 31 October 1990, the Court of Appeals, through Justice Salome A. Montoya, rendered its decision sustaining petitioners' first and third assignment of errors but rejecting petitioners' second assignment of error. It, therefore, still affirmed the quashal of the search warrants.

Hence, this petition (G.R. No. 96597-99). Another decision rendered by the Court of Appeals in another case (CA-G.R. No. 20617), involving the same petitioners on substantially identical facts and issues, was also brought before this Court (G.R. No. 97156). In a Resolution, dated 06 March 1991, this Court consolidated the two petitions.

We affirm the decisions of the Court of Appeals.

This Court, in 20th Century Fox Film Corp. vs. Court of Appeals (164 SCRA 655) has already laid down the rule that a basic requirement for the validity of search warrants, in cases of this nature, is the presentation of the master tapes of the copyrighted films from which pirated films are supposed to have been copied. We quote:

The presentation of the master tapes of the copyrighted films from which the pirated films were allegedly copied, was necessary for the validity of search warrants against those who have in their possession the pirated films. The petitioner's argument to the effect that the presentation of the master tapes at the time of application may not be necessary as these would be merely evidentiary in nature and not determinative of whether or not a probable cause exists to justify the issuance of the search warrants is not meritorious. The court cannot presume that duplicate or copied tapes were necessarily reproduced from master tapes that it owns.

The application for search warrants was directed against video tape outlets which allegedly were engaged in the unauthorized sale and renting out of copyrighted films belonging to the petitioner pursuant to P.D. 49.

The essence of a copyright infringement is the similarity or at least substantial similarity of the purported pirated works to the copyrighted work. Hence, the applicant must present to the court the copyrighted films to compare them with the purchased evidence of the video tapes allegedly pirated to determine whether the latter is an unauthorized reproduction of the former. This linkage of the copyrighted films to the pirated films must be established to satisfy the requirements of probable cause. Mere allegations as to the existence of the copyrighted films cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant.

We also fully concur with the Court of Appeals when, in resolving petitioners' motion for reconsideration in CA-G.R. CV No. 22133-35, it ratiocinated thusly:

It is not correct to say that "the basic fact" to be proven to establish probable cause in the instant cases is not the "unauthorized transfer" of a motion picture that has been recorded but the "sale, lease, or distribution of pirated video tapes of copyrighted films."

In applying for the search warrants the NBI charged violation of the entire provisions of Section 56 of P.D. No. 49 as amended by P.D.No. 1988. This included not only the sale, lease or distribution of pirated tapes but also the transfer or causing to be transferred of any sound recording or motion picture or other audio visual work.

But even assuming, as appellants argue, that only the sale, lease, or distribution of pirated video tapes is involved, the fact remains that there is need to establish probable cause that the tapes being sold, leased or distributed are pirated tapes, hence the issue reverts back to the question of whether there was unauthorized transfer, directly or indirectly, of a sound recording or motion picture or other audio visual work that has been recorded. 7

With due respect to petitioners, the Court does not see a compelling reason to reexamine its previous position on the issue.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petitions are hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

 

#Footnotes

1 Rollo of G.R. No. 97156, p. 110.

2 Rollo of G.R. No. 96597-99, pp. 126-127.

3 Rollo of G.R. No. 96597-99, p. 126.

4 Rollo of G.R. No. 96597-99, pp. 127-128.

5 Rollo of G.R. No. 96597-99, p. 128.

6 Rollo of G.R. No. 96597-99, pp. 128-129.

7 Rollo of G.R. No. 96597-99, pp. 160-161.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

 

G.R. No. 110318 August 28, 1996

COLUMBIA PICTURES, INC., ORION PICTURES CORPORATION, PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION, TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION, UNITED ARTISTS CORPORATION, UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, and WARNER BROTHERS, INC.,petitioners, vs.COURT OF APPEALS, SUNSHINE HOME VIDEO, INC. and DANILO A. PELINDARIO, respondents.

 

REGALADO, J.:p

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals 1 promulgated on July 22, 1992 and its resolution  2 of May 10, 1993 denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration, both of which sustained the order 3 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 133, Makati, Metro Manila, dated November 22, 1988 for the quashal of Search Warrant No. 87-053 earlier issued per its own order 4 on September 5, 1988 for

violation of Section 56 of Presidential Decree No. 49, as amended, otherwise known as the "Decree on the Protection of Intellectual Property."

The material facts found by respondent appellate court are as follows:

Complainants thru counsel lodged a formal complaint with the National Bureau of Investigation for violation of PD No. 49, as amended, and sought its assistance in their anti-film piracy drive. Agents of the NBI and private researchers made discreet surveillance on various video establishments in Metro Manila including Sunshine Home Video Inc. (Sunshine for brevity), owned and operated by Danilo A. Pelindario with address at No. 6 Mayfair Center, Magallanes, Makati, Metro Manila.

On November 14, 1987, NBI Senior Agent Lauro C. Reyes applied for a search warrant with the court a quo against Sunshine seeking the seizure, among others, of pirated video tapes of copyrighted films all of which were enumerated in a list attached to the application; and, television sets, video cassettes and/or laser disc recordings equipment and other machines and paraphernalia used or intended to be used in the unlawful exhibition, showing, reproduction, sale, lease or disposition of videograms tapes in the premises above described. In the hearing of the application, NBI Senior Agent Lauro C. Reyes, upon questions by the court a quo, reiterated in substance his averments in his affidavit. His testimony was corroborated by another witness, Mr. Rene C. Baltazar. Atty. Rico V. Domingo's deposition was also taken. On the basis of the affidavits and depositions of NBI Senior Agent Lauro C. Reyes, Rene C. Baltazar and Atty. Rico V. Domingo, Search Warrant No. 87-053 for violation of Section 56 of PD No. 49, as amended, was issued by the court a quo.

The search warrant was served at about 1:45 p.m. on December 14, 1987 to Sunshine and/or their representatives. In the course of the search of the premises indicated in the search warrant, the NBI Agents found and seized various video tapes of duly copyrighted motion pictures/films owned or exclusively distributed by private complainants, and machines, equipment, television sets, paraphernalia, materials, accessories all of which were included in the receipt for properties accomplished by the raiding team. Copy of the receipt was furnished and/or tendered to Mr. Danilo A. Pelindario, registered owner-proprietor of Sunshine Home Video.

On December 16, 1987, a "Return of Search Warrant" was filed with the Court.

A "Motion To Lift the Order of Search Warrant" was filed but was later denied for lack of merit (p. 280, Records).

A Motion for reconsideration of the Order of denial was filed. The court a quo granted the said motion for reconsideration and justified it in this manner:

It is undisputed that the master tapes of the copyrighted films from which the pirated films were allegedly copies (sic), were never presented in the proceedings for the issuance of the search warrants in question. The orders of the Court granting the search warrants and denying the urgent motion to lift order of search warrants were, therefore, issued in error. Consequently, they must be set aside. (p. 13, Appellant's Brief) 5

Petitioners thereafter appealed the order of the trial court granting private respondents' motion for reconsideration, thus lifting the search warrant which it had theretofore issued, to

the Court of Appeals. As stated at the outset, said appeal was dismissed and the motion for reconsideration thereof was denied. Hence, this petition was brought to this Court particularly challenging the validity of respondent court's retroactive application of the ruling in 20th Century Fox Film Corporation vs.Court of Appeals, et al., 6 in dismissing petitioners' appeal and upholding the quashal of the search warrant by the trial court.

I

Inceptively, we shall settle the procedural considerations on the matter of and the challenge to petitioners' legal standing in our courts, they being foreign corporations not licensed to do business in the Philippines.

Private respondents aver that being foreign corporations, petitioners should have such license to be able to maintain an action in Philippine courts. In so challenging petitioners' personality to sue, private respondents point to the fact that petitioners are the copyright owners or owners of exclusive rights of distribution in the Philippines of copyrighted motion pictures or films, and also to the appointment of Atty. Rico V. Domingo as their attorney-in-fact, as being constitutive of "doing business in the Philippines" under Section 1 (f)(1) and (2), Rule 1 of the Rules of the Board of Investments. As foreign corporations doing business in the Philippines, Section 133 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 68, or the Corporation Code of the Philippines, denies them the right to maintain a suit in Philippine courts in the absence of a license to do business. Consequently, they have no right to ask for the issuance of a search warrant. 7

In refutation, petitioners flatly deny that they are doing business in the Philippines,  8 and contend that private respondents have not adduced evidence to prove that petitioners are doing such business here, as would require them to be licensed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, other than averments in the quoted portions of petitioners' "Opposition to Urgent Motion to Lift Order of Search Warrant" dated April 28, 1988 and Atty. Rico V. Domingo's affidavit of December 14, 1987. Moreover, an exclusive right to distribute a product or the ownership of such exclusive right does not conclusively prove the act of doing business nor establish the presumption of doing business. 9

The Corporation Code provides:

Sec. 133. Doing business without a license. — No foreign corporation transacting business in the Philippines without a license, or its successors or assigns, shall be permitted to maintain or intervene in any action, suit or proceeding in any court or administrative agency of the Philippines; but such corporation may be sued or proceeded against before Philippine courts or administrative tribunals on any valid cause of action recognized under Philippine laws.

The obtainment of a license prescribed by Section 125 of the Corporation Code is not a condition precedent to the maintenance of any kind of action in Philippine courts by a foreign corporation. However, under the aforequoted provision, no foreign corporation shall be permitted to transact business in the Philippines, as this phrase is understood under the Corporation Code, unless it shall have the license required by law, and until it complies with the law intransacting business here, it shall not be permitted to maintain any suit in local courts. 10 As thus interpreted, any foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines may maintain an action in our courts upon any cause of action, provided that the subject matter and the defendant are within the jurisdiction of the court. It is not the absence of the prescribed license but "doing business" in the Philippines without such license which debars

the foreign corporation from access to our courts. In other words, although a foreign corporation is without license to transact business in the Philippines, it does not follow that it has no capacity to bring an action. Such license is not necessary if it is not engaged in business in the Philippines. 11

Statutory provisions in many jurisdictions are determinative of what constitutes "doing business" or "transacting business" within that forum, in which case said provisions are controlling there. In others where no such definition or qualification is laid down regarding acts or transactions failing within its purview, the question rests primarily on facts and intent. It is thus held that all the combined acts of a foreign corporation in the State must be considered, and every circumstance is material which indicates a purpose on the part of the corporation to engage in some part of its regular business in the State. 12

No general rule or governing principles can be laid down as to what constitutes "doing" or "engaging in" or "transacting" business. Each case must be judged in the light of its own peculiar environmental circumstances. 13 The true tests, however, seem to be whether the foreign corporation is continuing the body or substance of the business or enterprise for which it was organized or whether it has substantially retired from it and turned it over to another. 14

As a general proposition upon which many authorities agree in principle, subject to such modifications as may be necessary in view of the particular issue or of the terms of the statute involved, it is recognized that a foreign corporation is "doing," "transacting," "engaging in," or "carrying on" business in the State when, and ordinarily only when, it has entered the State by its agents and is there engaged in carrying on and transacting through them some substantial part of its ordinary or customary business, usually continuous in the sense that it may be distinguished from merely casual, sporadic, or occasional transactions and isolated acts. 15

The Corporation Code does not itself define or categorize what acts constitute doing or transacting business in the Philippines. Jurisprudence has, however, held that the term implies a continuity of commercial dealings and arrangements, and contemplates, to that extent, the performance of acts or works or the exercise of some of the functions normally incident to or in progressive prosecution of the purpose and subject of its organization. 16

This traditional case law definition has evolved into a statutory definition, having been adopted with some qualifications in various pieces of legislation in our jurisdiction.

For instance, Republic Act No. 5455 17 provides:

Sec. 1. Definitions and scope of this Act. — (1) . . . ; and the phrase "doing business" shall include soliciting orders, purchases, service contracts, opening offices, whether called "liaison" offices or branches; appointing representatives or distributors who are domiciled in the Philippines or who in any calendar year stay in the Philippines for a period or periods totalling one hundred eighty days or more; participating in the management, supervision or control of any domestic business firm, entity or corporation in the Philippines; and any other act or acts that imply a continuity of commercial dealings or arrangements, and contemplate to that extent the performance of acts or works, or the exercise of some of the functions normally incident to, and in progressive prosecution of, commercial gain or of the purpose and object of the business organization.

Presidential Decree No. 1789, 18 in Article 65 thereof, defines "doing business" to include soliciting orders, purchases, service contracts, opening offices, whether called "liaison" offices or branches; appointing representatives or distributors who are domiciled in the Philippines or who in any calendar year stay in the Philippines for a period or periods totalling one hundred eighty days or more; participating in the management, supervision or control of any domestic business firm, entity or corporation in the Philippines, and any other act or acts that imply a continuity of commercial dealings or arrangements and contemplate to that extent the performance of acts or works, or the exercise of some of the functions normally incident to, and in progressive prosecution of, commercial gain or of the purpose and object of the business organization.

The implementing rules and regulations of said presidential decree conclude the enumeration of acts constituting "doing business" with a catch-all definition, thus:

Sec. 1(g). "Doing Business" shall be any act or combination of acts enumerated in Article 65 of the Code. In particular "doing business" includes:

xxx xxx xxx

(10) Any other act or acts which imply a continuity of commercial dealings or arrangements, and contemplate to that extent the performance of acts or works, or the exercise of some of the functions normally incident to, or in the progressive prosecution of, commercial gain or of the purpose and object of the business organization.

Finally, Republic Act No. 7042 19 embodies such concept in this wise:

Sec. 3. Definitions. — As used in this Act:

xxx xxx xxx

(d) the phrase "doing business shall include soliciting orders, service contracts, opening offices, whether called "liaison" offices or branches; appointing representatives or distributors domiciled in the Philippines or who in any calendar year stay in the country for a period or periods totalling one hundred eight(y) (180) days or more; participating in the management, supervision or control of any domestic business, firm, entity or corporation in the Philippines; and any other act or acts that imply a continuity of commercial dealings or arrangements, and contemplate to that extent the performance of acts or works, or the exercise of some of the functions normally incident to, and in progressive prosecution of, commercial gain or of the purpose and object of the business organization: Provided, however, That the phrase "doing business" shall not be deemed to include mere investment as a shareholder by a foreign entity in domestic corporations duly registered to do business, and/or the exercise of rights as such investor; nor having a nominee director or officer to represent its interests in such corporation; nor appointing a representative or distributor domiciled in the Philippines which transacts business in its own name and for its own account.

Based on Article 133 of the Corporation Code and gauged by such statutory standards, petitioners are not barred from maintaining the present action. There is no showing that, under our statutory or case law, petitioners are doing, transacting, engaging in or carrying on business in the Philippines as would require obtention of a license before they can seek

redress from our courts. No evidence has been offered to show that petitioners have performed any of the enumerated acts or any other specific act indicative of an intention to conduct or transact business in the Philippines.

Accordingly, the certification issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission  20 stating that its records do not show the registration of petitioner film companies either as corporations or partnerships or that they have been licensed to transact business in the Philippines, while undeniably true, is of no consequence to petitioners' right to bring action in the Philippines. Verily, no record of such registration by petitioners can be expected to be found for, as aforestated, said foreign film corporations do not transact or do business in the Philippines and, therefore, do not need to be licensed in order to take recourse to our courts.

Although Section 1(g) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Omnibus Investments Code lists, among others —

(1) Soliciting orders, purchases (sales) or service contracts. Concrete and specific solicitations by a foreign firm, or by an agent of such foreign firm, not acting independently of the foreign firm amounting to negotiations or fixing of the terms and conditions of sales or service contracts, regardless of where the contracts are actually reduced to writing, shall constitute doing business even if the enterprise has no office or fixed place of business in the Philippines. The arrangements agreed upon as to manner, time and terms of delivery of the goods or the transfer of title thereto is immaterial. A foreign firm which does business through the middlemen acting in their own names, such as indentors, commercial brokers or commission merchants, shall not be deemed doing business in the Philippines. But such indentors, commercial brokers or commission merchants shall be the ones deemed to be doing business in the Philippines.

(2) Appointing a representative or distributor who is domiciled in the Philippines, unless said representative or distributor has an independent status, i.e., it transacts business in its name and for its own account, and not in the name or for the account of a principal. Thus, where a foreign firm is represented in the Philippines by a person or local company which does not act in its name but in the name of the foreign firm, the latter is doing business in the Philippines.

as acts constitutive of "doing business," the fact that petitioners are admittedly copyright owners or owners of exclusive distribution rights in the Philippines of motion pictures or films does not convert such ownership into an indicium of doing business which would require them to obtain a license before they can sue upon a cause of action in local courts.

Neither is the appointment of Atty. Rico V. Domingo as attorney-in-fact of petitioners, with express authority pursuant to a special power of attorney, inter alia —

To lay criminal complaints with the appropriate authorities and to provide evidence in support of both civil and criminal proceedings against any person or persons involved in the criminal infringement of copyright or concerning the unauthorized importation, duplication, exhibition or distribution of any cinematographic work(s) — films or video cassettes — of which . . . is the owner of copyright or the owner of exclusive rights of distribution in the Philippines pursuant to any agreement(s) between . . . and the respective owners of copyright in such cinematographic work(s), to initiate and prosecute on behalf of . . . criminal or civil actions in the Philippines against any person or persons unlawfully distributing, exhibiting, selling or offering for sale any films or video cassettes

of which . . . is the owner of copyright or the owner of exclusive rights of distribution in the Philippines pursuant to any agreement(s) between . . . and the respective owners of copyright in such works. 21

tantamount to doing business in the Philippines. We fail to see how exercising one's legal and property rights and taking steps for the vigilant protection of said rights, particularly the appointment of an attorney-in-fact, can be deemed by and of themselves to be doing business here.

As a general rule, a foreign corporation will not be regarded as doing business in the State simply because it enters into contracts with residents of the State, where such contracts are consummated outside the State. 22 In fact, a view is taken that a foreign corporation is not doing business in the State merely because sales of its product are made there or other business furthering its interests is transacted there by an alleged agent, whether a corporation or a natural person, where such activities are not under the direction and control of the foreign corporation but are engaged in by the alleged agent as an independent business. 23

It is generally held that sales made to customers in the State by an independent dealer who has purchased and obtained title from the corporation to the products sold are not a doing of business by the corporation. 24 Likewise, a foreign corporation which sells its products to persons styled "distributing agents" in the State, for distribution by them, is not doing business in the State so as to render it subject to service of process therein, where the contract with these purchasers is that they shall buy exclusively from the foreign corporation such goods as it manufactures and shall sell them at trade prices established by it. 25

It has moreover been held that the act of a foreign corporation in engaging an attorney to represent it in a Federal court sitting in a particular State is not doing business within the scope of the minimum contact test. 26 With much more reason should this doctrine apply to the mere retainer of Atty. Domingo for legal protection against contingent acts of intellectual piracy.

In accordance with the rule that "doing business" imports only acts in furtherance of the purposes for which a foreign corporation was organized, it is held that the mere institution and prosecution or defense of a suit, particularly if the transaction which is the basis of the suit took place out of the State, do not amount to the doing of business in the State. The institution of a suit or the removal thereof is neither the making of a contract nor the doing of business within a constitutional provision placing foreign corporations licensed to do business in the State under the same regulations, limitations and liabilities with respect to such acts as domestic corporations. Merely engaging in litigation has been considered as not a sufficient minimum contact to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction over a foreign corporation. 27

As a consideration aside, we have perforce to comment on private respondents' basis for arguing that petitioners are barred from maintaining suit in the Philippines. For allegedly being foreign corporations doing business in the Philippines without a license, private respondents repeatedly maintain in all their pleadings that petitioners have thereby no legal personality to bring an action before Philippine Courts. 28

Among the grounds for a motion to dismiss under the Rules of Courtare lack of legal capacity to sue 29 and that the complaint states no cause of action. 30 Lack of legal capacity to sue means that the plaintiff is not in the exercise of his civil rights, or does

not have the necessary qualification to appear in the case, or does not have the character or representation he claims. 31 On the other hand, a case is dismissible for lack of personality to sue upon proof that the plaintiff is not the real party in interest, hence grounded on failure to state a cause of action. 32 The term "lack of capacity to sue" should not be confused with the term "lack of personality to sue." While the former refers to a plaintiff's general disability to sue, such as on account of minority, insanity, incompetence, lack of juridical personality or any other general disqualifications of a party, the latter refers to the fact that the plaintiff is not the real party in interest. Correspondingly, the first can be a ground for a motion to dismiss based on the ground of lack of legal capacity to sue;  33 whereas the second can be used as a ground for a motion to dismiss based on the fact that the complaint, on the face thereof, evidently states no cause of action. 34

Applying the above discussion to the instant petition, the ground available for barring recourse to our courts by an unlicensed foreign corporation doing or transacting business in the Philippines should properly be "lack of capacity to sue," not "lack of personality to sue." Certainly, a corporation whose legal rights have been violated is undeniably such, if not the only, real party in interest to bring suit thereon although, for failure to comply with the licensing requirement, it is not capacitated to maintain any suit before our courts.

Lastly, on this point, we reiterate this Court's rejection of the common procedural tactics of erring local companies which, when sued by unlicensed foreign corporations not engaged in business in the Philippines, invoke the latter's supposed lack of capacity to sue. The doctrine of lack of capacity to sue based on failure to first acquire a local license is based on considerations of public policy. It was never intended to favor nor insulate from suit unscrupulous establishments or nationals in case of breach of valid obligations or violation of legal rights of unsuspecting foreign firms or entities simply because they are not licensed to do business in the country. 35

II

We now proceed to the main issue of the retroactive application to the present controversy of the ruling in 20th Century Fox Film Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al., promulgated on August 19, 1988, 36 that for the determination of probable cause to support the issuance of a search warrant in copyright infringement cases involving videograms, the production of the master tape for comparison with the allegedly pirate copies is necessary.

Petitioners assert that the issuance of a search warrant is addressed to the discretion of the court subject to the determination of probable cause in accordance with the procedure prescribed therefore under Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 126. As of the time of the application for the search warrant in question, the controlling criterion for the finding of probable cause was that enunciated in Burgos vs.Chief of Staff 37 stating that:

Probable cause for a search warrant is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.

According to petitioners, after complying with what the law then required, the lower court determined that there was probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant, and which determination in fact led to the issuance and service on December 14, 1987 of Search Warrant No. 87-053. It is further argued that any search warrant so issued in accordance with all applicable legal requirements is valid, for the lower court could not possibly have

been expected to apply, as the basis for a finding of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant in copyright infringement cases involving videograms, a pronouncement which was not existent at the time of such determination, on December 14, 1987, that is, the doctrine in the 20th Century Fox case that was promulgated only on August 19, 1988, or over eight months later.

Private respondents predictably argue in support of the ruling of the Court of Appeals sustaining the quashal of the search warrant by the lower court on the strength of that 20th Century Fox ruling which, they claim, goes into the very essence of probable cause. At the time of the issuance of the search warrant involved here, although the 20th Century Fox case had not yet been decided, Section 2, Article III of the Constitution and Section 3, Rule 126 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure embodied the prevailing and governing law on the matter. The ruling in 20th Century Fox was merely an application of the law on probable cause. Hence, they posit that there was no law that was retrospectively applied, since the law had been there all along. To refrain from applying the 20th Century Fox ruling, which had supervened as a doctrine promulgated at the time of the resolution of private respondents' motion for reconsideration seeking the quashal of the search warrant for failure of the trial court to require presentation of the master tapes prior to the issuance of the search warrant, would have constituted grave abuse of discretion. 38

Respondent court upheld the retroactive application of the 20th Century Fox ruling by the trial court in resolving petitioners' motion for reconsideration in favor of the quashal of the search warrant, on this renovated thesis:

And whether this doctrine should apply retroactively, it must be noted that in the 20th Century Fox case, the lower court quashed the earlier search warrant it issued. On certiorari, the Supreme Court affirmed the quashal on the ground among others that the master tapes or copyrighted films were not presented for comparison with the purchased evidence of the video tapes to determine whether the latter is an unauthorized reproduction of the former.

If the lower court in the Century Fox case did not quash the warrant, it is Our view that the Supreme Court would have invalidated the warrant just the same considering the very strict requirement set by the Supreme Court for the determination of "probable cause" in copyright infringement cases as enunciated in this 20th Century Fox case. This is so because, as was stated by the Supreme Court in the said case, the master tapes and the pirated tapes must be presented for comparison to satisfy the requirement of "probable cause." So it goes back to the very existence of probablecause. . . . 39

Mindful as we are of the ramifications of the doctrine of stare decisis and the rudiments of fair play, it is our considered view that the 20th Century Fox ruling cannot be retroactively applied to the instant case to justify the quashal of Search Warrant No. 87-053. Herein petitioners' consistent position that the order of the lower court of September 5, 1988 denying therein defendants' motion to lift the order of search warrant was properly issued, there having been satisfactory compliance with the then prevailing standards under the law for determination of probable cause, is indeed well taken. The lower court could not possibly have expected more evidence from petitioners in their application for a search warrant other than what the law and jurisprudence, then existing and judicially accepted, required with respect to the finding of probable cause.

Article 4 of the Civil Code provides that "(l)aws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided. Correlatively, Article 8 of the same Code declares that "(j)udicial

decisions applying the laws or the Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines."

Jurisprudence, in our system of government, cannot be considered as an independent source of law; it cannot create law. 40 While it is true that judicial decisions which apply or interpret the Constitution or the laws are part of the legal system of the Philippines, still they are not laws. Judicial decisions, though not laws, are nonetheless evidence of what the laws mean, and it is for this reason that they are part of the legal system of the Philippines. 41 Judicial decisions of the Supreme Court assume the same authority as the statuteitself. 42

Interpreting the aforequoted correlated provisions of the Civil Code and in light of the above disquisition, this Court emphatically declared in Co vs. Court of Appeals, et al. 43 that the principle of prospectivity applies not only to original or amendatory statutes and administrative rulings and circulars, but also, and properly so, to judicial decisions. Our holding in the earlier case of People vs.Jabinal 44 echoes the rationale for this judicial declaration, viz.:

Decisions of this Court, although in themselves not laws, are nevertheless evidence of what the laws mean, and this is the reason why under Article 8 of the New Civil Code, "Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form part of the legal system." The interpretation upon a law by this Court constitutes, in a way, a part of the law as of the date that the law was originally passed, since this Court's construction merely establishes the contemporaneous legislative intent that the law thus construed intends to effectuate. The settled rule supported by numerous authorities is a restatement of the legal maxim "legis interpretatio legis vim obtinet" — the interpretation placed upon the written law by a competent court has the force of law. . . . , but when a doctrine of this Court is overruled and a different view is adopted, the new doctrine should be applied prospectively, and should not apply to parties who had relied on the old doctrine and acted on the faith thereof . . . . (Emphasis supplied).

This was forcefully reiterated in Spouses Benzonan vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 45 where the Court expounded:

. . . . But while our decisions form part of the law of the land, they are also subject to Article 4 of the Civil Code which provides that "laws shall have no retroactive effect unless the contrary is provided." This is expressed in the familiar legal maxim lex prospicit, non respicit, the law looks forward not backward. The rationale against retroactivity is easy to perceive. The retroactive application of a law usually divests rights that have already become vested or impairs the obligations of contract and hence, is unconstitutional (Francisco v. Certeza, 3 SCRA 565 [1961]). The same consideration underlies our rulings giving only prospective effect to decisions enunciating new doctrines. . . . .

The reasoning behind Senarillos vs. Hermosisima 46 that judicial interpretation of a statute constitutes part of the law as of the date it was originally passed, since the Court's construction merely establishes the contemporaneous legislative intent that the interpreted law carried into effect, is all too familiar. Such judicial doctrine does not amount to the passage of a new law but consists merely of a construction or interpretation of a pre-existing one, and that is precisely the situation obtaining in this case.

It is consequently clear that a judicial interpretation becomes a part of the law as of the date that law was originally passed, subject only to the qualification that when a doctrine of this Court is overruled and a different view is adopted, and more so when there is a reversal thereof, the new doctrine should be applied prospectively and should not apply to parties who relied on the old doctrine and acted in good faith.  47 To hold otherwise would be to deprive the law of its quality of fairness and justice then, if there is no recognition of what had transpired prior to such adjudication. 48

There is merit in petitioners' impassioned and well-founded argumentation:

The case of 20th Century Fox Film Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 164 SCRA 655 (August 19, 1988) (hereinafter 20th Century Fox) was inexistent in December of 1987 when Search Warrant 87-053 was issued by the lower court. Hence, it boggles the imagination how the lower court could be expected to apply the formulation of 20th Century Fox in finding probable cause when the formulation was yet non-existent.

xxx xxx xxx

In short, the lower court was convinced at that time after conducting searching examination questions of the applicant and his witnesses that "an offense had been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense (were) in the place sought to be searched" (Burgos v. Chief of Staff, et al., 133 SCRA 800). It is indisputable, therefore, that at the time of the application, or on December 14, 1987, the lower court did not commit any error nor did it fail to comply with any legal requirement for the valid issuance of search warrant.

. . . (W)e believe that the lower court should be considered as having followed the requirements of the law in issuing Search Warrant No. 87-053. The search warrant is therefore valid and binding. It must be noted that nowhere is it found in the allegations of the Respondents that the lower court failed to apply the law as then interpreted in 1987. Hence, we find it absurd that it is (sic) should be seen otherwise, because it is simply impossible to have required the lower court to apply a formulation which will only be defined six months later.

Furthermore, it is unjust and unfair to require compliance with legal and/or doctrinal requirements which are inexistent at the time they were supposed to have been complied with.

xxx xxx xxx

. . . If the lower court's reversal will be sustained, what encouragement can be given to courts and litigants to respect the law and rules if they can expect with reasonable certainty that upon the passage of a new rule, their conduct can still be open to question? This certainly breeds instability in our system of dispensing justice. For Petitioners who took special effort to redress their grievances and to protect their property rights by resorting to the remedies provided by the law, it is most unfair that fealty to the rules and procedures then obtaining would bear but fruits ofinjustice. 49

Withal, even the proposition that the prospectivity of judicial decisions imports application thereof not only to future cases but also to cases still ongoing or not yet final when the

decision was promulgated, should not be countenanced in the jural sphere on account of its inevitably unsettling repercussions. More to the point, it is felt that the reasonableness of the added requirement in 20th Century Fox calling for the production of the master tapes of the copyrighted films for determination of probable cause in copyright infringement cases needs revisiting and clarification.

It will be recalled that the 20th Century Fox case arose from search warrant proceedings in anticipation of the filing of a case for the unauthorized sale or renting out of copyrighted films in videotape format in violation of Presidential Decree No. 49. It revolved around the meaning of probable cause within the context of the constitutional provision against illegal searches and seizures, as applied to copyright infringement cases involving videotapes.

Therein it was ruled that —

The presentation of master tapes of the copyrighted films from which the pirated films were allegedly copied, was necessary for the validity of search warrants against those who have in their possession the pirated films. The petitioner's argument to the effect that the presentation of the master tapes at the time of application may not be necessary as these would be merely evidentiary in nature and not determinative of whether or not a probable cause exists to justify the issuance of the search warrants is not meritorious. The court cannot presume that duplicate or copied tapes were necessarily reproduced from master tapes that it owns.

The application for search warrants was directed against video tape outlets which allegedly were engaged in the unauthorized sale and renting out of copyrighted films belonging to the petitioner pursuant to P.D. 49.

The essence of a copyright infringement is the similarity or at least substantial similarity of the purported pirated works to the copyrighted work. Hence, the applicant must present to the court the copyrighted films to compare them with the purchased evidence of the video tapes allegedly pirated to determine whether the latter is an unauthorized reproduction of the former. This linkage of the copyrighted films to the pirated films must be established to satisfy the requirements of probable cause. Mere allegations as to the existence of the copyrighted films cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant.

For a closer and more perspicuous appreciation of the factual antecedents of 20th Century Fox, the pertinent portions of the decision therein are quoted hereunder, to wit:

In the instant case, the lower court lifted the three questioned search warrants against the private respondents on the ground that it acted on the application for the issuance of the said search warrants and granted it on the misrepresentations of applicant NBI and its witnesses that infringement of copyright or a piracy of a particular film have been committed. Thus the lower court stated in its questioned order dated January 2, 1986:

According to the movant, all three witnesses during the proceedings in the application for the three search warrants testified of their own personal knowledge. Yet, Atty. Albino Reyes of the NBI stated that the counsel or representative of the Twentieth Century Fox Corporation will testify on the video cassettes that were pirated, so that he did not have personal knowledge of the alleged piracy. The

witness Bacani also said that the video cassettes were pirated without stating the manner it was pirated and that it was Atty. Domingo that has knowledge of that fact.

On the part of Atty. Domingo, he said that the re-taping of the allegedly pirated tapes was from master tapes allegedly belonging to the Twentieth Century Fox, because, according to him it is of his personal knowledge.

At the hearing of the Motion for Reconsideration, Senior NBI Agent Atty. Albino Reyes testified that when the complaint for infringement was brought to the NBI, the master tapes of the allegedly pirated tapes were shown to him and he made comparisons of the tapes with those purchased by their man Bacani. Why the master tapes or at least the film reels of the allegedly pirated tapes were not shown to the Court during the application gives some misgivings as to the truth of that bare statement of the NBI agent on the witness stand.

Again as the application and search proceedings is a prelude to the filing of criminal cases under PD 49, the copyright infringement law, and although what is required for the issuance thereof is merely the presence of probable cause, that probable cause must be satisfactory to the Court, for it is a time-honored precept that proceedings to put a man to task as an offender under our laws should be interpreted in strictissimi juris against the government and liberally in favor of the alleged offender.

xxx xxx xxx

This doctrine has never been overturned, and as a matter of fact it had been enshrined in the Bill of Rights in our 1973 Constitution.

So that lacking in persuasive effect, the allegation that master tapes were viewed by the NBI and were compared to the purchased and seized video tapes from the respondents' establishments, it should be dismissed as not supported by competent evidence and for that matter the probable cause hovers in that grey debatable twilight zone between black and white resolvable in favor of respondents herein.

But the glaring fact is that "Cocoon," the first video tape mentioned in the search warrant, was not even duly registered or copyrighted in the Philippines. (Annex C of Opposition p. 152 record.) So, that lacking in the requisite presentation to the Court of an alleged master tape for purposes of comparison with the purchased evidence of the video tapes allegedly pirated and those seized from respondents, there was no way to determine whether there really was piracy, or copying of the film of the complainant Twentieth Century Fox.

xxx xxx xxx

The lower court, therefore, lifted the three (3) questioned search warrants in the absence of probable cause that the private respondents violated P.D. 49. As found

out by the court, the NBI agents who acted as witnesses did not have personal knowledge of the subject matter of their testimony which was the alleged commission of the offense by the private respondents. Only the petitioner's counsel who was also a witness during the application for the issuance of the search warrants stated that he had personal knowledge that the confiscated tapes owned by the private respondents were pirated tapes taken from master tapes belonging to the petitioner. However, the lower court did not give much credence to his testimony in view of the fact that the master tapes of the allegedly pirated tapes were not shown to the court during the application (Emphasis ours).

The italicized passages readily expose the reason why the trial court therein required the presentation of the master tapes of the allegedly pirated films in order to convince itself of the existence of probable cause under the factual milieu peculiar to that case. In the case at bar, respondent appellate court itself observed:

We feel that the rationale behind the aforequoted doctrine is that the pirated copies as well as the master tapes, unlike the other types of personal properties which may be seized, were available for presentation to the court at the time of the application for a search warrant to determine the existence of the linkage of the copyrighted films with the pirated ones. Thus, there is no reason not the present them (Emphasis supplied ). 50

In fine, the supposed pronunciamento in said case regarding the necessity for the presentation of the master tapes of the copyrighted films for the validity of search warrants should at most be understood to merely serve as a guidepost in determining the existence of probable cause in copyright infringement cases where there is doubt as to the true nexus between the master tape and the pirated copies. An objective and careful reading of the decision in said case could lead to no other conclusion than that said directive was hardly intended to be a sweeping and inflexible requirement in all or similar copyright infringement cases. Judicial dicta should always be construed within the factual matrix of their parturition, otherwise a careless interpretation thereof could unfairly fault the writer with the vice of overstatement and the reader with the fallacy of undue generalization.

In the case at bar, NBI Senior Agent Lauro C. Reyes who filed the application for search warrant with the lower court following a formal complaint lodged by petitioners, judging from his affidavit 51 and his deposition, 52 did testify on matters within his personal knowledge based on said complaint of petitioners as well as his own investigation and surveillance of the private respondents' video rental shop. Likewise, Atty. Rico V. Domingo, in his capacity as attorney-in-fact, stated in his affidavit 53 and further expounded in his deposition 54 that he personally knew of the fact that private respondents had never been authorized by his clients to reproduce, lease and possess for the purpose of selling any of the copyrighted films.

Both testimonies of Agent Reyes and Atty. Domingo were corroborated by Rene C. Baltazar, a private researcher retained by Motion Pictures Association of America, Inc. (MPAA, Inc.), who was likewise presented as a witness during the search warrant proceedings.  55 The records clearly reflect that the testimonies of the abovenamed witnesses were straightforward and stemmed from matters within their personal knowledge. They displayed none of the ambivalence and uncertainty that the witnesses in the 20th Century Fox case exhibited. This categorical forthrightness in their statements, among others, was what initially and correctly convinced the trial court to make a finding of the existence of probable cause.

There is no originality in the argument of private respondents against the validity of the search warrant, obviously borrowed from 20th Century Fox, that petitioners' witnesses —

NBI Agent Lauro C. Reyes, Atty. Rico V. Domingo and Rene C. Baltazar — did not have personal knowledge of the subject matter of their respective testimonies and that said witnesses' claim that the video tapes were pirated, without stating the manner by which these were pirated, is a conclusion of fact without basis.56 The difference, it must be pointed out, is that the records in the present case reveal that (1) there is no allegation of misrepresentation, much less a finding thereof by the lower court, on the part of petitioners' witnesses; (2) there is no denial on the part of private respondents that the tapes seized were illegitimate copies of the copyrighted ones not have they shown that they were given any authority by petitioners to copy, sell, lease, distribute or circulate, or at least, to offer for sale, lease, distribution or circulation the said video tapes; and (3) a discreet but extensive surveillance of the suspected area was undertaken by petitioners' witnesses sufficient to enable them to execute trustworthy affidavits and depositions regarding matters discovered in the course thereof and of which they have personal knowledge.

It is evidently incorrect to suggest, as the ruling in 20th Century Fox may appear to do, that in copyright infringement cases, the presentation of master tapes of the copyrighted films is always necessary to meet the requirement of probable cause and that, in the absence thereof, there can be no finding of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant. It is true that such master tapes are object evidence, with the merit that in this class of evidence the ascertainment of the controverted fact is made through demonstrations involving the direct use of the senses of the presiding magistrate.  57 Such auxiliary procedure, however, does not rule out the use of testimonial or documentary evidence, depositions, admissions or other classes of evidence tending to prove thefactum probandum, 58 especially where the production in court of object evidence would result in delay, inconvenience or expenses out of proportion to its evidentiary value. 59

Of course, as a general rule, constitutional and statutory provisions relating to search warrants prohibit their issuance except on a showing of probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation. These provisions prevent the issuance of warrants on loose, vague, or doubtful bases of fact, and emphasize the purpose to protect against all general searches. 60 Indeed, Article III of our Constitution mandates in Sec. 2 thereof that no search warrant shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized; and Sec. 3 thereof provides that any evidence obtained in violation of the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

These constitutional strictures are implemented by the following provisions of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court:

Sec. 3. Requisites for issuing search warrant. — A search warrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized.

Sec. 4. Examination of complainant; record. — The judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath the complainant and any witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements together with any affidavits submitted.

Sec. 5. Issuance and form of search warrant. — If the judge is thereupon satisfied of the existence of facts upon which the application is based, or that there is probable cause to believe that they exist, he must issue the warrant, which must be substantially in the form prescribed by these Rules.

The constitutional and statutory provisions of various jurisdictions requiring a showing of probable cause before a search warrant can be issued are mandatory and must be complied with, and such a showing has been held to be an unqualified condition precedent to the issuance of a warrant. A search warrant not based on probable cause is a nullity, or is void, and the issuance thereof is, in legal contemplation, arbitrary. 61 It behooves us, then, to review the concept of probable cause, firstly, from representative holdings in the American jurisdiction from which we patterned our doctrines on the matter.

Although the term "probable cause" has been said to have a well-defined meaning in the law, the term is exceedingly difficult to define, in this case, with any degree of precision; indeed, no definition of it which would justify the issuance of a search warrant can be formulated which would cover every state of facts which might arise, and no formula or standard, or hard and fast rule, may be laid down which may be applied to the facts of every situation.  62 As to what acts constitute probable cause seem incapable of definition.  63 There is, of necessity, no exact test. 64

At best, the term "probable cause" has been understood to mean a reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in the belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged; 65 or the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite an honest belief in a reasonable mind acting on all the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the magistrate that the charge made by the applicant for the warrant is true. 66

Probable cause does not mean actual and positive cause, nor does it import absolute certainty. The determination of the existence of probable cause is not concerned with the question of whether the offense charged has been or is being committed in fact, or whether the accused is guilty or innocent, but only whether the affiant has reasonable grounds for his belief. 67 The requirement is less than certainty or proof , but more than suspicion or possibility. 68

In Philippine jurisprudence, probable cause has been uniformly defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonable, discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. 69 It being the duty of the issuing officer to issue, or refuse to issue, the warrant as soon as practicable after the application therefor is filed,  70 the facts warranting the conclusion of probable cause must be assessed at the time of such judicial determination by necessarily using legal standards then set forth in law and jurisprudence, and not those that have yet to be crafted thereafter.

As already stated, the definition of probable cause enunciated in Burgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff, et al.,supra, vis-a-vis the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 126, were the prevailing and controlling legal standards, as they continue to be, by which a finding of probable cause is tested. Since the propriety of the issuance of a search warrant is to be determined at the time of the application therefor, which in turn must not be too remote in time from the occurrence of the offense alleged to have been committed, the issuing judge, in determining the existence of probable cause, can and should logically look to the

touchstones in the laws theretofore enacted and the decisions already promulgated at the time, and not to those which had not yet even been conceived or formulated.

It is worth noting that neither the Constitution nor the Rules of Court attempt to define probable cause, obviously for the purpose of leaving such matter to the court's discretion within the particular facts of each case. Although the Constitution prohibits the issuance of a search warrant in the absence of probable cause, such constitutional inhibition does not command the legislature to establish a definition or formula for determining what shall constitute probable cause. 71 Thus, Congress, despite its broad authority to fashion standards of reasonableness for searches and seizures,72 does not venture to make such a definition or standard formulation of probable cause, nor categorize what facts and circumstances make up the same, much less limit the determination thereof to and within the circumscription of a particular class of evidence, all in deference to judicial discretion and probity. 73

Accordingly, to restrict the exercise of discretion by a judge by adding a particular requirement (the presentation of master tapes, as intimated by 20th Century Fox) not provided nor implied in the law for a finding of probable cause is beyond the realm of judicial competence or statesmanship. It serves no purpose but to stultify and constrict the judicious exercise of a court's prerogatives and to denigrate the judicial duty of determining the existence of probable cause to a mere ministerial or mechanical function. There is, to repeat, no law or rule which requires that the existence of probable cause is or should be determined solely by a specific kind of evidence. Surely, this could not have been contemplated by the framers of the Constitution, and we do not believe that the Court intended the statement in 20th Century Fox regarding master tapes as the dictum for all seasons and reasons in infringement cases.

Turning now to the case at bar, it can be gleaned from the records that the lower court followed the prescribed procedure for the issuance of a search warrant: (1) the examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and his witnesses, with them particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized; (2) an examination personally conducted by the judge in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath of the complainant and witnesses on facts personally known to them; and, (3) the taking of sworn statements, together with the affidavits submitted, which were duly attached to the records.

Thereafter, the court a quo made the following factual findings leading to the issuance of the search warrant now subject of this controversy:

In the instant case, the following facts have been established: (1) copyrighted video tapes bearing titles enumerated in Search Warrant No. 87-053 were being sold, leased, distributed or circulated, or offered for sale, lease, distribution, or transferred or caused to be transferred by defendants at their video outlets, without the written consent of the private complainants or their assignee; (2) recovered or confiscated from defendants' possession were video tapes containing copyrighted motion picture films without the authority of the complainant; (3) the video tapes originated from spurious or unauthorized persons; and (4) said video tapes were exact reproductions of the films listed in the search warrant whose copyrights or distribution rights were owned by complainants.

The basis of these facts are the affidavits and depositions of NBI Senior Agent Lauro C. Reyes, Atty. Rico V. Domingo, and Rene C. Baltazar. Motion Pictures Association of America, Inc. (MPAA) thru their counsel, Atty. Rico V. Domingo, filed a complaint

with the National Bureau of Investigation against certain video establishments one of which is defendant, for violation of PD No. 49 as amended by PD No. 1988. Atty. Lauro C. Reyes led a team to conduct discreet surveillance operations on said video establishments. Per information earlier gathered by Atty. Domingo, defendants were engaged in the illegal sale, rental, distribution, circulation or public exhibition of copyrighted films of MPAA without its written authority or its members. Knowing that defendant Sunshine Home Video and its proprietor, Mr. Danilo Pelindario, were not authorized by MPAA to reproduce, lease, and possess for the purpose of selling any of its copyrighted motion pictures, instructed his researcher, Mr. Rene Baltazar to rent two video cassettes from said defendants on October 21, 1987. Rene C. Baltazar proceeded to Sunshine Home Video and rented tapes containing Little Shop of Horror. He was issued rental slip No. 26362 dated October 21, 1987 for P10.00 with a deposit of P100.00. Again, on December 11, 1987, the returned to Sunshine Home Video and rented Robocop with rental slip No. 25271 also for P10.00: On the basis of the complaint of MPAA thru counsel, Atty. Lauro C. Reyes personally went to Sunshine Home Video at No. 6 Mayfair Center, Magallanes Commercial Center, Makati. His last visit was on December 7, 1987. There, he found the video outlet renting, leasing, distributing video cassette tapes whose titles were copyrighted and without the authority of MPAA.

Given these facts, a probable cause exists. . . . 74

The lower court subsequently executed a volte-face, despite its prior detailed and substantiated findings, by stating in its order of November 22, 1988 denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration and quashing the search warrant that —

. . . The two (2) cases have a common factual milieu; both involve alleged pirated copyrighted films of private complainants which were found in the possession or control of the defendants. Hence, the necessity of the presentation of the master tapes from which the pirated films were allegedly copied is necessary in the instant case, to establish the existence of probable cause. 75

Being based solely on an unjustifiable and improper retroactive application of the master tape requirement generated by 20th Century Fox upon a factual situation completely different from that in the case at bar, and without anything more, this later order clearly defies elemental fair play and is a gross reversible error. In fact, this observation of the Court in La Chemise Lacoste, S.A. vs.Fernandez, et al., supra, may just as easily apply to the present case:

A review of the grounds invoked . . . in his motion to quash the search warrants reveals the fact that they are not appropriate for quashing a warrant. They are matters of defense which should be ventilated during the trial on the merits of the case. . . .

As correctly pointed out by petitioners, a blind espousal of the requisite of presentation of the master tapes in copyright infringement cases, as the prime determinant of probable cause, is too exacting and impracticable a requirement to be complied with in a search warrant application which, it must not be overlooked, is only an ancillary proceeding. Further, on realistic considerations, a strict application of said requirement militates against the elements of secrecy and speed which underlie covert investigative and surveillance operations in police enforcement campaigns against all forms of criminality, considering that the master tapes of a motion picture required to be presented before the court consists of several reels

contained in circular steel casings which, because of their bulk, will definitely draw attention, unlike diminutive objects like video tapes which can be easily concealed.  76With hundreds of titles being pirated, this onerous and tedious imposition would be multiplied a hundredfold by judicial fiat, discouraging and preventing legal recourses in foreign jurisdictions.

Given the present international awareness and furor over violations in large scale of intellectual property rights, calling for transnational sanctions, it bears calling to mind the Court's admonition also in La Chemise Lacoste, supra, that —

. . . . Judges all over the country are well advised to remember that court processes should not be used as instruments to, unwittingly or otherwise, aid counterfeiters and intellectual pirates, tie the hands of the law as it seeks to protect the Filipino consuming public and frustrate executive and administrative implementation of solemn commitments pursuant to international conventions and treaties.

III

The amendment to Section 56 of Presidential Decree No. 49 by Presidential Decree No. 1987, 77which should here be publicized judicially, brought about the revision of its penalty structure and enumerated additional acts considered violative of said decree on intellectual property, namely, (1) directly or indirectly transferring or causing to be transferred any sound recording or motion picture or other audio-visual works so recorded with intent to sell, lease, publicly exhibit or cause to be sold, leased or publicly exhibited, or to use or cause to be used for profit such articles on which sounds, motion pictures, or other audio-visual works are so transferred without the written consent of the owner or his assignee; (2) selling, leasing, distributing, circulating, publicly exhibiting, or offering for sale, lease, distribution, or possessing for the purpose of sale, lease, distribution, circulation or public exhibition any of the abovementioned articles, without the written consent of the owner or his assignee; and, (3) directly or indirectly offering or making available for a fee, rental, or any other form of compensation any equipment, machinery, paraphernalia or any material with the knowledge that such equipment, machinery, paraphernalia or material will be used by another to reproduce, without the consent of the owner, any phonograph record, disc, wire, tape, film or other article on which sounds, motion pictures or other audio-visual recordings may be transferred, and which provide distinct bases for criminal prosecution, being crimes independently punishable under Presidential Decree No. 49, as amended, aside from the act of infringing or aiding or abetting such infringement under Section 29.

The trial court's finding that private respondents committed acts in blatant transgression of Presidential Decree No. 49 all the more bolsters its findings of probable cause, which determination can be reached even in the absence of master tapes by the judge in the exercise of sound discretion. The executive concern and resolve expressed in the foregoing amendments to the decree for the protection of intellectual property rights should be matched by corresponding judicial vigilance and activism, instead of the apathy of submitting to technicalities in the face of ample evidence of guilt.

The essence of intellectual piracy should be essayed in conceptual terms in order to underscore its gravity by an appropriate understanding thereof. Infringement of a copyright is a trespass on a private domain owned and occupied by the owner of the copyright, and, therefore, protected by law, and infringement of copyright, or piracy, which is a synonymous term in this connection, consists in the doing by any person, without the consent of the owner of the copyright, of anything the sole right to do which is conferred by statute on the owner of the copyright. 78

A copy of a piracy is an infringement of the original, and it is no defense that the pirate, in such cases, did not know what works he was indirectly copying, or did not know whether or not he was infringing any copyright; he at least knew that what he was copying was not his, and he copied at his peril. In determining the question of infringement, the amount of matter copied from the copyrighted work is an important consideration. To constitute infringement, it is not necessary that the whole or even a large portion of the work shall have been copied. If so much is taken that the value of the original is sensibly diminished, or the labors of the original author are substantially and to an injurious extent appropriated by another, that is sufficient in point of law to constitute apiracy. 79 The question of whether there has been an actionable infringement of a literary, musical, or artistic work in motion pictures, radio or television being one of fact,  80 it should properly be determined during the trial. That is the stage calling for conclusive or preponderating evidence, and not the summary proceeding for the issuance of a search warrant wherein both lower courts erroneously require the master tapes.

In disregarding private respondent's argument that Search Warrant No. 87-053 is a general warrant, the lower court observed that "it was worded in a manner that the enumerated seizable items bear direct relation to the offense of violation of Sec. 56 of PD 49 as amended. It authorized only the seizur(e) of articles used or intended to be used in the unlawful sale, lease and other unconcerted acts in violation of PD 49 as amended. . . . 81

On this point, Bache and Co., (Phil.), Inc., et al. vs. Ruiz, et al., 82 instructs and enlightens:

A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized when the description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow (People vs. Rubio, 57 Phil. 384); or when the description expresses a conclusion of fact — not of law — by which the warrant officer may be guided in making the search and seizure (idem., dissent of Abad Santos,J.,); or when the things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued (Sec 2, Rule 126, Revised Rules of Court). . . . If the articles desired to be seized have any direct relation to an offense committed, the applicant must necessarily have some evidence, other than those articles, to prove the said offense; and the articles subject of search and seizure should come in handy merely to strengthen such evidence. . . .

On private respondents' averment that the search warrant was made applicable to more than one specific offense on the ground that there are as many offenses of infringement as there are rights protected and, therefore, to issue one search warrant for all the movie titles allegedly pirated violates the rule that a search warrant must be issued only in connection with one specific offense, the lower court said:

. . . . As the face of the search warrant itself indicates, it was issued for violation of Section 56, PD 49 as amended only. The specifications therein (in Annex A) merely refer to the titles of the copyrighted motion pictures/films belonging to private complainants which defendants were in control/possession for sale, lease, distribution or public exhibition in contravention of Sec. 56, PD 49 as amended. 83

That there were several counts of the offense of copyright infringement and the search warrant uncovered several contraband items in the form of pirated video tapes is not to be confused with the number of offenses charged. The search warrant herein issued does not violate the one-specific-offense rule.

It is pointless for private respondents to insist on compliance with the registration and deposit requirements under Presidential Decree No. 49 as prerequisites for invoking the court's protective mantle in copyright infringement cases. As explained by the court below:

Defendants-movants contend that PD 49 as amended covers only producers who have complied with the requirements of deposit and notice (in other words registration) under Sections 49 and 50 thereof. Absent such registration, as in this case, there was no right created, hence, no infringement under PD 49 as amended. This is not well-taken.

As correctly pointed out by private complainants-oppositors, the Department of Justice has resolved this legal question as far back as December 12, 1978 in its Opinion No. 191 of the then Secretary of Justice Vicente Abad Santos which stated that Sections 26 and 50 do not apply to cinematographic works and PD No. 49 "had done away with the registration and deposit of cinematographic works" and that "even without prior registration and deposit of a work which may be entitled to protection under the Decree, the creator can file action for infringement of its rights". He cannot demand, however, payment of damages arising from infringement. The same opinion stressed that "the requirements of registration and deposit are thus retained under the Decree, not as conditions for the acquisition of copyright and other rights, but as prerequisites to a suit for damages". The statutory interpretation of the Executive Branch being correct, is entitled (to) weight and respect.

xxx xxx xxx

Defendants-movants maintain that complainant and his witnesses led the Court to believe that a crime existed when in fact there was none. This is wrong. As earlier discussed, PD 49 as amended, does not require registration and deposit for a creator to be able to file an action for infringement of his rights. These conditions are merely pre-requisites to an action for damages. So, as long as the proscribed acts are shown to exist, an action for infringement may be initiated. 84

Accordingly, the certifications 85 from the Copyright Section of the National Library, presented as evidence by private respondents to show non-registration of some of the films of petitioners, assume no evidentiary weight or significance whatsoever.

Furthermore, a closer review of Presidential Decree No. 49 reveals that even with respect to works which are required under Section 26 thereof to be registered and with copies to deposited with the National Library, such as books, including composite and cyclopedic works, manuscripts, directories and gazetteers; and periodicals, including pamphlets and newspapers; lectures, sermons, addresses, dissertations prepared for oral delivery; and letters, the failure to comply with said requirements does not deprive the copyright owner of the right to sue for infringement. Such non-compliance merely limits the remedies available to him and subjects him to the corresponding sanction.

The reason for this is expressed in Section 2 of the decree which prefaces its enumeration of copyrightable works with the explicit statement that "the rights granted under this Decree shall, from the moment of creation, subsist with respect to any of the following classes of works." This means that under the present state of the law, the copyright for a work is acquired by an intellectual creator from the moment of creation even in the absence of registration and deposit. As has been authoritatively clarified:

The registration and deposit of two complete copies or reproductions of the work with the National Library within three weeks after the first public dissemination or performance of the work, as provided for in Section 26 (P.D. No. 49, as amended), is not for the purpose of securing a copyright of the work, but rather to avoid the penalty for non-compliance of the deposit of said two copies and in order to recover damages in an infringement suit. 86

One distressing observation. This case has been fought on the basis of, and its resolution long delayed by resort to, technicalities to a virtually abusive extent by private respondents, without so much as an attempt to adduce any credible evidence showing that they conduct their business legitimately and fairly. The fact that private respondents could not show proof of their authority or that there was consent from the copyright owners for them to sell, lease, distribute or circulate petitioners' copyrighted films immeasurably bolsters the lower court's initial finding of probable cause. That private respondents are licensed by the Videogram Regulatory Board does not insulate them from criminal and civil liability for their unlawful business practices. What is more deplorable is that the reprehensible acts of some unscrupulous characters have stigmatized the Philippines with an unsavory reputation as a hub for intellectual piracy in this part of the globe, formerly in the records of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and, now, of the World Trade Organization. Such acts must not be glossed over but should be denounced and repressed lest the Philippines become an international pariah in the global intellectual community.

WHEREFORE, the assailed judgment and resolution of respondent Court of Appeals, and necessarily inclusive of the order of the lower court dated November 22, 1988, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The order of the court a quo of September 5, 1988 upholding the validity of Search Warrant No. 87-053 is hereby REINSTATED, and said court is DIRECTED to take and expeditiously proceed with such appropriate proceedings as may be called for in this case. Treble costs are further assessed against private respondents.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Davide, Jr., Romero, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Francisco, Hermosisima, Jr., Panganiban and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.

Bellosillo, J., took no part. Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-25265 May 9, 1978

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs.SOCORRO C. RAMOS, defendant-appellee, PHOENIX PUBLISHING HOUSE INC., intervenor.

G.R. No. L-25644 May 9, 1978

SOCORRO C. RAMOS, petitioner, vs.HON. PLACIDO RAMOS, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Branch III, CFI, Manila; and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by State Prosecutor DELIA P. MEDINA, respondents.

Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General Pacifica P. de Castro and Solicitor Sumilang V. Bernardo for People of the Philippines.

Florence D. Regalado for Socorro C. Ramos.

Sevilla & Aquino Law Office for Intervenor.

 

SANTOS, J.:

The above-entitled cases — the first an appeal and the second a special civil action — are decided jointly because they raise a common — issue which arose from the prosecution of a common defendant, Socorro C. Ramos, for alleged violations of the copyright law—viz, whether or not the extra day in the leap year, 1964 should be taken into consideration in the computation of the two-year period of prescription provided in Section 24 of the copyright law.

The factual and procedural antecedents follow.

On September 3, 1965, two criminal cases — No. 80006 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch III, and No. 80007 also of the same Court, Branch XIV— identical in every respect, except for the fact that they pertain to different editions of the same textbook, were filed against Socorro C. Ramos, for alleged violations of Act 3134, otherwise known as the Copyright Law, as amended. The information in Criminal Case No. 80007 alleged —

That on or about July to September, 1963, in the City of Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, as the proprietor aid general manager of the National Book Store, as enterprise engaged in the business of publishing, selling and distributing books, did then and there, wilfully and illegaly sell and distribute spurious and pirated copies of the high school textbook, entitled General Science Today for Philippine School, First Year, by Gilam, Van Houten and Cornista, said accused knowing that said book was duly copyrighted by the Phoenix Publishing House, Inc., and was being distributed exclusively by its sister corporation, Alemar's or Sibal and Sons, Inc. 1

On September 7, 1965, identical motions to quash 2 were filed by accused Ramos on the ground of prescription, alleging therein, inter alia, that:

xxx xxx xxx

Consequently, the delivery of the alleged offense was made as early as July 17, 1963 and all subsequent knowledge or discoveries of posterior sales and possession of said books by the respondents, including that involved in the police search of September 4, 1963 were only confirmatory of the first. Under 91 of the Revised Penal Code and in the light of the afore-quoted ruling announced in the Pangasinan Trans. Co. case, supra; the prescriptive period, therefore, commenced to run on the day after such discovery on July 17, 1963 and, accordingly, the offense has long since prescribed since under the Copyright Law, Act 3134:

Sec. 24. All actions, suits, or proceedings arising under this Act shall be originally cognizable by the Court of First Instance of the Philippine Islands and shall prescribe after two years from the time the cause of action arose.

Assuming arguendo, that the last actual sale should be the starting point of computation, again the offense charged has prescribed, since, as already pointed out, the documented evidence on this point shows that the last sale was made on August 30, 1963.

The prosecution, also in both cases, filed its Opposition to the Motion to Quash 3 raising two issues, to wit:

1. That the issue of prescription in this case can be resolved only after the presentation of evidence and hence, it is premature to raise that issue before trial

2. That, as the violation committed by the defendant was a continuing offense, the two-year prescriptive period may be counted from September 3, 1963, or one day before the search in defendants' premises , which confirmed her possession of spurious and pirated copies of the textbook in question.

The prosecution's theory is that "(T)he crime being a continuing offense, the statute of limitations begins to run from the completion of the last act or series of acts which constitute the offense, " and this last act was committed on September 3, 1963. Therefore when the information was filed on September 3, 1965, it was filed within the two-year period, albeit the last day of the prescriptive period.

Again, in both the accused filed a "Reply to Opposition to Motion to Quash." 4 She alleged that even assuming that the crime is a continuing offense, the prescriptive period should start from August 30, 1963, the date of the last invoiced sale, and not September 3, 1963, as there was no indubitable proof that she had sold copies of the questioned book on that date. Nonetheless, accused contended that even if the prescriptive period should start from September 3, 1963, as proposed by the prosecution, the two-year period was tolled on September 2, 1965. She pointed out that two years mean a period of 730 days in accordance with Article 13 of the New Civil Code, and 1964, being a leap year consisting of 366 days, the 730th day fell on September 2, 1965. Hence, "... . when the information was filed on September 3, 1965, the offense, if any, had already prescribed. "

The prosecution filed a Rejoinder 5 in both cases alleging as follow:

l. That February 28, and 29, 1964, should be regarded as one day only, and consequently, the two-year period commencing on September 3, 1963 would end on September 3, 1965;

2. That under Act No. 3326, the prescriptive period was interrupted by the filing of the proceedings in the fiscal's office;

3. That prescription would not lie in this case because the complainant never waived the right to prosecute the defendant.

Accused Ramos, also in cases, filed an Urgent Motion to Strike the Rejoinder, 6 on the ground that it was filed after the case had been submitted for resolution. She prayed that "in the event that the same should at all be considered and allowed, that the accused be notified thereof and granted reasonable opportunity to file a surrejoinder...".

It appears that the Rejoinder was admitted by both trial courts, but a Surrejoinder 7 was filed only in Criminal Case No. 80006. Here, the accused traversed the prosecution's contentions in the Rejoinder, thus:

1. Under applicable and specific provisions of Philippine law, the two-year period of prescription commencing on September 3, 1963 ended on September 2, 1965 ...;

2. The filing (of) proceedings in the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila did not interrupt the prescriptive period.

In Criminal Case No. 80007, Hon. Jesus De Veyra granted the motion to quash by an order dated October 7, 1965. 8 Pertinent portion of his order reads:

. . . . And now to the main issue - whether the crime has prescribed. In the Opposition to the Motion to Quash, the Prosecution, in its insistence on the theory of a continuing crime, admits that the two-year prescriptive period should run from September 3, 1963. This case was filed on September 3, 1965 - one day too late. Article 13, CCP provides that year shall mean a period of 365 days. This had been applied to criminal cases (People v. del Rosario, 51 O.G., 2686). 1964 was a leap year so that when this case was filed, it was filed one day too late.

The Motion to Quash is, therefore, granted and this case dismissed on the ground that the crime has already prescribed. (Emphasis supplied.)

The prosecution appealed the above order to this Court on October 15, 1965. 9

Meanwhile, in Criminal Case No. 80006, the motion to quash was not resolved until December 23, 1965. On this date, Hon. Placido Ramos denied the motion to quash, and set the arraignment of the accused on January 12, 1966, thus —

Wherefore, finding the information to have been filed well within the statutory period of two years from the date of the last offense committed by the accused the Court denies the motion to quash.

The arraignment of the accused is hereby set on January 12, 1966 at 8:30 A.M.

The trial court refused to accept the prosecution's view that the prescriptive period should run from September 3, held instead, that the same should commence on September 4, 1963.

xxx xxx xxx

The evidence shows that on September 4, 1963, the Manila Police by virtue of a search warrant procured by the offended party, seized, among other articles, 69 copies of General Science Today for Philippine Schools, First Year, by Gilman, Van Houten and Cornista and one copy of the same textbook for Second Year (Exhibit 5). The evidence likewise shows that on September 3, 1963, the National Book Store, run and managed by the accused, sold one said textbook, Exhibit 'D' and Exhibit '2'. The mere possession by the accused on September 4, 1963 of several copies of this textbook which is the textbook alleged to be spurious and pirated, indicates that said accused was distributing or selling said textbook on September 4, 1963 . . . This being the case, it follows of necessity that the period of prescription commenced to

run from September 4, 1963 and two years from this date, by excluding the first and including the last, would expire on September 4, 1965 and hence, the action, which was instituted on September 3, 1965 is well within the prescriptive period.

xxx xxx xxx

Furthermore, the trial court ignored the accused's theory on leap year:

Even if the last sale of said textbook could be considered to have taken place on September 3, 1963, Exhibits 'D' and '2', the Court is also of the opinion that the two-year period would expire September 3, 1965.

The argument that inasmuch as 1964 is a leap year the two-year period must contain 731 days, as contemplated by Article 13 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, is, in the opinion of the Court, without merits for this particular legal provision that a year is understood to be of 365 days each is applicable only in determining the number of days a year must legally contain but not for the purpose of ascertaining the period of prescription based on years. In the computation of the period of prescription, a year should be construed as the calendar year comprising the whole period from January 1 to December 31, regardless of the number of days it contains. Consequently, in this particular case, if it is considered that the last sale took place on September 3, 1963, the two-year period, following the rule exclude the- first-and-include-the-last, will expire on September 3, 1965.

The accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration. 10 Two more pleadings were filed, 11 after which, the trial court finally denied said motion for reconsideration for lack of merit, 12 and reset the arraignment of the accused on February 24, 1966 at 8:30 A.M.

The accused thus filed with this Court this petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition, 13 with the following prayer:

(a) Forthwith issue, upon filing by petitioner of a bond in such amount as this Honorable Court may fix, a Writ of Preliminary Injunction restraining, enjoining and prohibiting respondents from further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 80006 of the Court of First instance of Manila, Branch III, daring the pendency of this Action:

(b) After due hearing, to render judgment in favor of petitioner and against respondents —

(1) Annulling and setting aside the Orders of the respondent Judge of December 23, 1965 (Annex 'G') denying petitioner's motion to quash, and of January 20, 1966 (Annex 'K') denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration;

(2) Ordering respondent Judge to dismiss Criminal Case No. 80006 aforesaid; and

(3) Making the writ of preliminary injunction hereafter La be issued permanent and final.

This Court on February 11, 1966, issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the trial Court from further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 80006. 14 Also on the same date, the two cases, G.R. No. L-25265 and G.R. No. L-25644, were consolidated.

1. In G.R. No. L-25265, the appeal, then Solicitor General Arturo Alafriz filed a four-page brief dated December 21, 1965 15 wherein he recommended affirmance of the order of 'Judge De Veyra quashing the information, and the dismissal of the appeal, for the simple reason that "the order appealed from is in accordance with law." Accused, now appellee Ramos, filed a brief dated January 21, 1966 16 reiterating her previous allegations in the lower court.

The Phoenix Publishing House, Inc., the offended party, filed a motion to intervene in this appeal, on the following grounds:

a) That the Solicitor General, instead of prosecuting the appeal, recommended its dismissal

b) That, to protect its interest, it is necessary that the movant be allowed to intervene and to submit memorandum to sustain its view that the criminal action against the accused had not yet prescribed. 17

Over the opposition of the accused-appellee, this Court granted the same. 18 Accordingly, the Phoenix Publishing House, Inc. filed its Memorandum 19 wherein it alleged that the trial court erred

I. IN ACTING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO QUASH WITHOUT REQUIRING THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE PLEA OF PRESCRIPTION.

II. IN NOT APPLYING TO THIS CASE THE FOUR-YEAR PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD PROVIDED FOR IN ACT NO. 3326.

III. IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION PROCEEDINGS IN THE MANILA CITY FISCAL'S OFFICE AND IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE INTERRUPTED PRESCRIPTION.

IV. IN NOT CONSIDERING FEBRUARY 28 AND 29, 1964, AS ONE DAY FOR PURPOSES OF PRESCRIPTION.

Accused-appellee, Ramos, filed a Reply Memorandum 20 refuting intervenor's assignment of errors. Subsequent pleadings 21 focused on whether February 28, and 29 of a leap year should be counted as one day or separate days in computing the period of prescription.

2. In G.R. No. L-25644-the special civil action — the issues raised in the foregoing assignment of errors were relied upon in respondent People's Answer. 22 And, following respondent Judge Ramos' reasoning, it was contended that the period of prescription should start from September 4, 1963, and not September 3, 1963, as originally proposed by the prosecution. Furthermore, as an affirmative defense, it was alleged that the petitioner has no cause of action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus since Judge Ramos did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in refusing to quash the information. Respondent contended that the "(P)etitioner's remedy is to appeal the judgment of conviction rendered after a trial on the merits. " This allegation was opposed by petitioner Ramos; 23 she insisted that she had a cause of action for certiorari prohibition and mandamus. Respondent People filed a Reply Memorandum 24 disputing petitioner's allegations.

We are, thus, faced with conflicting orders of two different Branches of the Court of First Instance of Manila-one holding that the crime has prescribed, the other that it has not.

1. Now to resolve the preliminary issues:

a. On the propriety of the special civil action for certiorari and prohibition.

We find for petitioner. As We had occasion to hold in Quizon vs. Baltazar, 76 SCRA 559:

As to the contention of respondents that the denial of a motion to quash is not a ground for certiorari and prohibition, suffice it to state that to allow an accused to undergo the ordeals of trial and conviction when the information or complaint against him is patently defective or the offense charged therein has been indisputably shown to have already prescribed is unfair and unjust for which reason, procedurally, the ordinary remedy of appeal cannot be plain and adequate.

As to mandamus, We are incline to agree with respondent's allegation that "petitioner has no cause of action for mandamus which is a writ intended to control the exercise of a purely ministerial function. To quash an information is not a ministerial function," 25 However, mandamus as a remedy is a superfluity here, considering that petitioner can obtain full relief thru certiorari and prohibition.

b. On the applicability of the four-year prescriptive period provided in Act No. 3326. 26

The same is not applicable. Said Act provides:

Section 1. Violations penalized by special acts shall unless otherwise provided in such acts, prescribe in accordance with the following rules: (a)........... (b) after four years for those punished by imprisonment for more than one month, but less than two years; ... (Emphasis supplied.)

Act No. 3326 applies only if the special act does not provide for its own prescriptive period. It has no application here, where the Copyright Law provides for its own prescriptive period, viz:

Section 24. All actions, suits, or proceedings arising under this Act shall be originally cognizable by the Courts of First Instance of the Philippines and shall prescribe after two years from the time the cause of action arose.

2. Now on the main issue of prescription. The question to be resolved is the proper computation of the two-year period of prescription from September 3, 1963. Resolution of this issue hinges, in turn, on whether February 28, and 29 of a leap year, 1964, should be counted as one day, as proposed by the prosecution; or as separate days, as alleged by the defense.

This issue which was in 1965 still undetermined is now a settled matter. It was held in 1969 in Namarco vs. Tuazon 27 that February 28 and 29 of a leap year should be counted as separate days in computing periods of prescription. Thus, this Court, speaking thru former Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, held that where the prescriptive period was supposed to commence on December 21, 1955, the filing of the action on December 21, 1965, was done after the ten-year period has lapsed — since 1960 and 1964 were both leap years and the case was thus filed two (2) days too late. Since this case was filed on September 3, 1965, it was filed one day too late; considering that the 730th day fell on September 2, 1965 — the year 1964 being a leap year.

In explaining the rationale for its holding, the Court took pains to trace the antecedent decisional and statutory bases for its conclusion, thus —

Prior to the approval of the Civil Code of Spain, the Supreme Court thereof held, on March 30, 1887, that, when the law spoke of months, it meant a 'natural' month or 'solar' month, in the absence of express provision to the contrary. Such provision was incorporated into the Civil Code of Spain, subsequently promulgated. Hence, the same Supreme Court declared that, pursuant to Article 7 of said Code, 'whenever months are referred to in the law. it shall be understood that months are of 30 days,' not the 'natural', 'solar' or 'calendar' months, unless they are 'designated by name,' in which case, 'they shall be computed by the actual number of days they have.' This concept was, later, modified in the Philippines, by Section 13 of the Revised Administrative Code, pursuant to which 'month shall be understood to refer to a calendar month.' With the approval of the Civil Code of the Philippines (RA 386) we have reverted to the provisions of the Spanish Civil Code in accordance with which a month is to be considered as the regular 30-month and not the solar or civil month with the particularity that, whereas the Spanish Civil Code merely mentioned 'months, days or nights,' ours has added thereto the term 'years' and explicitly ordains in Article 13 that it shall be understood that years are of three hundred sixty-five days. 28

With respect to the opinion of some members of the Court that Article 13 of the Civil Code is unrealistic, the Court adverted to the proper remedy thus —

Although some justices of the Supreme Court are inclined to think that Article 13 of the Civil Code defining 'years' to mean 365 days is not realistic, the remedy is not judicial legislation. If public interest demands a reversion to the policy embodied in the Revised Administrative Code, this may be done through legislative process, not by judicial decree. 29

Finally, there is no merit in the allegation that the reckoning of the prescriptive period should start from September 4, 1963. This was the date when the police authorities discovered several pirated books in accused's store. But the accused was charged, in both Criminal Cases Nos. 80006 and 80007, with having allegedly sold and distributed spurious and pirated copies of the textbook in question, not of illegal possession of the same. The prosecution's claim that the preliminary investigation proceedings in the Manila City Fiscal's Office and in the prosecution Division of the Department of Justice interrupted the running of the prescriptive period, is also without merit. We held in People vs. Tayco 30 that the running of the period of prescription is interrupted not by the act of the offended party in reporting the offense to the final but the filing of the complaint or information in court.

WHEREFORE, the order dated October 7, 1965 of the Court of First Instance of Manila Branch XIV in Criminal Case No. 80007 dismissing the case on the ground of prescription, is AFFIRMED. The order dated December 23, 1965 of the same court, Branch III, in Criminal Case No. 80006, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the case is DISMISSED, on the ground that the crime charged therein had already prescribed. Without pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, Acting (Chairman), Antonio, Concepcion, Jr. and Guerrero, JJ., concur,

Fernando, J. and Aquino, JJ., took no part.

Guerrero, J., was designated to sit in the Second Division.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-11937            April 1, 1918

PEDRO SERRANO LAKTAW, plaintiff-appellant, vs.MAMERTO PAGLINAWAN, defendant-appellee.

Perfecto Gabriel for appellant. Felix Ferrer and Crossfield and O'Brien for appellee.

ARAULLO, J.:

In the complaint presented in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila on February 20, 1915, it was alleged: (1) That the plaintiff was, according to the laws regulating literary properties, the registered owner and author of a literary work entitled Diccionario Hispano-Tagalog (Spanish-Tagalog Dictionary) published in the City of Manila in 1889 by the printing establishment La Opinion, and a copy of which was attached to the complaint, as Exhibit A; (2) that the defendant, without the consent of the plaintiff, reproduced said literary work, improperly copied the greater part thereof in the work published by him and entitledDiccionariong Kastila-Tagalog (Spanish-Tagalog Dictionary), a copy of which was also attached to the complaint as Exhibit B; (3) that said act of the defendant, which is a violation of article 7 of the Law of January 10, 1879, on Intellectual Property, caused irreparable injuries to the plaintiff, who was surprised when, on publishing his new work entitled Diccionario Tagalog-Hispano (Tagalog-Spanish Dictionary) he learned of the fact, and (4) that the damages occasioned to the plaintiff by the publication of defendant's work amounted to $10,000. The plaintiff therefore prayed the court to order the defendant to withdraw from sale all stock of the work herein identified as Exhibit B and to pay the plaintiff the sum of $10,000, with costs.

The defendant in his answer denied generally each and every allegation of the complaint and prayed the court to absolve him from the complaint. After trial and the introduction of evidence by both parties, the court on August 20, 1915, rendered judgment, absolving the defendant from the complaint, but without making any special pronouncement as to costs. The plaintiff moved for a new trial on the ground that the judgment was against the law and the weight of the evidence. Said motion having been overruled, plaintiff excepted to the order overruling it, and appealed the case to the Supreme Court upon a bill of exceptions.

The ground of the decision appealed from is that a comparison of the plaintiff's dictionary with that of the defendant does not show that the latter is an improper copy of the former, which has been published and offered for sale by the plaintiff for about twenty-five years or more. For this reason the court held that the plaintiff had no right of action and that the remedy sought by him could not be granted.

The appellant contends that court below erred in not declaring that the defendant had reproduced the plaintiff's work and that the defendant had violated article 7 of the Law of January 10, 1879, on Intellectual Property.

Said article provides:

Nobody may reproduce another person's work without the owner's consent, even merely to annotate or add anything to it, or improve any edition thereof.

Therefore, in order that said article may be violated, it is not necessary, as the court below seems to have understood, that a work should be an improper copy of another work previously published. It is enough that another's work has been reproduced without the consent of the owner, even though it be only to annotate, add something to it, or improve any edition thereof.

Upon making a careful and minute comparison of Exhibit A, the dictionary written and published by the plaintiff, and Exhibit B, written and published by the defendant, and, taking into account the memorandum (fols. 55 to 59) presented by the defendant, in which he enumerates the words and terms which, according to him, are in his dictionary but not in that of that of the plaintiff, and viceversa, and the equivalents or definitions given by the plaintiff, as well as the new Tagalog words which are in the dictionary of the defendant but not in that of the plaintiff; and considering the notes, Exhibit C, first series, presented by the plaintiff, in which the terms copied by the defendant from the plaintiff's dictionary are enumerated in detail and in relation to each letter of the alphabet and which the plaintiff's own words and terms are set forth, with a summary, at the foot of each group of letters, which shows the number of initial Spanish words contained in the defendant's dictionary, the words that are his own and the fact that the remaining ones are truly copied from the plaintiff's dictionary — considering all of these facts, we come to a conclusion completely different and contrary to that of the trial court, for said evidence clearly shows:

1. That, of the Spanish words in the defendant's dictionary, Exhibit B, which correspond to each letter of the alphabet, those that are enumerated below have been copied and reproduced from the plaintiff's dictionary, with the exception of those that are stated to be defendant's own.

Letter Words Defendant's own

"A" 1,184 231

"B" 364 28

"C" 660 261

"CH" 76 10

"D" 874 231

"E" 880 301

"F" 383 152

"G" 302 111

"H" 57 64

"I" 814 328

"J" 113 25

"K" 11 11

"L" 502 94

"LL" 36 2

"M" 994 225

"N" 259 53

"Ñ" 6 2

"O" 317 67

"P" 803 358

"Q" 84 11

"R" 847 140

"S" 746 118

"T" 591 147

"U" 107 15

"V" 342 96

"X" 6 6

"Y" 24 4

"Z" 73 17

  ______ _____

  23,560 3,108

Therefore, of the 23,560 Spanish words in the defendant's dictionary, after deducting 17 words corresponding to the letters K and X (for the plaintiff has no words corresponding to them), only 3,108 words are the defendant's own, or, what is the same thing, the defendant has added only this number of words to those that are in the plaintiff's dictionary, he having reproduced or copied the remaining 20,452 words.

2. That the defendant also literally reproduced and copied for the Spanish words in his dictionary, the equivalents, definitions and different meanings in Tagalog, given in plaintiff's dictionary, having reproduced, as to some words, everything that appears in the plaintiff's dictionary for similar Spanish words, although as to some he made some additions of his own. Said copies and reproductions are numerous as may be seen, by comparing both dictionaries and using as a guide or index the defendant's memorandum and notes, first series, Exhibit C, in which, as to each word, the similarities and differences between them are set forth in detail.

3. That the printer's errors in the plaintiff's dictionary as to the expression of some words in Spanish as well as their equivalents in Tagalog are also reproduced, a fact which shows that the defendant, in preparing his dictionary, literally copied those Spanish words and their meanings and equivalents in Tagalog from the plaintiff's dictionary.

The trial court has chosen at random, as is stated in the judgment appealed from, some words from said dictionaries in making the comparison on which its conclusion is based, and consequently the conclusion reached by it must be inaccurate and not well founded, because said comparison was not complete.

In said judgment some words of the defendant's dictionary are transcribed, the equivalents and meanings of which in Tagalog are exactly the same as those that are given in the plaintiff's dictionary, with the exception, as to some of them, of only one acceptation, which is the defendant's own production. And with respect to the examples used by the defendant in his dictionary, which, according to the judgment, are not copied from the plaintiff's — the judgment referring to the preposition a (to), in Tagalog sa — it must be noted that the defendant, in giving in his dictionary an example of said preposition, uses the expression "voy a Tayabas" (I am going to Tayabas) instead of "voy a Bulacan" (I am going to Bulacan), as the plaintiff does in his dictionary, or what is the same thing, that one speaks of Bulacan while the other speaks of Tayabas. This does not show that there was no reproduction or copying by the defendant of the plaintiffs work, but just the opposite, for he who intends to imitate the work of another, tries to make it appear in some manner that there is some difference between the original and the imitation; and in the example referred to, with respect to the preposition a (to), that dissimilarity as to the province designated seems to effect the same purpose.

In the judgment appealed from, the court gives one to understand that the reproduction of another's dictionary without the owner's consent does not constitute a violation of the Law of Intellectual Property for the court's idea of a dictionary is stated in the decision itself, as follows:

Dictionaries have to be made with the aid of others, and they are improved by the increase of words. What may be said of a pasture ground may be said also of a dictionary, i. e., that it should be common property for all who may desire to write a new dictionary, and the defendant has come to this pasture ground and taken whatever he needed from it in the exercise of a perfect right.

Such idea is very erroneous, especially in relation to the Law of Intellectual Property. Danvilla y Collado the author of the Law of January 10, 1879, on Intellectual Property, which was discussed and approved in the Spanish Cortes, in his work entitled La Propiedad Intelectual (page 362, 1st ed.) states with respect to dictionaries and in relation to article 7 of said law:

The protection of the law cannot be denied to the author of a dictionary, for although words are not the property of anybody, their definitions, the example that explain their sense, and the manner of expressing their different meanings, may constitute a special work. On this point, the correctional court of the Seine held, on August 16, 1864, that a dictionary constitutes property, although some of the words therein are explained by mere definitions expressed in a few lines and sanctioned by usage, provided that the greater part of the other words contain new meanings; new meanings which evidently may only belonged to the first person who published them.

Therefore, the plaintiff, Pedro Serrano, cannot be denied the legal protection which he seeks, and which is based on the fact that the dictionary published by him in 1889 is his property — said property right being recognized and having been granted by article 7, in connection with article 2, of

said law — and on the further fact that said work was reproduced by the defendant without his permission.

This law was published in the Gaceta de Madrid on January 12, 1879. It took effect in these Islands six months after its promulgation or publication, as provided in article 56 thereof. The body of rules for the execution of said law having been approved by royal decree of September 3, 1880, and published in the Gaceta de Madrid on September 6, 1880 and extended to the Philippine Islands by royal decree of May 5, 1887, it was in turn published in the Gaceta de Manila, with the approval of the Governor-General of the Islands, on June 15, 1887. Said law of January 10, 1879, and the rules for its application, were therefore in force in these Islands when the plaintiff's dictionary was edited and published in 1889.

It appears from the evidence that although the plaintiff did not introduce at the trial the certificate of registration of his property rights to said work which, according to said rules, was kept in the Central Government of these Islands, and was issued to him in 1890, the same having been lost during the revolution against Spain, and no trace relative to the issuance of said certificate being obtainable in the Division of Archives of the Executive Bureau on account of the loss of the corresponding records, yet as in the first page of said dictionary the property right of the plaintiff was reserved by means of the words "Es propiedad del autor" (All rights reserved), taken in connection with the permission granted him by the Governor-General on November 24, 1889, to print and publish said dictionary, after an examination thereof by the permanent committee of censors, which examination was made, and the necessary license granted to him, these facts constitute sufficient proof, under the circumstances of the case, as they have not been overcome by any evidence on the part of the defendant, showing that said plaintiff did not comply with the requirements of article 36 of said law, which was the prerequisite to the enjoyment of the benefits thereof according to the preceding articles, among which is article 7, which is alleged in the complaint to have been violated by the defendant.

Even considering that said Law of January 10, 1879, ceased to operate in these Islands, upon the termination of Spanish sovereignty and the substitution thereof by that of the United States of America, the right of the plaintiff to invoke said law in support of the action instituted by him in the present case cannot be disputed. His property right to the work Diccionario Hispano-Tagalog (Spanish-Tagalog Dictionary), published by him and edited in 1889, is recognized and sanctioned by said law, and by virtue thereof, he had acquired a right of which he cannot be deprived merely because the law is not in force now or is of no actual application. This conclusion is necessary to protect intellectual property rights vested after the sovereignty of Spain was superseded by that of the United States. It was so held superseded by that of the United States. It was so held in the Treaty of Paris of December 10, 1898, between Spain and the United States, when it declared in article 13 thereof that the rights to literary, artistic, and industrial properties acquired by the subject of Spain in the Island of Cuba and in Puerto Rico and the Philippines and other ceded territories, at the time of the exchange of the ratification of said Treaty, shall continue to be respect.

In addition to what has been said, according to article 428 of the Civil Code, the author of a literary, scientific, or artistic work, has the right to exploit it and dispose thereof at will. In relation to this right, there exists the exclusive right of the author, who is the absolute owner of his own work, to produce it, according to article 2 of the Law of January 10, 1879, and consequently, nobody may reproduce it, without his permission, not even to annotate or add something to it, or to improve any edition thereof, according to article 7 of said law. Manresa, in his commentaries on article 429 of the Civil Code (vol. 3, p. 633, 3d ed.) says that the concrete statement of the right to literary properties is found in the legal doctrine according to which nobody may reproduce another person's work, without

the consent of his owner, or even to annotate or add something to it or to improve any edition thereof. And on page 616 of said volume, Manresa says the following:

He who writes a book, or carves a statue, or makes an invention, has the absolute right to reproduce or sell it, just as the owner of land has the absolute right to sell it or its fruits. But while the owner of land, by selling it and its fruits, perhaps fully realizes all its economic value, by receiving its benefits and utilities, which are presented, for example, by the price, on the other hand the author of a book, statue or invention, does not reap all the benefits and advantages of his own property by disposing of it, for the most important form of realizing the economic advantages of a book, statue or invention, consists in the right to reproduce it in similar or like copies, everyone of which serves to give to the person reproducing them all the conditions which the original requires in order to give the author the full enjoyment thereof. If the author of a book, after its publication, cannot prevent its reproduction by any person who may want to reproduce it, then the property right granted him is reduced to a very insignificant thing and the effort made in the production of the book is no way rewarded.

Indeed the property right recognized and protected by the Law of January 10, 1879, on Intellectual Property, would be illusory if, by reason of the fact that said law is no longer in force as a consequence of the change of sovereignty in these Islands, the author of a work, who has the exclusive right to reproduce it, could not prevent another person from so doing without his consent, and could not enforce this right through the courts of justice in order to prosecute the violator of this legal provision and the defrauder or usurper of his right, for he could not obtain the full enjoyment of the book or other work, and his property right thereto, which is recognized by law, would be reduced, as Manresa says, to an insignificant thing, if he should have no more right than that of selling his work.

The reproduction by the defendant without the plaintiff's consent of the Diccionario Hispano-Tagalog(Spanish-Tagalog Dictionary), published and edited in the City of Manila in 1889, by the publication of the Diccionariong Kastila-Tagalog (Spanish-Tagalog Dictionary), published in the same city and edited in the press El Progreso in 1913, as appears from Exhibit B, which is attached to the complaint, has caused the plaintiff, according to the latter, damages in the sum of $10,000. It is true that it cannot be denied that the reproduction of the plaintiff's book by the defendant has caused damages to the former, but the amount thereof has not been determined at the trial, for the statement of the plaintiff as to the proceeds he would have realized if he had printed in 1913 the number of copies of his work which he stated in his declaration — a fact which he did not do because the defendant had reproduced it — was not corroborated in any way at the trial and is based upon mere calculations made by the plaintiff himself; for which reason no pronouncement can be made in this decision as to the indemnification for damages which the plaintiff seeks to recover.

The plaintiff having prayed, not for a permanent injunction against the defendant, as the plaintiff himself in his brief erroneously states, but for a judgment ordering the defendant to withdraw from sale all stock of his work Diccionariong Kastila-Tagalog (Spanish-Tagalog Dictionary), of which Exhibit B is a copy, and the suit instituted by said plaintiff being proper, we reverse the judgment appealed from and order the defendant to withdraw from sale, as prayed for in the complaint, all stock of his work above-mentioned, and to pay the costs of first instance. We make no special pronouncement as to the costs of this instance. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, and Street, JJ., concur. Carson, and Malcolm, JJ., concur in the result.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

 

G.R. No. 131522 July 19, 1999

PACITA I. HABANA, ALICIA L. CINCO and JOVITA N. FERNANDO, petitioners, vs.FELICIDAD C. ROBLES and GOODWILL TRADING CO., INC., respondents.

 

PARDO, J.:

The case before us is a petition for review on certiorari 1 to set aside the (a) decision or the Court of Appeals 2, and (b) the resolution denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration, 3 in which the appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the complaint for infringement and/or unfair competition and damages but deleted the award for attorney's fees. 1âwphi1.nêt

The facts are as follows:

Petitioners are authors and copyright owners of duly issued certificates of copyright registration covering their published works, produced through their combined resources and efforts, entitled COLLEGE ENGLISH FOR TODAY (CET for brevity), Books 1 and 2, and WORKBOOK FOR COLLEGE FRESHMAN ENGLISH, Series 1.

Respondent Felicidad Robles and Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. are the author/publisher and distributor/seller of another published work entitled "DEVELOPING ENGLISH PROFICIENCY" (DEP for brevity), Books 1 and 2 (1985 edition) which book was covered by copyrights issued to them.

In the course of revising their published works, petitioners scouted and looked around various bookstores to check on other textbooks dealing with the same subject matter. By chance they came upon the book of respondent Robles and upon perusal of said book they were surprised to see that the book was strikingly similar to the contents, scheme of presentation, illustrations and illustrative examples in their own book, CET.

After an itemized examination and comparison of the two books (CET and DEP), petitioners found that several pages of the respondent's book are similar, if not all together a copy of petitioners' book, which is a case of plagiarism and copyright infringement.

Petitioners then made demands for damages against respondents and also demanded that they cease and desist from further selling and distributing to the general public the infringed copies of respondent Robles' works.

However, respondents ignored the demands, hence, on July 7, 1988; petitioners filed with the Regional Trial Court, Makati, a complaint for "Infringement and/or unfair competition with damages" 4 against private respondents. 5

In the complaint, petitioners alleged that in 1985, respondent Felicidad C. Robles being substantially familiar with the contents of petitioners' works, and without securing their permission, lifted, copied, plagiarized and/or transposed certain portions of their book CET. The textual contents and illustrations of CET were literally reproduced in the book DEP. The plagiarism, incorporation and reproduction of particular portions of the book CET in the book DEP, without the authority or consent of petitioners, and the misrepresentations of respondent Robles that the same was her original work and concept adversely affected and substantially diminished the sale of the petitioners' book and caused them actual damages by way of unrealized income.

Despite the demands of the petitioners for respondents to desist from committing further acts of infringement and for respondent to recall DEP from the market, respondents refused. Petitioners asked the court to order the submission of all copies of the book DEP, together with the molds, plates and films and other materials used in its printing destroyed, and for respondents to render an accounting of the proceeds of all sales and profits since the time of its publication and sale.

Respondent Robles was impleaded in the suit because she authored and directly committed the acts of infringement complained of, while respondent Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. was impleaded as the publisher and joint co-owner of the copyright certificates of registration covering the two books authored and caused to be published by respondent Robles with obvious connivance with one another.

On July 27, 1988, respondent Robles filed a motion for a bill of particulars 6 which the trial court approved on August 17, 1988. Petitioners complied with the desired particularization, and furnished respondent Robles the specific portions, inclusive of pages and lines, of the published and copyrighted books of the petitioners which were transposed, lifted, copied and plagiarized and/or otherwise found their way into respondent's book.

On August 1, 1988, respondent Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. filed its answer to the complaint  7 and alleged that petitioners had no cause of action against Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. since it was not privy to the misrepresentation, plagiarism, incorporation and reproduction of the portions of the book of petitioners; that there was an agreement between Goodwill and the respondent Robles that Robles guaranteed Goodwill that the materials utilized in the manuscript were her own or that she had secured the necessary permission from contributors and sources; that the author assumed sole responsibility and held the publisher without any liability.

On November 28, 1988, respondent Robles filed her answer 8, and denied the allegations of plagiarism and copying that petitioners claimed. Respondent stressed that (1) the book DEP is the product of her independent researches, studies and experiences, and was not a copy of any existing valid copyrighted book; (2) DEP followed the scope and sequence or syllabus which are common to all English grammar writers as recommended by the Association of Philippine Colleges of Arts and Sciences (APCAS), so any similarity between the respondents book and that of the petitioners was due to the orientation of the authors to both works and standards and syllabus; and (3) the similarities may be due to the authors' exercise of the "right to fair use of copyrigthed materials, as guides."

Respondent interposed a counterclaim for damages on the ground that bad faith and malice attended the filing of the complaint, because petitioner Habana was professionally jealous and the book DEP replaced CET as the official textbook of the graduate studies department of the Far Eastern University. 9

During the pre-trial conference, the parties agreed to a stipulation offacts 10 and for the trial court to first resolve the issue of infringement before disposing of the claim for damages.

After the trial on the merits, on April 23, 1993, the trial court rendered its judgment finding thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court hereby orders that the complaint filed against defendants Felicidad Robles and Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. shall be DISMISSED; that said plaintiffs solidarily reimburse defendant Robles for P20,000.00 attorney's fees and defendant Goodwill for P5,000.00 attorney's fees. Plaintiffs are liable for cost of suit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Done in the City of Manila this 23rd day of April, 1993.

(s/t) MARVIE R. ABRAHAM SINGSON

Assisting Judge

S. C. Adm. Order No. 124-92 11

On May 14, 1993, petitioners filed their notice of appeal with the trial court 12, and on July 19, 1993, the court directed its branch clerk of court to forward all the records of the case to the Court of Appeals. 13

In the appeal, petitioners argued that the trial court completely disregarded their evidence and fully subscribed to the arguments of respondent Robles that the books in issue were purely the product of her researches and studies and that the copied portions were inspired by foreign authors and as such not subject to copyright. Petitioners also assailed the findings of the trial court that they were animated by bad faith in instituting the complaint. 14

On June 27, 1997, the Court of Appeals rendered judgment in favor of respondents Robles and Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. The relevant portions of the decision state:

It must be noted, however, that similarity of the allegedly infringed work to the author's or proprietor's copyrighted work does not of itself establish copyright infringement, especially if the similarity results from the fact that both works deal with the same subject or have the same common source, as in this case.

Appellee Robles has fully explained that the portion or material of the book claimed by appellants to have been copied or lifted from foreign books. She has duly proven that most of the topics or materials contained in her book, with particular reference to those matters claimed by appellants to have been plagiarized were topics or matters appearing not only in appellants and her books but also in earlier books on College English, including foreign books, e.i. Edmund Burke's "Speech on Conciliation", Boerigs' "Competence in English" and Broughton's, "Edmund Burke's Collection."

xxx xxx xxx

Appellant's reliance on the last paragraph on Section II is misplaced. It must be emphasized that they failed to prove that their books were made sources by appellee. 15

The Court of Appeals was of the view that the award of attorneys' fees was not proper, since there was no bad faith on the part of petitioners Habana et al. in instituting the action against respondents.

On July 12, 1997, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, 16 however, the Court of Appeals denied the same in a Resolution 17 dated November 25, 1997.

Hence, this petition.

In this appeal, petitioners submit that the appellate court erred in affirming the trial court's decision.

Petitioners raised the following issues: (1) whether or not, despite the apparent textual, thematic and sequential similarity between DEP and CET, respondents committed no copyright infringement; (2) whether or not there was animus furandi on the part of respondent when they refused to withdraw the copies of CET from the market despite notice to withdraw the same; and (3) whether or not respondent Robles abused a writer's right to fair use, in violation of Section 11 of Presidential Decree No. 49. 18

We find the petition impressed with merit.

The complaint for copyright infringement was filed at the time that Presidential Decree No. 49 was in force. At present, all laws dealing with the protection of intellectual property rights have been consolidated and as the law now stands, the protection of copyrights is governed by Republic Act No. 8293. Notwithstanding the change in the law, the same principles are reiterated in the new law under Section 177. It provides for the copy or economic rights of an owner of a copyright as follows:

Sec. 177. Copy or Economic rights. — 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:

177.1 Reproduction of the work or substanlial portion of the work;

177.2 Dramatization, translation, adaptation, abridgement, arrangement or other transformation of the work;

177.3 The first public distribution of the original and each copy of the work by sale or other forms of transfer of ownership;

177.4 Rental of the original or a copy of an audiovisual or cinematographic work, a work embodied in a sound recording, a computer program, a compilation of data and other materials or a musical work in graphic form, irrespective of the ownership of the original or the copy which is the subject of the rental; (n)

177.5 Public display of the original or copy of the work;

177.6 Public performance of the work; and

177.7 Other communication to the public of the work 19

The law also provided for the limitations on copyright, thus:

Sec. 184.1 Limitations on copyright. — Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter V, the following acts shall not constitute infringement of copyright:

(a) the recitation or performance of a work, once it has been lawfully made accessible to the public, if done privately and free of charge or if made strictly for a charitable or religious institution or society; [Sec. 10(1), P.D. No. 49]

(b) The making of quotations from a published work if they are compatible with fair use and only to the extent justified for the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries; Provided, that the source and the name of the author, if appearing on the work are mentioned; (Sec. 11 third par. P.D. 49)

xxx xxx xxx

(e) The inclusion of a work in a publication, broadcast, or other communication to the public, sound recording of film, if such inclusion is made by way of illustration for teaching purposes and is compatible with fair use: Provided, That the source and the name of the author, if appearing in the work is mentioned;20

In the above quoted provisions, "work" has reference to literary and artistic creations and this includes books and other literary, scholarly and scientific works. 21

A perusal of the records yields several pages of the book DEP that are similar if not identical with the text of CET.

On page 404 of petitioners' Book 1 of College English for Today, the authors wrote:

Items in dates and addresses:

He died on Monday, April 15, 1975.

Miss Reyes lives in 214 Taft Avenue,

Manila 22

On page 73 of respondents Book 1 Developing English Today, they wrote:

He died on Monday, April 25, 1975.

Miss Reyes address is 214 Taft Avenue Manila 23

On Page 250 of CET, there is this example on parallelism or repetition of sentence structures, thus:

The proposition is peace. Not peace through the medium of war; not peace to be hunted through the labyrinth of intricate and endless negotiations; not peace to arise out of universal discord, fomented from principle, in all parts of the empire; not peace

to depend on the juridical determination of perplexing questions, or the precise marking of the boundary of a complex government. It is simple peace; sought in its natural course, and in its ordinary haunts. It is peace sought in the spirit of peace, and laid in principles purely pacific.

— Edmund Burke, "Speech on Criticism." 24

On page 100 of the book DEP 25, also in the topic of parallel structure and repetition, the same example is found in toto. The only difference is that petitioners acknowledged the author Edmund Burke, and respondents did not.

In several other pages 26 the treatment and manner of presentation of the topics of DEP are similar if not a rehash of that contained in CET.

We believe that respondent Robles' act of lifting from the book of petitioners substantial portions of discussions and examples, and her failure to acknowledge the same in her book is an infringement of petitioners' copyrights.

When is there a substantial reproduction of a book? It does not necessarily require that the entire copyrighted work, or even a large portion of it, be copied. If so much is taken that the value of the original work is substantially diminished, there is an infringement of copyright and to an injurious extent, the work is appropriated. 27

In determining the question of infringement, the amount of matter copied from the copyrighted work is an important consideration. To constitute infringement, it is not necessary that the whole or even a large portion of the work shall have been copied. If so much is taken that the value of the original is sensibly diminished, or the labors of the original author are substantially and to an injurious extent appropriated by another, that is sufficient in point of law to constitute piracy. 28

The essence of intellectual piracy should be essayed in conceptual terms in order to underscore its gravity by an appropriate understanding thereof. Infringement of a copyright is a trespass on a private domain owned and occupied by the owner of the copyright, and, therefore, protected by law, and infringement of copyright, or piracy, which is a synonymous term in this connection, consists in the doing by any person, without the consent of the owner of the copyright, of anything the sole right to do which is conferred by statute on the owner of the copyright. 29

The respondents' claim that the copied portions of the book CET are also found in foreign books and other grammar books, and that the similarity between her style and that of petitioners can not be avoided since they come from the same background and orientation may be true. However, in this jurisdiction under Sec 184 of Republic Act 8293 it is provided that:

Limitations on Copyright. Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter V, the following shall not constitute infringement of copyright:

xxx xxx xxx

(c) The making of quotations from a published work if they are compatible with fair use and only to the extent justified for the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries: Provided, That the source and the name of the author, if appearing on the work, are mentioned.

A copy of a piracy is an infringement of the original, and it is no defense that the pirate, in such cases, did not know whether or not he was infringing any copyright; he at least knew that what he was copying was not his, and he copied at his peril. 30

The next question to resolve is to what extent can copying be injurious to the author of the book being copied. Is it enough that there are similarities in some sections of the books or large segments of the books are the same?

In the case at bar, there is no question that petitioners presented several pages of the books CET and DEP that more or less had the same contents. It may be correct that the books being grammar books may contain materials similar as to some technical contents with other grammar books, such as the segment about the "Author Card". However, the numerous pages that the petitioners presented showing similarity in the style and the manner the books were presented and the identical examples can not pass as similarities merely because of technical consideration.

The respondents claim that their similarity in style can be attributed to the fact that both of them were exposed to the APCAS syllabus and their respective academic experience, teaching approach and methodology are almost identical because they were of the same background.

However, we believe that even if petitioners and respondent Robles were of the same background in terms of teaching experience and orientation, it is not an excuse for them to be identical even in examples contained in their books. The similarities in examples and material contents are so obviously present in this case. How can similar/identical examples not be considered as a mark of copying?

We consider as an indicia of guilt or wrongdoing the act of respondent Robles of pulling out from Goodwill bookstores the book DEP upon learning of petitioners' complaint while pharisaically denying petitioners' demand. It was further noted that when the book DEP was re-issued as a revised version, all the pages cited by petitioners to contain portion of their book College English for Today were eliminated.

In cases of infringement, copying alone is not what is prohibited. The copying must produce an "injurious effect". Here, the injury consists in that respondent Robles lifted from petitioners' book materials that were the result of the latter's research work and compilation and misrepresented them as her own. She circulated the book DEP for commercial use did not acknowledged petitioners as her source.

Hence, there is a clear case of appropriation of copyrighted work for her benefit that respondent Robles committed. 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. In copyrighting books the purpose is to give protection to the intellectual product of an author. This is precisely what the law on copyright protected, under Section 184.1 (b). Quotations from a published work if they are compatible with fair use and only to the extent justified by the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries are allowed provided that the source and the name of the author, if appearing on the work, are mentioned.

In the case at bar, the least that respondent Robles could have done was to acknowledge petitioners Habana et. al. as the source of the portions of DEP. The final product of an author's toil is her book. To allow another to copy the book without appropriate acknowledgment is injury enough.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. CV No. 44053 are SET ASIDE. The case is ordered remanded to the trial court

for further proceedings to receive evidence of the parties to ascertain the damages caused and sustained by petitioners and to render decision in accordance with the evidence submitted to it.

SO ORDERED.

Kapunan and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

Davide, Jr., C.J., I dissent, please see dissenting opinion.

Melo, J., no part, personal reason.

 

 

 

Separate Opinions

 

DAVIDE, JR., C.J., dissenting opinion:

I am unable to join the majority view.

From the following factual and procedural antecedents, I find no alternative but to sustain both the trial court and the Court of Appeals.

On 12 July 1988, HABANA, et al. filed with the trial court a complaint for infringement and unfair competition, with damages against private respondent Felicidad C. Robles (hereafter ROBLES) and her publisher and distributor, Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. (hereafter GOODWILL). The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 88-1317.

HABANA, et al. averred in their complaint that they were the co-authors and joint copyright owners of their published works College English for Today, Books 1 and 2 (hereafter CET) and Workbook for College Freshman English, Series 1 1; they discovered that ROBLES' own published works, Developing English Proficiency, Books 1 and 2, (hereafter DEP), published and distributed in 1985, exhibited an uncanny resemblance, if not outright physical similarity, to CET as to content, scheme, sequence of topics and ideas, manner of presentation and illustrative examples; the plagiarism, incorporation and reproduction of particular portions of CET into DEP could not be gainsaid since ROBLES was substantially familiar with CET and the textual asportation was accomplished without their authority and/or consent; ROBLES and GOODWILL jointly misrepresented DEP (over which they shared copyright ownership) "as the former's original published works and concept;" and "notwithstanding formal demands made . . . to cease and desist from the sale and distribution of DEP, [ROBLES and GOODWILL] persistently failed and refused to comply therewith." HABANA et al. then prayed for the court to: (1) order the submission and thereafter the destruction of all copies of DEP, together with the molds, plates, films and other materials used in the printing thereof; (2) require ROBLES and GOODWILL to render an accounting of the sales of the "infringing works from the time of its (sic) inceptive publication up to the time of judgment, as well as the amount of sales and profits . . . derived;" and (3) to enjoin ROBLES and GOODWILL to solidarily pay actual, moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees and expenses of litigation.

In its Answer, GOODWILL denied culpability since "it had no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations of plagiarism, incorporation and reproduction" and hence "could not be privy to the same, if (there were) any;" and that in an Agreement with co-defendant ROBLES, the latter would be solely responsible for acts of plagiarism or violations of copyright or any other law, to the extent of answering for any and all damages GOODWILL may suffer. GOODWILL also interposed a compulsory counterclaim against PACITA, et al. and a crossclaim against its co-defendant anchored on the aforementioned Agreement.

In her answer, ROBLES asserted that: (1) DEP was the exclusive product of her independent research, studies and experience; (2) DEP, particularly the segments where the alleged literal similitude appeared, were admittedly influenced or inspired by earlier treatises, mostly by foreign authors; but that "influences and/or inspirations from other writers" like the methodology and techniques as to presentation, teaching concept and design, research and orientation which she employed, fell within the ambit of general information, ideas, principles of general or universal knowledge which were commonly and customarily understood as incapable of private and exclusive use, appropriation or copyright; and (3) her works were the result of the legitimate and reasonable exercise of an author's "right to fair use of even copyrighted materials as [a] guide." She further claimed that her various national and regional professional activities in general education, language and literature, as well as her teaching experience in graduate and post graduate education would obviate the remotest possibility of plagiarism.

ROBLES likewise suggested that any similarity between DEP and CET as regards scope and sequence could be attributed to "the orientation of the authors to the scope and sequence or syllabus — which incorporates standards known among English grammar book writers — of the subject-matter for Basic Communication Arts recommended by the Association of Philippine Colleges of Arts and Sciences (APCAS)." While the syllabus was admittedly adopted in DEP, she claimed to have treated quite differently in DEP the very ideas, techniques or principles expressed in CET such that neither textbook could be considered a copy or plagiarism of the other.

At the pre-trial conference, the parties agreed to a stipulation of facts 2 and for the court to first resolve the issue of infringement before disposing of the claims for damages. After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered its decision in favor of defendants, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby orders that the complaint filed against defendants Felicidad Robles and Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. shall be DISMISSED: that said plaintiffs solidarily reimburse defendant Robles for P20,000.00 attorney's fees and defendant Goodwill for P5,000.00 attorney's fees. Plaintiffs are liable for costs of suit.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 3

Noting that the law applicable to the case was Presidential Decree No. 49, 4 the trial court found that HABANA, et al. failed to discharge their onus of proving that ROBLES and GOODWILL committed acts constituting copyright infringement. Moreover, the trial court found that "the cause of action or acts complained of [were] not covered by said decree" as Section 10 thereof barred authors of works already lawfully made accessible to the public from prohibiting the reproductions, translations, adaptations, recitation and performance of the same, while Section 11 allowed the utilization of reproductions, quotations and excerpts of such works. The trial court thus agreed with ROBLES that "the complained acts [were] of general and universal knowledge and use which plaintiffs cannot claim originality or seek redress to the law for protection" and observed that DEP and CET had the same sources, consisting chiefly of earlier works, mostly foreign books. GOODWILL's crossclaim

against ROBLES, counterclaim against HABANA, et al. as well as ROBLES' compulsory counterclaim against GOODWILL were all dismissed for lack of factual and legal bases.

HABANA, et al. appealed to the Court of Appeals. The case was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 44053. Before said court HABANA, et al., in the main, argued that the trial court totally disregarded their evidence and merely subscribed to ROBLES' arguments. The Court of Appeals, however, likewise disposed of the controversy in favor of ROBLES and GOODWILL. 5

However, the Court of Appeals modified the trial court's decision by reversing the award for attorney's fees. It held that the good faith and sincerity of HABANA, et al. in commencing the action negated the basis therefor. Their motion for reconsideration having been denied for want of cogent reasons, HABANA, et al., instituted this petition. They claim that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in failing to appreciate: (1) the insuperable evidence and facts admitted and proved demonstrating plagiarism or piracy and instead afforded full weight and credit to ROBLES' matrix of general, hypothetical and sweeping statements and/or defenses; (2) ROBLES' and GOODWILL's animo furandi or intent to appropriate or copy CET with the non-removal of the damaging copies of DEP from the bookstores despite notice to withdraw the same; and (3) the fact that ROBLES abused a writer's right to fair use, in violation of Section 11 of P.D. No. 49. 6 They invoke Laktaw v. Paglinawan 7 which, they theorize is on all fours with the case at bar. ROBLES contends that appeal by certiorari does not lie in this case for the challenged decision and the trial court's judgment were amply supported by evidence, pertinent laws and jurisprudence. Hence, her counterclaim for moral damages should, therefore, be granted or for us to order the remand of the case to the trial court for reception of evidence on damages. GOODWILL, on its part, stood pat on its disclaimer, with the assertion that no proof was ever introduced. that it co-authored DEP or that it singly or in cabal with ROBLES committed any act constituting copyright infringement.

The core issue then is whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's judgment that despite the apparent textual, thematic and sequential similarity between DEP and CET, no copyright was committed by ROBLES and GOODWILL.

While the complaint, in Civil Case No. 88-1317 was filed during the effectivity of P.D. No. 49, the provisions of the new intellectual property law, R.A. No. 8293, 8 nevertheless bears significance here. It took effect on 1 January 1998, but its Section 239.3 clearly states that its provisions shall apply to works in which copyright protection obtained prior to the effectivity of the Act subsists, provided, however, that the application of the Act shall not result in the diminution of such protection. Also, the philosophy behind both statutes as well as the essential principles of copyright protection and copyright infringement have, to a certain extent, remained the same.

A copyright may be accurately defined as the right granted by statute to the proprietor of an intellectual production to its exclusive use and enjoyment to the extent specified in the statute. 9 Under Section 177 of R.A. No. 8293, 10 the copy or economic right (copyright and economic right are used interchangeably in the statute) consists of the exclusive right to carry out, authorize or prevent the following acts:

177.1 Reproduction of the work or substantial portion of the work;

177.2 Dramatization, translation, adaptation, abridgment, arrangement or other transformation of the work;

177.3 The first public distribution of the original and each copy of the work by sale or other forms of transfer of ownership;

177.4 Rental of the original or a copy of an audiovisual or cinematographic work, a work embodied in a sound recording, a computer program, a compilation of data and other materials or a musical work in graphic form, irrespective of the ownership of the original or the copy which is the subject of the rental;

177.5 Public display of the original or a copy of the work;

177.6 Public performance of the work; and

177.7 Other communication to the public of the work.

"The work," as repeatedly mentioned, refers to the literary and artistic works defined as original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain protected from the moment of their creation and enumerated in Section 172.1, which includes books and other literary, scholarly, scientific and artistic works. 11

Stripped in the meantime of its indisputable social and beneficial functions, 12 the use of intellectual property or creations should basically promote the creator or author's personal and economic gain. Hence, the copyright protection extended to the creator should ensure his attainment of some form of personal satisfaction and economic reward from the work he produced. Without conceding the suitability of Laktaw as precedent, the Court there quoted Manresa and explained:

He who writes a book, or carves a statute, or makes an invention, has the absolute right to reproduce or sell it, just as the owner of the land has the absolute right to sell it or its fruits. But while the owner of the land, by selling it and its fruits, perhaps fully realizes all its economic value, by receiving its benefits and utilities, which are represented for example, by the price, on the other hand the author of a book, statue or invention does not reap all the benefits and advantages of his own property by disposing of it, for the most important form of realizing the economic advantages of a book, statue or invention, consists in the right to reproduce it in similar or like copies, everyone of which serves to give to the person reproducing them all the conditions which the original requires in order to give the author the full enjoyment thereof. If the author of a book, after its publication, cannot prevent its reproduction by any person who may want to reproduce it, then the property right granted him is reduced to a very insignificant thing and the effort made in the production of the book is in no way rewarded. 13

The execution, therefore, of any one or more of the exclusive rights conferred by law on a copyright owner, without his consent, constitutes copyright infringement. In essence, copyright infringement, known in general as "piracy," is a trespass on a domain owned and occupied by a copyright owner; it is violation of a private right protected by law. 14 With the invasion of his property rights, a copyright owner is naturally entitled to seek redress, enforce and hold accountable the defrauder or usurper of said economic rights.

Now, did ROBLES and GOODWILL infringe upon the copyright of HABANA et al. by publishing DEP, which the latter alleged to be a reproduction, or in the least, a substantial reproduction of CET? Both the trial court and respondent court found in the negative. I submit they were correct.

To constitute infringement, the usurper must have copied or appropriated the "original" work of an author or copyright proprietor; 15 absent copying, there can be no infringement of copyright. 16 In turn, a work is deemed by law an original if the author created it by his own skill, labor and judgment. 17 On its part, a copy is that which comes so near to the original so as to give to every person seeing it the idea created by the original. It has been held that the test of copyright

infringement is whether an ordinary observer comparing the works can readily see that one has been copied from the other. 18 A visual comparison of the portions of CET 19 juxtaposed against certain pages of DEP, 20 would inescapably lead to a conclusion that there is a discernible similarity between the two; however, as correctly assessed by respondent court and the lower court, no conclusion, can be drawn that DEP, in legal contemplation, is a copy of CET.

Was DEP a substantial reproduction of CET? To constitutes a substantial reproduction, it is not necessary that the entire copyrighted work, or even a large portion of it, be copied, if so much is taken that the value of the original is substantially diminished, or if the labors of the original author are substantially, and to an injurious extent, appropriated. 21 But the similarity of the books here does not amount to an appropriation of a substantial portion of CET. If the existence of substantial similarities does not of itself establish infringement, 22 mere similarities (not substantial similarities) in some sections of the books in question decisively militate against a claim for infringement where the similarities had been convincingly established as proceeding from a number of reasons and/or factors.

1. As both books are grammar books, they inevitably deal with the same subjects typically and ordinarily treated by writers of such genre, 23 e.g., system of book classification, the different kinds of card catalogs and their entries, use of punctuation marks, paragraphs, the characteristics of an effective paragraph, language structure, different parts of a book, etc. These standard subjects fall within the domain of ideas, concepts, universal and general knowledge that have, as admitted by the protagonists here, been in existence for quite a long time. 24 As such, HABANA, et al. cannot demand monopoly, by way of example, in the use of the recognized library classification systems (Dewey Decimal System and the Library of Congress System), or how a book can be divided into parts (frontispiece, title page, copyright page, preface, table of contents, etc.) or to the different headings used in a card catalogue (title card, author card and subject card), since these are of common or general knowledge. Even in this jurisdiction, no protection can be extended to such an idea, procedure, system method or operation, concept, principle, discovery or mere data, even if expressed, explained, illustrated or embodied in a work. 25

2. As found by respondent court, CET and DEP had common sources and materials, 26 such that the particular portions claimed to have been lifted and literally reproduced also appeared in earlier works, mostly by foreign authors. This is clear from the testimony of petitioner Dr. Pacita Habana:

Q Let's clarify your position Dra. Habana. When defendants test (sic) showed 10 words similar to yours, you so concluded it was (sic) copied from yours but when I pointed out to you same (sic) words contained in the earlier book of Wills then you earlier in your test in your book (sic) you refused to admit that it was copied from Wills.

A Yes, sir. We have never — all 35 words were copied from there.

Q But what I am asking how could you conclude that by just similarity of 10 words of defendants words that was copied from yours [sic] and when I point out to you the similarity of that same words from the words earlier than yours (sic) you refused to admit that you copied?

A I would like to change the final statement now that in the case of defendant Robles you pointed out her source very clear. She copied it from that book by Wills.

Q So, she did not copy it from yours?

A Alright, maybe she did not copy it but definitely it is a pattern of plagerism [sic]. 27

3. Similarity in orientation and style can likewise be attributed to the exposure of the authors to the APCAS syllabus and their respective academic experience, teaching approaches and methodology. It is not farfetched that they could have even influenced each other as textbook writers. ROBLES and Dr. Pacita Habana were faculty members of the Institute of English of the Far Eastern University from 1964 to 1974. 28Both were ardent students, researchers, lecturers, textbook writers and teachers of English and grammar. They even used to be on friendly terms with each other, to the extent that Dr. Habana admitted that ROBLES assisted the former in the preparation of her doctoral dissertation. Given their near-identical academic and professional background, it is natural they would use many expressions and definitions peculiar to teaching English grammar. It comes therefore with no surprise that there are similarities in some parts of the rival books. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive how writers on the same subject matter can very well avoid resorting to common sources of information and materials and employing similar expressions and terms peculiar to the subject they are treating. 29

To illustrate, an excerpt from page 21 of CET reads:

Author Card

The author card is the main entry card. It contains

1. the author's complete name on the first line, surname first, which may be followed by the date of his birth and death if he is no longer living;

2. the title of the book, and the subtitle, if there is one;

3. the edition, if it is not the first;

4. the translator or illustrator, if there is any;

5. the imprint which includes the publisher, the place and date of publication;

6. the collation composed of the number of pages, volume, illustrations, and the size of the book;

7. the subjects with which the book deals [sic];

8. the call number on the upper left-hand corner.

Names beginning with Mc, or M are filed in the card catalog as though spelled out as MAC, for example Mc Graw — MacGraw. The same is true of St. and Saint.

While a portion of DEP found on page 18 which discusses the author card provides:

The author card is the main entry card containing:

1. the author's complete name on the first line, surname first, which may be followed by the date of his birth and death if he is no longer living;

2. the title of the book, and the subtitle if there is one;

3. the edition, if it is not the first;

4. the translator or illustrator, if any;

5. the imprint which includes the publisher, the place and date of publication;

6. the collation, composed of the number of pages, volume, illustrations, and the size of the book;

7. the subject with which the book deals; and

8. the call number on the upper-left hand corner.

Names beginning with MC, or M are filed in the card catalog considered spelled out as MAC, for example: Mcleod-Macleod. This is true also of St. and Saint.

The entries found in an author card, having been developed over quite sometime, are expectedly uniform. Hence, HABANA et al. and ROBLES would have no choice but to articulate the terms particular to the entries in an identical manner.

I thus find that the ruling of the respondent court is totally supported by the evidence on record. Of doctrinal persuasion is the principle that factual determinations of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are conclusive and binding upon this Court, and the latter will not, as a rule, disturb these findings unless compelling and cogent reasons necessitate a reexamination, if not a reversal, of the same. 30 Tested against this jurisprudential canon, to subject the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals to further scrutiny would be superfluous, if not, improvident.

I am not persuaded by the claim of HABANA, et al. that Laktaw is on all fours with and hence applicable to the case at bar. There, this Court disposed that defendant, without the consent of and causing irreparable damage to Laktaw, reproduced the latter's literary work Diccionario Hisapano-Tagalog, and improperly copied the greater part thereof in the work Diccionariong Kastila-Tagalog published by defendant, in violation of Article 7 of the Law of 10 January 1879 on Intellectual Property. This Court anchored its decision on the following observations:

(1) [O] the 23,560 Spanish words in the defendant'sdictionary . . . only 3,108 words are the defendant's own, or, what is the same thing, the defendant has added only this number of words to those that are in the plaintiff's dictionary, he having reproduced or copied the remaining 20,452 words;

(2) [T]he defendant also literally reproduced and copied for the Spanish words in his dictionary, the equivalents, definitions and different meanings in Tagalog, given in plaintiffs dictionary, having reproduced, as to some words, everything that appears in the plaintiff's dictionary for similar Spanish words, although as to some he made some additions of his own. Said copies and reproductions are numerous. . .;

(3) [T]he printer's errors in the plaintiff's dictionary as to the expression of some words in Spanish as well as their equivalents in Tagalog are also reproduced, a fact which shows that the defendant, in preparing his dictionary, literally copied those Spanish words and their meanings and equivalents in Tagalog from the plaintiff's dictionary. 31

Plainly, the rationale in Laktaw does not apply in this case. First, aside from an isolated accounting of the number of words supposedly usurped in a segment of DEP from CET, 32 the records do not disclose that all the words allegedly copied were tallied and that the words thus tallied were numerous enough to support a finding of copying. Second, as already conceded, while there is an identity in the manner by which some of the ideas and concepts were articulated, this prescinded from various factors already elucidated. Besides, ROBLES' testimony that she made an independent investigation or research of the original works or authors she consulted was unrebutted; 33 for germane here is the question of whether the alleged infringer could have obtained the same information by going to the same source by her own independent research. 34 ROBLES convinced the trial court and the Court of Appeals on this; thus, we are bound by this factual determination, as likewise explained earlier. Third, reproduction of the printer's errors or the author's blunders and inaccuracies in the infringing copy does not ipso facto constitute copying or plagiarism or infringement, but it is conceded that they are telltale signs that infringement might have been committed.35 However, the records do not reveal this to be the case. Fourth, the law on intellectual property violated in Laktaw was a world and time apart from R.A. No. 8293 or even P.D. No. 49. Thus, under Article 7 of the Law of 10 January 1879, the Court ruled that nobody could reproduce another person's work without the owner's consent, even merely to annotate or add anything to it, or improve any edition thereof. The more recent laws on intellectual property, however, recognize recent advancements in technology transfer and information dissemination. They thus allow the use of copyrighted materials if compatible with fair use and to the extent justified for the purpose. In particular, the new laws sanction the fair use of copyrighted work for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, research and similar purposes. 36 Further, the limitations of the exclusive use of copyrighted materials under Sections 10 and 11 of P.D. No. 49 in consonance with the principle of fair use have been reproduced and incorporated in the new law. 37 All told, Laktaw is inapplicable.1âwphi1.nêt

Fair use has been defined as a privilege to use the copyrighted material in a reasonable manner without the consent of the copyright owner or as copying the theme or ideas rather than their expression. 38 No question of fair or unfair use arises however, if no copying is proved to begin with. This is in consonance with the principle that there can be no infringement if there was no copying. 39 It is only where some form of copying has been shown that it becomes necessary to determine whether it has been carried to an "unfair," that is, illegal, extent. 40 Consequently, there is no reason to address the issue of whether ROBLES abused a writer's right to fair use with the ascertainment that DEP was not a copy or a substantial copy of CET.

WHEREFORE, I vote to DENY the petition and to AFFIRM the challenged decision of 27 June 1997 of the Court of Appeals.

Separate Opinions

DAVIDE, JR., C.J., dissenting opinion:

I am unable to join the majority view.

From the following factual and procedural antecedents, I find no alternative but to sustain both the trial court and the Court of Appeals.

On 12 July 1988, HABANA, et al. filed with the trial court a complaint for infringement and unfair competition, with damages against private respondent Felicidad C. Robles (hereafter ROBLES) and her publisher and distributor, Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. (hereafter GOODWILL). The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 88-1317.

HABANA, et al. averred in their complaint that they were the co-authors and joint copyright owners of their published works College English for Today, Books 1 and 2 (hereafter CET) and Workbook for College Freshman English, Series 1 1; they discovered that ROBLES' own published works, Developing English Proficiency, Books 1 and 2, (hereafter DEP), published and distributed in 1985, exhibited an uncanny resemblance, if not outright physical similarity, to CET as to content, scheme, sequence of topics and ideas, manner of presentation and illustrative examples; the plagiarism, incorporation and reproduction of particular portions of CET into DEP could not be gainsaid since ROBLES was substantially familiar with CET and the textual asportation was accomplished without their authority and/or consent; ROBLES and GOODWILL jointly misrepresented DEP (over which they shared copyright ownership) "as the former's original published works and concept;" and "notwithstanding formal demands made . . . to cease and desist from the sale and distribution of DEP, [ROBLES and GOODWILL] persistently failed and refused to comply therewith." HABANA et al. then prayed for the court to: (1) order the submission and thereafter the destruction of all copies of DEP, together with the molds, plates, films and other materials used in the printing thereof; (2) require ROBLES and GOODWILL to render an accounting of the sales of the "infringing works from the time of its (sic) inceptive publication up to the time of judgment, as well as the amount of sales and profits . . . derived;" and (3) to enjoin ROBLES and GOODWILL to solidarily pay actual, moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees and expenses of litigation.

In its Answer, GOODWILL denied culpability since "it had no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations of plagiarism, incorporation and reproduction" and hence "could not be privy to the same, if (there were) any;" and that in an Agreement with co-defendant ROBLES, the latter would be solely responsible for acts of plagiarism or violations of copyright or any other law, to the extent of answering for any and all damages GOODWILL may suffer. GOODWILL also interposed a compulsory counterclaim against PACITA, et al. and a crossclaim against its co-defendant anchored on the aforementioned Agreement.

In her answer, ROBLES asserted that: (1) DEP was the exclusive product of her independent research, studies and experience; (2) DEP, particularly the segments where the alleged literal similitude appeared, were admittedly influenced or inspired by earlier treatises, mostly by foreign authors; but that "influences and/or inspirations from other writers" like the methodology and techniques as to presentation, teaching concept and design, research and orientation which she employed, fell within the ambit of general information, ideas, principles of general or universal knowledge which were commonly and customarily understood as incapable of private and exclusive use, appropriation or copyright; and (3) her works were the result of the legitimate and reasonable exercise of an author's "right to fair use of even copyrighted materials as [a] guide." She further claimed that her various national and regional professional activities in general education, language and literature, as well as her teaching experience in graduate and post graduate education would obviate the remotest possibility of plagiarism.

ROBLES likewise suggested that any similarity between DEP and CET as regards scope and sequence could be attributed to "the orientation of the authors to the scope and sequence or syllabus — which incorporates standards known among English grammar book writers — of the subject-matter for Basic Communication Arts recommended by the Association of Philippine Colleges of Arts and Sciences (APCAS)." While the syllabus was admittedly adopted in DEP, she claimed to have treated quite differently in DEP the very ideas, techniques or principles expressed in CET such that neither textbook could be considered a copy or plagiarism of the other.

At the pre-trial conference, the parties agreed to a stipulation of facts 2 and for the court to first resolve the issue of infringement before disposing of the claims for damages. After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered its decision in favor of defendants, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby orders that the complaint filed against defendants Felicidad Robles and Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. shall be DISMISSED: that said plaintiffs solidarily reimburse defendant Robles for P20,000.00 attorney's fees and defendant Goodwill for P5,000.00 attorney's fees. Plaintiffs are liable for costs of suit.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 3

Noting that the law applicable to the case was Presidential Decree No. 49, 4 the trial court found that HABANA, et al. failed to discharge their onus of proving that ROBLES and GOODWILL committed acts constituting copyright infringement. Moreover, the trial court found that "the cause of action or acts complained of [were] not covered by said decree" as Section 10 thereof barred authors of works already lawfully made accessible to the public from prohibiting the reproductions, translations, adaptations, recitation and performance of the same, while Section 11 allowed the utilization of reproductions, quotations and excerpts of such works. The trial court thus agreed with ROBLES that "the complained acts [were] of general and universal knowledge and use which plaintiffs cannot claim originality or seek redress to the law for protection" and observed that DEP and CET had the same sources, consisting chiefly of earlier works, mostly foreign books. GOODWILL's crossclaim against ROBLES, counterclaim against HABANA, et al. as well as ROBLES' compulsory counterclaim against GOODWILL were all dismissed for lack of factual and legal bases.

HABANA, et al. appealed to the Court of Appeals. The case was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 44053. Before said court HABANA, et al., in the main, argued that the trial court totally disregarded their evidence and merely subscribed to ROBLES' arguments. The Court of Appeals, however, likewise disposed of the controversy in favor of ROBLES and GOODWILL. 5

However, the Court of Appeals modified the trial court's decision by reversing the award for attorney's fees. It held that the good faith and sincerity of HABANA, et al. in commencing the action negated the basis therefor. Their motion for reconsideration having been denied for want of cogent reasons, HABANA, et al., instituted this petition. They claim that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in failing to appreciate: (1) the insuperable evidence and facts admitted and proved demonstrating plagiarism or piracy and instead afforded full weight and credit to ROBLES' matrix of general, hypothetical and sweeping statements and/or defenses; (2) ROBLES' and GOODWILL's animo furandi or intent to appropriate or copy CET with the non-removal of the damaging copies of DEP from the bookstores despite notice to withdraw the same; and (3) the fact that ROBLES abused a writer's right to fair use, in violation of Section 11 of P.D. No. 49. 6 They invoke Laktaw v. Paglinawan 7 which, they theorize is on all fours with the case at bar. ROBLES contends that appeal by certiorari does not lie in this case for the challenged decision and the trial court's judgment were amply supported by evidence, pertinent laws and jurisprudence. Hence, her counterclaim for moral damages should, therefore, be granted or for us to order the remand of the case to the trial court for reception of evidence on damages. GOODWILL, on its part, stood pat on its disclaimer, with the assertion that no proof was ever introduced. that it co-authored DEP or that it singly or in cabal with ROBLES committed any act constituting copyright infringement.

The core issue then is whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's judgment that despite the apparent textual, thematic and sequential similarity between DEP and CET, no copyright was committed by ROBLES and GOODWILL.

While the complaint, in Civil Case No. 88-1317 was filed during the effectivity of P.D. No. 49, the provisions of the new intellectual property law, R.A. No. 8293, 8 nevertheless bears significance here. It took effect on 1 January 1998, but its Section 239.3 clearly states that its provisions shall apply to works in which copyright protection obtained prior to the effectivity of the Act subsists, provided, however, that the application of the Act shall not result in the diminution of such protection. Also, the philosophy behind both statutes as well as the essential principles of copyright protection and copyright infringement have, to a certain extent, remained the same.

A copyright may be accurately defined as the right granted by statute to the proprietor of an intellectual production to its exclusive use and enjoyment to the extent specified in the statute. 9 Under Section 177 of R.A. No. 8293, 10 the copy or economic right (copyright and economic right are used interchangeably in the statute) consists of the exclusive right to carry out, authorize or prevent the following acts:

177.1 Reproduction of the work or substantial portion of the work;

177.2 Dramatization, translation, adaptation, abridgment, arrangement or other transformation of the work;

177.3 The first public distribution of the original and each copy of the work by sale or other forms of transfer of ownership;

177.4 Rental of the original or a copy of an audiovisual or cinematographic work, a work embodied in a sound recording, a computer program, a compilation of data and other materials or a musical work in graphic form, irrespective of the ownership of the original or the copy which is the subject of the rental;

177.5 Public display of the original or a copy of the work;

177.6 Public performance of the work; and

177.7 Other communication to the public of the work.

"The work," as repeatedly mentioned, refers to the literary and artistic works defined as original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain protected from the moment of their creation and enumerated in Section 172.1, which includes books and other literary, scholarly, scientific and artistic works. 11

Stripped in the meantime of its indisputable social and beneficial functions, 12 the use of intellectual property or creations should basically promote the creator or author's personal and economic gain. Hence, the copyright protection extended to the creator should ensure his attainment of some form of personal satisfaction and economic reward from the work he produced. Without conceding the suitability of Laktaw as precedent, the Court there quoted Manresa and explained:

He who writes a book, or carves a statute, or makes an invention, has the absolute right to reproduce or sell it, just as the owner of the land has the absolute right to sell it or its fruits. But while the owner of the land, by selling it and its fruits, perhaps fully realizes all its economic value, by receiving its benefits and utilities, which are represented for example, by the price, on the other hand the author of a book, statue or invention does not reap all the benefits and advantages of his own property by disposing of it, for the most important form of realizing the economic advantages of a book, statue or invention, consists in the right to reproduce it in similar or like copies, everyone of which serves to

give to the person reproducing them all the conditions which the original requires in order to give the author the full enjoyment thereof. If the author of a book, after its publication, cannot prevent its reproduction by any person who may want to reproduce it, then the property right granted him is reduced to a very insignificant thing and the effort made in the production of the book is in no way rewarded. 13

The execution, therefore, of any one or more of the exclusive rights conferred by law on a copyright owner, without his consent, constitutes copyright infringement. In essence, copyright infringement, known in general as "piracy," is a trespass on a domain owned and occupied by a copyright owner; it is violation of a private right protected by law. 14 With the invasion of his property rights, a copyright owner is naturally entitled to seek redress, enforce and hold accountable the defrauder or usurper of said economic rights.

Now, did ROBLES and GOODWILL infringe upon the copyright of HABANA et al. by publishing DEP, which the latter alleged to be a reproduction, or in the least, a substantial reproduction of CET? Both the trial court and respondent court found in the negative. I submit they were correct.

To constitute infringement, the usurper must have copied or appropriated the "original" work of an author or copyright proprietor; 15 absent copying, there can be no infringement of copyright. 16 In turn, a work is deemed by law an original if the author created it by his own skill, labor and judgment. 17 On its part, a copy is that which comes so near to the original so as to give to every person seeing it the idea created by the original. It has been held that the test of copyright infringement is whether an ordinary observer comparing the works can readily see that one has been copied from the other. 18 A visual comparison of the portions of CET 19 juxtaposed against certain pages of DEP, 20 would inescapably lead to a conclusion that there is a discernible similarity between the two; however, as correctly assessed by respondent court and the lower court, no conclusion, can be drawn that DEP, in legal contemplation, is a copy of CET.

Was DEP a substantial reproduction of CET? To constitutes a substantial reproduction, it is not necessary that the entire copyrighted work, or even a large portion of it, be copied, if so much is taken that the value of the original is substantially diminished, or if the labors of the original author are substantially, and to an injurious extent, appropriated. 21 But the similarity of the books here does not amount to an appropriation of a substantial portion of CET. If the existence of substantial similarities does not of itself establish infringement, 22 mere similarities (not substantial similarities) in some sections of the books in question decisively militate against a claim for infringement where the similarities had been convincingly established as proceeding from a number of reasons and/or factors.

1. As both books are grammar books, they inevitably deal with the same subjects typically and ordinarily treated by writers of such genre, 23 e.g., system of book classification, the different kinds of card catalogs and their entries, use of punctuation marks, paragraphs, the characteristics of an effective paragraph, language structure, different parts of a book, etc. These standard subjects fall within the domain of ideas, concepts, universal and general knowledge that have, as admitted by the protagonists here, been in existence for quite a long time. 24 As such, HABANA, et al. cannot demand monopoly, by way of example, in the use of the recognized library classification systems (Dewey Decimal System and the Library of Congress System), or how a book can be divided into parts (frontispiece, title page, copyright page, preface, table of contents, etc.) or to the different headings used in a card catalogue (title card, author card and subject card), since these are of common or general knowledge. Even in this jurisdiction, no protection can be extended to such an idea, procedure, system method or operation, concept, principle, discovery or mere data, even if expressed, explained, illustrated or embodied in a work. 25

2. As found by respondent court, CET and DEP had common sources and materials, 26 such that the particular portions claimed to have been lifted and literally reproduced also appeared in earlier works, mostly by foreign authors. This is clear from the testimony of petitioner Dr. Pacita Habana:

Q Let's clarify your position Dra. Habana. When defendants test (sic) showed 10 words similar to yours, you so concluded it was (sic) copied from yours but when I pointed out to you same (sic) words contained in the earlier book of Wills then you earlier in your test in your book (sic) you refused to admit that it was copied from Wills.

A Yes, sir. We have never — all 35 words were copied from there.

Q But what I am asking how could you conclude that by just similarity of 10 words of defendants words that was copied from yours [sic] and when I point out to you the similarity of that same words from the words earlier than yours (sic) you refused to admit that you copied?

A I would like to change the final statement now that in the case of defendant Robles you pointed out her source very clear. She copied it from that book by Wills.

Q So, she did not copy it from yours?

A Alright, maybe she did not copy it but definitely it is a pattern of plagerism [sic]. 27

3. Similarity in orientation and style can likewise be attributed to the exposure of the authors to the APCAS syllabus and their respective academic experience, teaching approaches and methodology. It is not farfetched that they could have even influenced each other as textbook writers. ROBLES and Dr. Pacita Habana were faculty members of the Institute of English of the Far Eastern University from 1964 to 1974. 28Both were ardent students, researchers, lecturers, textbook writers and teachers of English and grammar. They even used to be on friendly terms with each other, to the extent that Dr. Habana admitted that ROBLES assisted the former in the preparation of her doctoral dissertation. Given their near-identical academic and professional background, it is natural they would use many expressions and definitions peculiar to teaching English grammar. It comes therefore with no surprise that there are similarities in some parts of the rival books. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive how writers on the same subject matter can very well avoid resorting to common sources of information and materials and employing similar expressions and terms peculiar to the subject they are treating. 29

To illustrate, an excerpt from page 21 of CET reads:

Author Card

The author card is the main entry card. It contains

1. the author's complete name on the first line, surname first, which may be followed by the date of his birth and death if he is no longer living;

2. the title of the book, and the subtitle, if there is one;

3. the edition, if it is not the first;

4. the translator or illustrator, if there is any;

5. the imprint which includes the publisher, the place and date of publication;

6. the collation composed of the number of pages, volume, illustrations, and the size of the book;

7. the subjects with which the book deals [sic];

8. the call number on the upper left-hand corner.

Names beginning with Mc, or M are filed in the card catalog as though spelled out as MAC, for example Mc Graw — MacGraw. The same is true of St. and Saint.

While a portion of DEP found on page 18 which discusses the author card provides:

The author card is the main entry card containing:

1. the author's complete name on the first line, surname first, which may be followed by the date of his birth and death if he is no longer living;

2. the title of the book, and the subtitle if there is one;

3. the edition, if it is not the first;

4. the translator or illustrator, if any;

5. the imprint which includes the publisher, the place and date of publication;

6. the collation, composed of the number of pages, volume, illustrations, and the size of the book;

7. the subject with which the book deals; and

8. the call number on the upper-left hand corner.

Names beginning with MC, or M are filed in the card catalog considered spelled out as MAC, for example: Mcleod-Macleod. This is true also of St. and Saint.

The entries found in an author card, having been developed over quite sometime, are expectedly uniform. Hence, HABANA et al. and ROBLES would have no choice but to articulate the terms particular to the entries in an identical manner.

I thus find that the ruling of the respondent court is totally supported by the evidence on record. Of doctrinal persuasion is the principle that factual determinations of the Court of Appeals and the trial

court are conclusive and binding upon this Court, and the latter will not, as a rule, disturb these findings unless compelling and cogent reasons necessitate a reexamination, if not a reversal, of the same. 30 Tested against this jurisprudential canon, to subject the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals to further scrutiny would be superfluous, if not, improvident.

I am not persuaded by the claim of HABANA, et al. that Laktaw is on all fours with and hence applicable to the case at bar. There, this Court disposed that defendant, without the consent of and causing irreparable damage to Laktaw, reproduced the latter's literary work Diccionario Hisapano-Tagalog, and improperly copied the greater part thereof in the work Diccionariong Kastila-Tagalog published by defendant, in violation of Article 7 of the Law of 10 January 1879 on Intellectual Property. This Court anchored its decision on the following observations:

(1) [O] the 23,560 Spanish words in the defendant'sdictionary . . . only 3,108 words are the defendant's own, or, what is the same thing, the defendant has added only this number of words to those that are in the plaintiff's dictionary, he having reproduced or copied the remaining 20,452 words;

(2) [T]he defendant also literally reproduced and copied for the Spanish words in his dictionary, the equivalents, definitions and different meanings in Tagalog, given in plaintiffs dictionary, having reproduced, as to some words, everything that appears in the plaintiff's dictionary for similar Spanish words, although as to some he made some additions of his own. Said copies and reproductions are numerous. . .;

(3) [T]he printer's errors in the plaintiff's dictionary as to the expression of some words in Spanish as well as their equivalents in Tagalog are also reproduced, a fact which shows that the defendant, in preparing his dictionary, literally copied those Spanish words and their meanings and equivalents in Tagalog from the plaintiff's dictionary. 31

Plainly, the rationale in Laktaw does not apply in this case. First, aside from an isolated accounting of the number of words supposedly usurped in a segment of DEP from CET, 32 the records do not disclose that all the words allegedly copied were tallied and that the words thus tallied were numerous enough to support a finding of copying. Second, as already conceded, while there is an identity in the manner by which some of the ideas and concepts were articulated, this prescinded from various factors already elucidated. Besides, ROBLES' testimony that she made an independent investigation or research of the original works or authors she consulted was unrebutted; 33 for germane here is the question of whether the alleged infringer could have obtained the same information by going to the same source by her own independent research. 34 ROBLES convinced the trial court and the Court of Appeals on this; thus, we are bound by this factual determination, as likewise explained earlier. Third, reproduction of the printer's errors or the author's blunders and inaccuracies in the infringing copy does not ipso facto constitute copying or plagiarism or infringement, but it is conceded that they are telltale signs that infringement might have been committed.35 However, the records do not reveal this to be the case. Fourth, the law on intellectual property violated in Laktaw was a world and time apart from R.A. No. 8293 or even P.D. No. 49. Thus, under Article 7 of the Law of 10 January 1879, the Court ruled that nobody could reproduce another person's work without the owner's consent, even merely to annotate or add anything to it, or improve any edition thereof. The more recent laws on intellectual property, however, recognize recent advancements in technology transfer and information dissemination. They thus allow the use of copyrighted materials if compatible with fair use and to the extent justified for the purpose. In particular, the new laws sanction the fair use of copyrighted work for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, research and similar purposes. 36 Further, the limitations of the exclusive use of copyrighted materials under Sections 10

and 11 of P.D. No. 49 in consonance with the principle of fair use have been reproduced and incorporated in the new law. 37 All told, Laktaw is inapplicable.

Fair use has been defined as a privilege to use the copyrighted material in a reasonable manner without the consent of the copyright owner or as copying the theme or ideas rather than their expression. 38 No question of fair or unfair use arises however, if no copying is proved to begin with. This is in consonance with the principle that there can be no infringement if there was no copying. 39 It is only where some form of copying has been shown that it becomes necessary to determine whether it has been carried to an "unfair," that is, illegal, extent. 40 Consequently, there is no reason to address the issue of whether ROBLES abused a writer's right to fair use with the ascertainment that DEP was not a copy or a substantial copy of CET. 1âwphi1.nêt

WHEREFORE, I vote to DENY the petition and to AFFIRM the challenged decision of 27 June 1997 of the Court of Appeals.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

 

G.R. No. 108946 January 28, 1999

FRANCISCO G. JOAQUIN, JR., and BJ PRODUCTIONS, INC., petitioners, vs.HONORABLE FRANKLIN DRILON, GABRIEL ZOSA, WILLIAM ESPOSO, FELIPE MEDINA, JR., and CASEY FRANCISCO, respondents.

 

MENDOZA, J.:

This is a petition for certiorari. Petitioners seek to annul the resolution of the Department of Justice, dated August 12, 1992, in Criminal Case No. Q-92-27854, entitled "Gabriel Zosa, et al. v. City Prosecutor of Quezon City and Francisco Joaquin, Jr.," and its resolution, dated December 3, 1992, denying petitioner Joaquin's motion for reconsideration.

Petitioner BJ Productions, Inc. (BJPI) is the holder/grantee of Certificate of Copyright No. M922, dated January 28, 1971, of Rhoda and Me, a dating game show aired from 1970 to 1977.

On June 28, 1973, petitioner BJPI submitted to the National Library an addendum to its certificate of copyright specifying the show's format and style of presentation.

On July 14, 1991, while watching television, petitioner Francisco Joaquin, Jr., president of BJPI, saw on RPN Channel 9 an episode of It's a Date, which was produced by IXL Productions, Inc. (IXL). On July 18, 1991, he wrote a letter to private respondent Gabriel M. Zosa, president and general manager of IXL, informing Zosa that BJPI had a copyright to Rhoda and Me and demanding that IXL discontinue airing It's a Date.

In a letter, dated July 19, 1991, private respondent Zosa apologized to petitioner Joaquin and requested a meeting to discuss a possible settlement. IXL, however, continued airing It's a Date, prompting petitioner Joaquin to send a second letter on July 25, 1991 in which he reiterated his demand and warned that, if IXL did not comply, he would endorse the matter to his attorneys for proper legal action.

Meanwhile, private respondent Zosa sought to register IXL's copyright to the first episode of It's a Date for which it was issued by the National Library a certificate of copyright August 14, 1991.

Upon complaint of petitioners, an information for violation of P.D. No. 49 was filed against private respondent Zosa together with certain officers of RPN Channel 9, namely, William Esposo, Felipe Medina, and Casey Francisco, in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City where it was docketed as Criminal Case No. 92-27854 and assigned to Branch 104 thereof. However, private respondent Zosa sought a review of the resolution of the Assistant City Prosecutor before the Department of Justice.

On August 12, 1992, respondent Secretary of Justice Franklin M. Drilon reversed the Assistant City Prosecutor's findings and directed him to move for the dismissal of the case against private

respondents. 1

Petitioner Joaquin filed a motion for reconsideration, but his motion denied by respondent Secretary of Justice on December 3, 1992. Hence, this petition. Petitioners contend that:

1. The public respondent gravely abused his discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction — when he invoked non-presentation of the master tape as being fatal to the existence of probable cause to prove infringement, despite the fact that private respondents never raised the same as a controverted issue.

2. The public respondent gravely abused his discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when he arrogated unto himself the determination of what is copyrightable — an issue which is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the regional trial court to assess in a proper proceeding.

Both public and private respondents maintain that petitioners failed to establish the existence of probable cause due to their failure to present the copyrighted master videotape of Rhoda and Me. They contend that petitioner BJPI's copyright covers only a specific episode of Rhoda and Me and that the formats or concepts of dating game shows are not covered by copyright protection under P.D. No. 49.

Non-Assignment of Error.

Petitioners claim that their failure to submit the copyrighted master videotape of the television show Rhoda and Me was not raised in issue by private respondents during the preliminary investigation and, therefore, it was error for the Secretary of Justice to reverse the investigating prosecutor's finding of probable cause on this ground.

A preliminary investigation falls under the authority of the state prosecutor who is given by law the power to direct and control criminal

actions. 2 He is, however, subject to the control of the Secretary of Justice. Thus, Rule 112, §4 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, provides:

Sec. 4. Duty of investigating fiscal. — If the investigating fiscal finds cause to hold the respondent for trial, he shall prepare the resolution and corresponding information. He shall certify under oath that he, or as shown by the record, an authorized officer, has personally examined the complainant and his witnesses, that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof, that the accused was informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted against him and that he was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence. Otherwise, he shall recommend dismissal of the complaint.

In either case, he shall forward the records of the case to the provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor within five (5) days from his resolution. The latter shall take appropriate action thereon ten (10) days from receipt thereof, immediately informing the parties of said action.

No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an investigating fiscal without the prior written authority or approval of the provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor.

Where the investigating assistant fiscal recommends the dismissal of the case but his findings are reversed by the provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor on the ground that a probable cause exists, the latter may, by himself, file the corresponding information against the respondent or direct any other assistant fiscal or state prosecutor to do so, without conducting another preliminary investigation.

If upon petition by a proper party, the Secretary of Justice reverses the resolution of the provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor, he shall direct the fiscal concerned to file the corresponding information without conducting another preliminary investigation or to dismiss or move for dismissal of the complaint or information.

In reviewing resolutions of prosecutors, the Secretary of Justice is not precluded from considering errors, although unassigned, for the purpose of determining whether there is probable cause for filing cases in court. He must make his own finding, of probable cause and is not confined to the issues raised by the parties during preliminary investigation. Moreover, his findings are not subject to review unless shown to have been made with grave abuse.

Opinion of the Secretary of Justice

Petitioners contend, however, that the determination of the question whether the format or mechanics of a show is entitled to copyright protection is for the court, and not the Secretary of Justice, to make. They assail the following portion of the resolution of the respondent Secretary of Justice:

[T]he essence of copyright infringement is the copying, in whole or in part, of copyrightable materials as defined and enumerated in Section 2 of PD. No. 49. Apart from the manner in which it is actually expressed, however, the idea of a dating game show is, in the opinion of this Office, a non-copyrightable material. Ideas, concepts, formats, or schemes in their abstract form clearly do not fall within the class of works or

materials susceptible of copyright registration as provided in PD. No. 49. 3 (Emphasis added.)

It is indeed true that the question whether the format or mechanics of petitioners television show is entitled to copyright protection is a legal question for the court to make. This does not, however, preclude respondent Secretary of Justice from making a preliminary determination of this question in resolving whether there is probable cause for filing the case in court. In doing so in this case, he did not commit any grave error.

Presentation of Master Tape

Petitioners claim that respondent Secretary of Justice gravely abused his discretion in ruling that the master videotape should have been predented in order to determine whether there was probable cause for copyright infringement. They contend that 20th Century Fox Film Corporation v. Court of

Appeals, 4 on which respondent Secretary of Justice relied in reversing the resolution of the investigating prosecutor, is inapplicable to the case at bar because in the present case, the parties presented sufficient evidence which clearly establish "linkage between the copyright show "Rhoda

and Me" and the infringing TV show "It's a Date." 5

The case of 20th Century Fox Film Corporation involved raids conducted on various videotape outlets allegedlly selling or renting out "pirated" videotapes. The trial court found that the affidavits of NBI agents, given in support of the application for the search warrant, were insufficient without the master tape. Accordingly, the trial court lifted the search warrants it had previously issued against

the defendants. On petition for review, this Court sustained the action of the trial court and ruled: 6

The presentation of the master tapes of the copyrighted films from which the pirated films were allegedly copied, was necessary for the validity of search warrants against those who have in their possession the pirated films. The petitioner's argument to the effect that the presentation of the master tapes at the time of application may not be necessary as these would be merely evidentiary in nature and not determinative of whether or not a probable cause exists to justify the issuance of the search warrants is not meritorious. The court cannot presume that duplicate or copied tapes were necessarily reproduced from master tapes that it owns.

The application for search warrants was directed against video tape outlets which allegedly were engaged in the unauthorized sale and renting out of copyrighted films belonging to the petitioner pursuant to P.D. 49.

The essence of a copyright infringement is the similarity or at least substantial similarity of the purported pirated works to the copyrighted work. Hence, the applicant must present to the court the copyrighted films to compare them with the purchased evidence of the video tapes allegedly pirated to determine whether the latter is an unauthorized reproduction of the former. This linkage of the copyrighted films to the pirated films must be established to satisfy the requirements of probable cause. Mere allegations as to the existence of the copyrighted films cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant.

This ruling was qualified in the later case of Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Court of Appeals 7 in which it was held:

In fine, the supposed pronunciamento in said case regarding the necessity for the presentation of the master tapes of the copyrighted films for the validity of search warrants should at most be understood to merely serve as a guidepost in determining the

existence of probable cause in copyright infringement cases where there is doubt as to the true nexus between the master tape and the printed copies. An objective and careful reading of the decision in said case could lead to no other conclusion than that said directive was hardly intended to be a sweeping and inflexible requirement in all or similar

copyright infringement cases. . . 8

In the case at bar during the preliminary investigation, petitioners and private respondents presented written descriptions of the formats of their respective televisions shows, on the basis of which the investigating prosecutor ruled:

As may [be] gleaned from the evidence on record, the substance of the television productions complainant's "RHODA AND ME" and Zosa's "IT'S A DATE" is that two matches are made between a male and a female, both single, and the two couples are treated to a night or two of dining and/or dancing at the expense of the show. The major concepts of both shows is the same. Any difference appear mere variations of the major concepts.

That there is an infringement on the copyright of the show "RHODA AND ME" both in content and in the execution of the video presentation are established because respondent's "IT'S A DATE" is practically an exact copy of complainant's "RHODA AND ME" because of substantial similarities as follows, to wit:

RHODA AND ME "IT'S A DATE"

Set 1 Set 1

a. Unmarried participant of one gender (searcher) appears on one side of a divider, while three (3) unmarried participants of the other gender are on the other side of the divider. This arrangement is done to ensure that the searcher does not see the searchees.

a. same

b. Searcher asks a question to be answered by each of the searchees. The purpose is to determine who among the searchees is the most compatible with the searcher.

b. same

c. Searcher speculates on the match to the searchee. c. same

d. Selection is made by the use of compute (sic) methods, or by the way questions are answered, or similar methods.

d. Selection is based on the answer of the Searchees.

Set 2 Set 2

Same as above with the genders of the searcher and searchees

interchanged. 9

same

Petitioners assert that the format of Rhoda and Me is a product of ingenuity and skill and is thus entitled to copyright protection. It is their position that the presentation of a point-by-point comparison of the formats of the two shows clearly demonstrates the nexus between the shows and hence establishes the existence of probable cause for copyright infringement. Such being the case, they did not have to produce the master tape.

To begin with the format of a show is not copyrightable. Section 2 of P.D. No. 49, 10 otherwise known as the DECREE ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, enumerates the classes of work entitled to copyright protection, to wit:

Sec. 2. The rights granted by this Decree shall, from the moment of creation, subsist with respect to any of the following classes of works:

(A) Books, including composite and cyclopedic works, manuscripts, directories, and gazetteers:

(B) Periodicals, including pamphlets and newspapers;

(C) Lectures, sermons, addresses, dissertations prepared for oral delivery;

(D) Letters;

(E) Dramatic or dramatico-musical compositions; choreographic works and entertainments in dumb shows, the acting form of which is fixed in writing or otherwise;

(F) Musical compositions, with or without words;

(G) Works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving, lithography, and other works of art; models or designs for works of art;

(H) Reproductions of a work of art;

(I) Original ornamental designs or models for articles of manufacture, whether or not patentable, and other works of applied art;

(J) Maps, plans, sketches, and charts;

(K) Drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical character;

(I) Photographic works and works produced by a process analogous to photography lantern slides;

(M) Cinematographic works and works produced by a process analogous to cinematography or any process for making audio-visual recordings;

(N) Computer programs;

(O) Prints, pictorial illustrations advertising copies, labels tags, and box wraps;

(P) Dramatizations, translations, adaptations, abridgements, arrangements and other alterations of literary, musical or artistic works or of works of the Philippine government as herein defined, which shall be protected as provided in Section 8 of this Decree.

(Q) Collections of literary, scholarly, or artistic works or of works referred to in Section 9 of this Decree which by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents constitute intellectual creations, the same to be protected as such in accordance with Section 8 of this Decree.

(R) Other literary, scholarly, scientific and artistic works.

This provision is substantially the same as §172 of the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF

PHILIPPINES (R.A. No. 8293). 11 The format or mechanics of a television show is not included in the list of protected works in §2 of P.D. No. 49. For this reason, the protection afforded by the law cannot be extended to cover them.

Copyright, in the strict sense of the term, is purely a statutory right. It is a new or independent right granted by the statute, and not simply a pre-existing right regulated by the statute. Being a statutory grant, the rights are only such as the statute confers, and may be obtained and enjoyed only with respect to the subjects and by the persons and

on terms and conditions specified in the statute. 12

Since . . . copyright in published works is purely a statutory creation, a copyright may be

obtained only for a work falling within the statutory enumeration or description. 13

Regardless of the historical viewpoint, it is authoritatively settled in the United States that there is no copyright except that which is both created and secured by act of Congress . .

. . . 14

P.D. No. 49, §2, in enumerating what are subject to copyright, refers to finished works and not to concepts. The copyright does not extend to an idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained,

illustrated, or embodied in such work. 15 Thus, the new INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE

PHILIPPINES provides:

Sec. 175. Unprotected Subject Matter. — Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 172 and 173, no protection shall extend, under this law, to any idea, procedure, system, method or operation, concept, principle, discovery or mere data as such, even if they are expressed, explained, illustrated or embodied in a work; news of the day and other miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of press information; or any official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, as well as any official translation thereof.

What then is the subject matter of petitioners' copyright? This Court is of the opinion that petitioner BJPI's copyright covers audio-visual recordings of each episode of Rhoda and Me, as falling within the class of works mentioned in P.D. 49, §2(M), to wit:

Cinematographic works and works produced by a process analogous to cinematography or any process for making audio-visual recordings;

The copyright does not extend to the general concept or format of its dating game show. Accordingly, by the very nature of the subject of petitioner BJPI's copyright, the investigating prosecutor should have the opportunity to compare the videotapes of the two shows.

Mere description by words of the general format of the two dating game shows is insufficient; the presentation of the master videotape in evidence was indispensable to the determination of the existence of probable cause. As aptly observed by respondent Secretary of Justice:

A television show includes more than mere words can describe because it involves a whole spectrum of visuals and effects, video and audio, such that no similarity or dissimilarity may be found by merely describing the general copyright/format of both dating game shows.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED

SO ORDERED.1âwphi1.nêt

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 148222. August 15, 2003]

PEARL & DEAN (PHIL.), INCORPORATED, petitioner, v. SHOEMART, INCORPORATED, and NORTH EDSA MARKETING, INCORPORATED,respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CORONA, J.:

In the instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioner Pearl & Dean (Phil.) Inc. (P & D) assails the May 22, 2001 decision[1 of the Court of Appeals reversing the October 31, 1996 decision[2 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 133, in Civil Case No. 92-516 which declared private respondents Shoemart Inc. (SMI) and North Edsa Marketing Inc. (NEMI) liable for infringement of trademark and copyright, and unfair competition.

FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS

The May 22, 2001 decision of the Court of Appeals[3 contained a summary of this dispute:

Plaintiff-appellant Pearl and Dean (Phil.), Inc. is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of advertising display units simply referred to as light boxes. These units utilize specially printed posters sandwiched between plastic sheets and illuminated with back lights. Pearl and Dean was able to secure a Certificate of Copyright Registration dated January 20, 1981 over these illuminated display units. The advertising light boxes were marketed under the trademark Poster Ads. The application for registration of the trademark was filed with the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer on June 20, 1983, but was approved only on September 12, 1988, per Registration No. 41165. From 1981 to about 1988, Pearl and Dean employed the services of Metro Industrial Services to manufacture its advertising displays.

Sometime in 1985, Pearl and Dean negotiated with defendant-appellant Shoemart, Inc. (SMI) for the lease and installation of the light boxes in SM City North Edsa. Since SM City North Edsa was under construction at that time, SMI offered as an alternative, SM Makati and SM Cubao, to which Pearl and Dean agreed. On September 11, 1985, Pearl and Deans General Manager, Rodolfo Vergara, submitted for signature the contracts covering SM Cubao and SM Makati to SMIs Advertising Promotions and Publicity Division Manager, Ramonlito Abano. Only the contract for SM Makati, however, was returned signed. On October 4, 1985, Vergara wrote Abano inquiring about the other contract and reminding him that their agreement for installation of light boxes was not only for its SM Makati branch, but also for SM Cubao. SMI did not bother to reply.

Instead, in a letter dated January 14, 1986, SMIs house counsel informed Pearl and Dean that it was rescinding the contract for SM Makati due to non-performance of the terms thereof. In his reply dated February 17, 1986, Vergara protested the unilateral action of SMI, saying it was without basis. In the same letter, he pushed for the signing of the contract for SM Cubao.

Two years later, Metro Industrial Services, the company formerly contracted by Pearl and Dean to fabricate its display units, offered to construct light boxes for Shoemarts chain of stores. SMI approved the proposal and ten (10) light boxes were subsequently fabricated by Metro Industrial for SMI. After its contract with Metro Industrial was terminated, SMI engaged the services of EYD Rainbow Advertising Corporation to make the light boxes. Some 300 units were fabricated in 1991. These were delivered on a staggered basis and installed at SM Megamall and SM City.

Sometime in 1989, Pearl and Dean, received reports that exact copies of its light boxes were installed at SM City and in the fastfood section of SM Cubao. Upon investigation, Pearl and Dean found out that aside from the two (2) reported SM branches, light boxes similar to those it manufactures were also installed in two (2) other SM stores. It further discovered that defendant-appellant North Edsa

Marketing Inc. (NEMI), through its marketing arm, Prime Spots Marketing Services, was set up primarily to sell advertising space in lighted display units located in SMIs different branches. Pearl and Dean noted that NEMI is a sister company of SMI.

In the light of its discoveries, Pearl and Dean sent a letter dated December 11, 1991 to both SMI and NEMI enjoining them to cease using the subject light boxes and to remove the same from SMIs establishments. It also demanded the discontinued use of the trademark Poster Ads, and the payment to Pearl and Dean of compensatory damages in the amount of Twenty Million Pesos (P20,000,000.00).

Upon receipt of the demand letter, SMI suspended the leasing of two hundred twenty-four (224) light boxes and NEMI took down its advertisements for Poster Ads from the lighted display units in SMIs stores. Claiming that both SMI and NEMI failed to meet all its demands, Pearl and Dean filed this instant case for infringement of trademark and copyright, unfair competition and damages.

In denying the charges hurled against it, SMI maintained that it independently developed its poster panels using commonly known techniques and available technology, without notice of or reference to Pearl and Deans copyright. SMI noted that the registration of the mark Poster Ads was only for stationeries such as letterheads, envelopes, and the like. Besides, according to SMI, the word Poster Ads is a generic term which cannot be appropriated as a trademark, and, as such, registration of such mark is invalid. It also stressed that Pearl and Dean is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for in its complaint since its advertising display units contained no copyright notice, in violation of Section 27 of P.D. 49. SMI alleged that Pearl and Dean had no cause of action against it and that the suit was purely intended to malign SMIs good name. On this basis, SMI, aside from praying for the dismissal of the case, also counterclaimed for moral, actual and exemplary damages and for the cancellation of Pearl and Deans Certification of Copyright Registration No. PD-R-2558 dated January 20, 1981 and Certificate of Trademark Registration No. 4165 dated September 12, 1988.

NEMI, for its part, denied having manufactured, installed or used any advertising display units, nor having engaged in the business of advertising. It repleaded SMIs averments, admissions and denials and prayed for similar reliefs and counterclaims as SMI.

The RTC of Makati City decided in favor of P & D:

Wherefore, defendants SMI and NEMI are found jointly and severally liable for infringement of copyright under Section 2 of PD 49, as amended, and infringement of trademark under Section 22 of RA No. 166, as amended, and are hereby penalized under Section 28 of PD 49, as amended, and Sections 23 and 24 of RA 166, as amended. Accordingly, defendants are hereby directed:

(1) to pay plaintiff the following damages:

(a) actual damages - P16,600,000.00,

representing profitsderived by defendantsas a result of infringe-ment of plaintiffs copyrightfrom 1991 to 1992

(b) moral damages - P1,000.000.00

(c) exemplary damages - P1,000,000.00

(d) attorneys fees - P1,000,000.00

plus

(e) costs of suit;

(2) to deliver, under oath, for impounding in the National Library, all light boxes of SMI which were fabricated by Metro Industrial Services and EYD Rainbow Advertising Corporation;

(3) to deliver, under oath, to the National Library, all filler-posters using the trademark Poster Ads, for destruction; and

(4) to permanently refrain from infringing the copyright on plaintiffs light boxes and its trademark Poster Ads.

Defendants counterclaims are hereby ordered dismissed for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.[4

On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court:

Since the light boxes cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered as either prints, pictorial illustrations, advertising copies, labels, tags or box wraps, to be properly classified as a copyrightable class O work, we have to agree with SMI when it posited that what was copyrighted were the technical drawings only, and not the light boxes themselves, thus:

42. When a drawing is technical and depicts a utilitarian object, a copyright over the drawings like plaintiff-appellants will not extend to the actual object. It has so been held under jurisprudence, of which the leading case is Baker vs. Selden (101 U.S. 841 (1879). In that case, Selden had obtained a copyright protection for a book entitled Seldens Condensed Ledger or Bookkeeping Simplified which purported to explain a new system of bookkeeping. Included as part of the book were blank forms and illustrations consisting of ruled lines and headings, specially designed for use in connection with the system explained in the work. These forms showed the entire operation of a day or a week or a month on a single page, or on two pages following each other. The defendant Baker then produced forms which were similar to the forms illustrated in Seldens copyrighted books. The Court held that exclusivity to the actual forms is not extended by a copyright. The reason was that to grant a monopoly in the underlying art when no examination of its novelty has ever been made would be a surprise and a fraud upon the public; that is the province of letters patent, not of copyright. And that is precisely the point. No doubt aware that its alleged original design would never pass the rigorous examination of a patent application, plaintiff-appellant fought to foist a fraudulent monopoly on the public by conveniently resorting to a copyright registration which merely employs a recordal system without the benefit of an in-depth examination of novelty.

The principle in Baker vs. Selden was likewise applied in Muller vs. Triborough Bridge Authority [43 F. Supp. 298 (S.D.N.Y. 1942)]. In this case, Muller had obtained a copyright over an unpublished drawing entitled Bridge Approach the drawing showed a novel bridge approach to unsnarl traffic congestion. The defendant constructed a bridge approach which was alleged to be an infringement of the new design illustrated in plaintiffs drawings. In this case it was held that protection of the drawing does not extend to the unauthorized duplication of the object drawn because copyright extends only to the description or expression of the object and not to the object itself. It does not prevent one from using the drawings to construct the object portrayed in the drawing.

In two other cases, Imperial Homes Corp. v. Lamont, 458 F. 2d 895 and Scholtz Homes, Inc. v. Maddox, 379 F. 2d 84, it was held that there is no copyright infringement when one who, without being authorized, uses a copyrighted architectural plan to construct a structure. This is because the copyright does not extend to the structures themselves.

In fine, we cannot find SMI liable for infringing Pearl and Deans copyright over the technical drawings of the latters advertising display units.

xxx xxx xxx

The Supreme Court trenchantly held in Faberge, Incorporated vs. Intermediate Appellate Court that the protective mantle of the Trademark Law extends only to the goods used by the first user as specified in the certificate of registration, following the clear mandate conveyed by Section 20 of Republic Act 166, as amended, otherwise known as the Trademark Law, which reads:

SEC. 20. Certification of registration prima facie evidence of validity.- A certificate of registration of a mark or trade-name shall be prima facieevidence of the validity of the registration, the registrants ownership of the mark or trade-name, and of the registrants exclusive right to use the same in connection with the goods, business or services specified in the certificate, subject to any conditions and limitations stated therein. (underscoring supplied)

The records show that on June 20, 1983, Pearl and Dean applied for the registration of the trademark Poster Ads with the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks, and Technology Transfer. Said trademark was recorded in the Principal Register on September 12, 1988 under Registration No. 41165 covering the following products: stationeries such as letterheads, envelopes and calling cards and newsletters.

With this as factual backdrop, we see no legal basis to the finding of liability on the part of the defendants-appellants for their use of the words Poster Ads, in the advertising display units in suit. Jurisprudence has interpreted Section 20 of the Trademark Law as an implicit permission to a manufacturer to venture into the production of goods and allow that producer to appropriate the brand name of the senior registrant on goods other than those stated in the certificate of registration. The Supreme Court further emphasized the restrictive meaning of Section 20 when it stated, through Justice Conrado V. Sanchez, that:

Really, if the certificate of registration were to be deemed as including goods not specified therein, then a situation may arise whereby an applicant may be tempted to register a trademark on any and all goods which his mind may conceive even if he had never intended to use the trademark for the said goods. We believe that such omnibus registration is not contemplated by our Trademark Law.

While we do not discount the striking similarity between Pearl and Deans registered trademark and defendants-appellants Poster Ads design, as well as the parallel use by which said words were used in the parties respective advertising copies, we cannot find defendants-appellants liable for infringement of trademark. Poster Ads was registered by Pearl and Dean for specific use in its stationeries, in contrast to defendants-appellants who used the same words in their advertising display units. Why Pearl and Dean limited the use of its trademark to stationeries is simply beyond us. But, having already done so, it must stand by the consequence of the registration which it had caused.

xxx xxx xxx

We are constrained to adopt the view of defendants-appellants that the words Poster Ads are a simple contraction of the generic term poster advertising. In the absence of any convincing proof that Poster Ads has acquired a secondary meaning in this jurisdiction, we find that Pearl and Deans exclusive right to the use of Poster Ads is limited to what is written in its certificate of registration, namely, stationeries.

Defendants-appellants cannot thus be held liable for infringement of the trademark Poster Ads.

There being no finding of either copyright or trademark infringement on the part of SMI and NEMI, the monetary award granted by the lower court to Pearl and Dean has no leg to stand on.

xxx xxx xxx

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and another is rendered DISMISSING the complaint and counterclaims in the above-entitled case for lack of merit.[5

Dissatisfied with the above decision, petitioner P & D filed the instant petition assigning the following errors for the Courts consideration:

A. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT WAS COMMITTED BY RESPONDENTS SM AND NEMI;

B. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT NO INFRINGEMENT OF PEARL & DEANS TRADEMARK POSTER ADS WAS COMMITTED BY RESPONDENTS SM AND NEMI;

C. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE AWARD OF THE TRIAL COURT, DESPITE THE LATTERS FINDING, NOT DISPUTED BY THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THAT SM WAS GUILTY OF BAD FAITH IN ITS NEGOTIATION OF ADVERTISING CONTRACTS WITH PEARL & DEAN.

D. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING RESPONDENTS SM AND NEMI LIABLE TO PEARL & DEAN FOR ACTUAL, MORAL & EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS OF SUIT.6

ISSUES

In resolving this very interesting case, we are challenged once again to put into proper perspective four main concerns of intellectual property law patents, copyrights, trademarks and unfair competition arising from infringement of any of the first three. We shall focus then on the following issues:

(1) if the engineering or technical drawings of an advertising display unit (light box) are granted copyright protection (copyright certificate of registration) by the National Library, is the light box depicted in such engineering drawings ipso facto also protected by such copyright?

(2) or should the light box be registered separately and protected by a patent issued by the Bureau of Patents Trademarks and Technology Transfer (now Intellectual Property Office) in addition to the copyright of the engineering drawings?

(3) can the owner of a registered trademark legally prevent others from using such trademark if it is a mere abbreviation of a term descriptive of his goods, services or business?

ON THE ISSUE OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

Petitioner P & Ds complaint was that SMI infringed on its copyright over the light boxes when SMI had the units manufactured by Metro and EYD Rainbow Advertising for its own account. Obviously, petitioners position was premised on its belief that its copyright over the engineering drawings extended ipso facto to the light boxes depicted or illustrated in said drawings. In ruling that there was no copyright infringement, the Court of Appeals held that the copyright was limited to the drawings alone and not to the light box itself. We agree with the appellate court.

First, petitioners application for a copyright certificate as well as Copyright Certificate No. PD-R2588 issued by the National Library on January 20, 1981 clearly stated that it was for a class O work under Section 2 (O) of PD 49 (The Intellectual Property Decree) which was the statute then prevailing. Said Section 2 expressly enumerated the works subject to copyright:

SEC. 2. The rights granted by this Decree shall, from the moment of creation, subsist with respect to any of the following works:

x x x

(O) Prints, pictorial illustrations, advertising copies, labels, tags, and box wraps;

x x x

Although petitioners copyright certificate was entitled Advertising Display Units (which depicted the box-type electrical devices), its claim of copyright infringement cannot be sustained.

Copyright, in the strict sense of the term, is purely a statutory right. Being a mere statutory grant, the rights are limited to what the statute confers. It may be obtained and enjoyed only with respect to the subjects and by the persons, and on terms and conditions specified in the statute.[7 Accordingly, it can cover only the works falling within the statutory enumeration or description.[8

P & D secured its copyright under the classification class O work. This being so, petitioners copyright protection extended only to the technical drawings and not to the light box itself because the latter was not at all in the category of prints, pictorial illustrations, advertising copies, labels, tags and box wraps. Stated otherwise, even as we find that P & D indeed owned a valid copyright, the same could have referred only to the technical drawings within the category of pictorial illustrations. It could not have possibly stretched out to include the underlying light box. The strict application[9 of the laws enumeration in Section 2 prevents us from giving petitioner even a little leeway, that is, even if its copyright certificate was entitled Advertising Display Units. What the law does not include, it excludes, and for the good reason: the light box was not a literary or artistic piece which could be copyrighted under the copyright law. And no less clearly, neither could the lack of statutory authority to make the light box copyrightable be remedied by the simplistic act of entitling the copyright certificate issued by the National Library as Advertising Display Units.

In fine, if SMI and NEMI reprinted P & Ds technical drawings for sale to the public without license from P & D, then no doubt they would have been guilty of copyright infringement. But this was not the case. SMIs and NEMIs acts complained of by P & D were to have units similar or identical to the light box illustrated in the technical drawings manufactured by Metro and EYD Rainbow Advertising, for leasing out to different advertisers. Was this an infringement of petitioners copyright over the technical drawings? We do not think so.

During the trial, the president of P & D himself admitted that the light box was neither a literary not an artistic work but an engineering or marketing invention.[10 Obviously, there appeared to be some confusion regarding what ought or ought not to be the proper subjects of copyrights, patents and trademarks. In the leading case of Kho vs. Court of Appeals,11 we ruled that these three legal rights are completely distinct and separate from one another, and the protection afforded by one cannot be used interchangeably to cover items or works that exclusively pertain to the others:

Trademark, copyright and patents are different intellectual property rights that cannot be interchanged with one another. A trademark is any visible sign capable of distinguishing the goods (trademark) or services (service mark) of an enterprise and shall include a stamped or marked container of goods. In relation thereto, a trade name means the name or designation identifying or distinguishing an enterprise. Meanwhile, the scope of a copyright is confined to literary and artistic works which are original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain protected from the moment of their creation. Patentable inventions, on the other hand, refer to any technical solution of a problem in any field of human activity which is new, involves an inventive step and is industrially applicable.

ON THE ISSUE OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT

This brings us to the next point: if, despite its manufacture and commercial use of the light boxes without license from petitioner, private respondents cannot be held legally liable for infringement of P & Ds copyright over its technical drawings of the said light boxes, should they be liable instead for infringement of patent? We do not think so either.

For some reason or another, petitioner never secured a patent for the light boxes. It therefore acquired no patent rights which could have protected its invention, if in fact it really was. And because it had no patent, petitioner could not legally prevent anyone from manufacturing or commercially using the contraption. In Creser Precision Systems, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,12 we held that there can be no infringement of a patent until a patent has been issued, since whatever right one has to the invention covered by the patent arises alone from the grant of patent. x x x (A)n inventor has no common law right to a monopoly of his invention. He has the right to make use of and vend his invention, but if he voluntarily discloses it, such as by offering it for sale, the world is free to copy and use it with impunity. A patent, however, gives the inventor the right to exclude all others. As a patentee, he has the exclusive right of making, selling or using the invention.13 On the assumption that petitioners

advertising units were patentable inventions, petitioner revealed them fully to the public by submitting the engineering drawings thereof to the National Library.

To be able to effectively and legally preclude others from copying and profiting from the invention, a patent is a primordial requirement. No patent, no protection. The ultimate goal of a patent system is to bring new designs and technologies into the public domain through disclosure.[14 Ideas, once disclosed to the public without the protection of a valid patent, are subject to appropriation without significant restraint.15

On one side of the coin is the public which will benefit from new ideas; on the other are the inventors who must be protected. As held inBauer & Cie vs. ODonnel,16 The act secured to the inventor the exclusive right to make use, and vend the thing patented, and consequently to prevent others from exercising like privileges without the consent of the patentee. It was passed for the purpose of encouraging useful invention and promoting new and useful inventions by the protection and stimulation given to inventive genius, and was intended to secure to the public, after the lapse of the exclusive privileges granted the benefit of such inventions and improvements.

The law attempts to strike an ideal balance between the two interests:

(The p)atent system thus embodies a carefully crafted bargain for encouraging the creation and disclosure of new useful and non-obvious advances in technology and design, in return for the exclusive right to practice the invention for a number of years. The inventor may keep his invention secret and reap its fruits indefinitely. In consideration of its disclosure and the consequent benefit to the community, the patent is granted. An exclusive enjoyment is guaranteed him for 17 years, but upon the expiration of that period, the knowledge of the invention inures to the people, who are thus enabled to practice it and profit by its use.17

The patent law has a three-fold purpose: first, patent law seeks to foster and reward invention; second, it promotes disclosures of inventions to stimulate further innovation and to permit the public to practice the invention once the patent expires; third, the stringent requirements for patent protection seek to ensure that ideas in the public domain remain there for the free use of the public.[18

It is only after an exhaustive examination by the patent office that a patent is issued. Such an in-depth investigation is required because in rewarding a useful invention, the rights and welfare of the community must be fairly dealt with and effectively guarded. To that end, the prerequisites to obtaining a patent are strictly observed and when a patent is issued, the limitations on its exercise are equally strictly enforced. To begin with, a genuine invention or discovery must be demonstrated lest in the constant demand for new appliances, the heavy hand of tribute be laid on each slight technological advance in art.19

There is no such scrutiny in the case of copyrights nor any notice published before its grant to the effect that a person is claiming the creation of a work. The law confers the copyright from the moment of creation[20 and the copyright certificate is issued upon registration with the National Library of a sworn ex-parte claim of creation.

Therefore, not having gone through the arduous examination for patents, the petitioner cannot exclude others from the manufacture, sale or commercial use of the light boxes on the sole basis of its copyright certificate over the technical drawings.

Stated otherwise, what petitioner seeks is exclusivity without any opportunity for the patent office (IPO) to scrutinize the light boxs eligibility as a patentable invention. The irony here is that, had petitioner secured a patent instead, its exclusivity would have been for 17 years only. But through the simplified procedure of copyright-registration with the National Library without undergoing the rigor of defending the patentability of its invention before the IPO and the public the petitioner would be protected for 50 years. This situation could not have been the intention of the law.

In the oft-cited case of Baker vs. Selden21, the United States Supreme Court held that only the expression of an idea is protected by copyright, not the idea itself. In that case, the plaintiff held the

copyright of a book which expounded on a new accounting system he had developed. The publication illustrated blank forms of ledgers utilized in such a system. The defendant reproduced forms similar to those illustrated in the plaintiffs copyrighted book. The US Supreme Court ruled that:

There is no doubt that a work on the subject of book-keeping, though only explanatory of well known systems, may be the subject of a copyright; but, then, it is claimed only as a book. x x x. But there is a clear distinction between the books, as such, and the art, which it is, intended to illustrate. The mere statement of the proposition is so evident that it requires hardly any argument to support it. The same distinction may be predicated of every other art as well as that of bookkeeping. A treatise on the composition and use of medicines, be they old or new; on the construction and use of ploughs or watches or churns; or on the mixture and application of colors for painting or dyeing; or on the mode of drawing lines to produce the effect of perspective, would be the subject of copyright; but no one would contend that the copyright of the treatise would give the exclusive right to the art or manufacture described therein. The copyright of the book, if not pirated from other works, would be valid without regard to the novelty or want of novelty of its subject matter. The novelty of the art or thing described or explained has nothing to do with the validity of the copyright. To give to the author of the book an exclusive property in the art described therein, when no examination of its novelty has ever been officially made, would be asurprise and a fraud upon the public. That is the province of letters patent, not of copyright. The claim to an invention of discovery of an art or manufacture must be subjected to the examination of the Patent Office before an exclusive right therein can be obtained; and a patent from the government can only secure it.

The difference between the two things, letters patent and copyright, may be illustrated by reference to the subjects just enumerated. Take the case of medicines. Certain mixtures are found to be of great value in the healing art. If the discoverer writes and publishes a book on the subject (as regular physicians generally do), he gains no exclusive right to the manufacture and sale of the medicine; he gives that to the public. If he desires to acquire such exclusive right, he must obtain a patent for the mixture as a new art, manufacture or composition of matter. He may copyright his book, if he pleases; but that only secures to him the exclusive right of printing and publishing his book. So of all other inventions or discoveries.

The copyright of a book on perspective, no matter how many drawings and illustrations it may contain, gives no exclusive right to the modes of drawing described, though they may never have been known or used before. By publishing the book without getting a patent for the art, the latter is given to the public.

x x x

Now, whilst no one has a right to print or publish his book, or any material part thereof, as a book intended to convey instruction in the art, any person may practice and use the art itself which he has described and illustrated therein. The use of the art is a totally different thing from a publication of the book explaining it. The copyright of a book on bookkeeping cannot secure the exclusive right to make, sell and use account books prepared upon the plan set forth in such book. Whether the art might or might not have been patented, is a question, which is not before us. It was not patented, and is open and free to the use of the public. And, of course, in using the art, the ruled lines and headings of accounts must necessarily be used as incident to it.

The plausibility of the claim put forward by the complainant in this case arises from a confusion of ideas produced by the peculiar nature of the art described in the books, which have been made the subject of copyright. In describing the art, the illustrations and diagrams employed happened to correspond more closely than usual with the actual work performed by the operator who uses the art. x x x The description of the art in a book, though entitled to the benefit of copyright, lays no foundation for an exclusive claim to the art itself. The object of the one is explanation; the object of the other is use. The former may be secured by copyright. The latter can only be secured, if it can be secured at all, by letters patent. (underscoring supplied)

ON THE ISSUE OF TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

This issue concerns the use by respondents of the mark Poster Ads which petitioners president said was a contraction of poster advertising. P & D was able to secure a trademark certificate for it, but one where the goods specified were stationeries such as letterheads, envelopes, calling cards and newsletters.[22 Petitioner admitted it did not commercially engage in or market these goods. On the contrary, it dealt in electrically operated backlit advertising units and the sale of advertising spaces thereon, which, however, were not at all specified in the trademark certificate.

Under the circumstances, the Court of Appeals correctly cited Faberge Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court,[23 where we, invoking Section 20 of the old Trademark Law, ruled that the certificate of registration issued by the Director of Patents can confer (upon petitioner) the exclusive right to use its own symbol only to those goods specified in the certificate, subject to any conditions and limitations specified in the certificate x x x. One who has adopted and used a trademark on his goods does not prevent the adoption and use of the same trademark by others for products which are of a different description.[24 Faberge, Inc. was correct and was in fact recently reiterated in Canon Kabushiki Kaisha vs. Court of Appeals.[25

Assuming arguendo that Poster Ads could validly qualify as a trademark, the failure of P & D to secure a trademark registration for specific use on the light boxes meant that there could not have been any trademark infringement since registration was an essential element thereof.

ON THE ISSUE OF UNFAIR COMPETITION

If at all, the cause of action should have been for unfair competition, a situation which was possible even if P & D had no registration.[26However, while the petitioners complaint in the RTC also cited unfair competition, the trial court did not find private respondents liable therefor. Petitioner did not appeal this particular point; hence, it cannot now revive its claim of unfair competition.

But even disregarding procedural issues, we nevertheless cannot hold respondents guilty of unfair competition.

By the nature of things, there can be no unfair competition under the law on copyrights although it is applicable to disputes over the use of trademarks. Even a name or phrase incapable of appropriation as a trademark or tradename may, by long and exclusive use by a business (such that the name or phrase becomes associated with the business or product in the mind of the purchasing public), be entitled to protection against unfair competition.[27 In this case, there was no evidence that P & Ds use of Poster Ads was distinctive or well-known. As noted by the Court of Appeals, petitioners expert witnesses himself had testified that Poster Ads was too generic a name. So it was difficult to identify it with any company, honestly speaking.[28 This crucial admission by its own expert witness that Poster Ads could not be associated with P & D showed that, in the mind of the public, the goods and services carrying the trademark Poster Ads could not be distinguished from the goods and services of other entities.

This fact also prevented the application of the doctrine of secondary meaning. Poster Ads was generic and incapable of being used as a trademark because it was used in the field of poster advertising, the very business engaged in by petitioner. Secondary meaning means that a word or phrase originally incapable of exclusive appropriation with reference to an article in the market (because it is geographically or otherwise descriptive) might nevertheless have been used for so long and so exclusively by one producer with reference to his article that, in the trade and to that branch of the purchasing public, the word or phrase has come to mean that the article was his property.[29 The admission by petitioners own expert witness that he himself could not associate Poster Ads with petitioner P & D because it was too generic definitely precluded the application of this exception.

Having discussed the most important and critical issues, we see no need to belabor the rest.

All told, the Court finds no reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals when it reversed the Regional Trial Court of Makati City.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 22, 2001 is AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, (Chairman), Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.