Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE MULTI-MEDIA SYSTEM

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 195956 2015-03-11	ABS-CBN CORPORATION v. FELIPE GOZON LEONEN, J.
Under the Rome Convention, rebroadcasting is "the simultaneous broadcasting by one broadcasting organization of the broadcast of another broadcasting organization." The Working Paper prepared by the Secretariat of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights defines broadcasting organizations as "entities that take the financial and editorial responsibility for the selection and arrangement of, and investment in, the transmitted content."[107] (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted) Broadcasting organizations are entitled to several rights and to the protection of these rights under the Intellectual Property Code. Respondents' argument that the subject news footage is not copyrightable is erroneous. The Court of Appeals, in its assailed Decision, correctly recognized the existence of ABS-CBN's copyright over the news footage:Surely, private respondent has a copyright of its news coverage. Seemingly, for airing said video feed, petitioner GMA is liable under the provisions of the Intellectual Property Code, which was enacted purposely to protect copyright owners from infringement.[108] News as expressed in a video footage is entitled to copyright protection. Broadcasting organizations have not only copyright on but also neighboring rights over their broadcasts. Copyrightability of a work is different from fair use of a work for purposes of news reporting.
	GR No. 176694 2014-07-18	GMA NETWORK v. CENTRAL CATV BRION, J.
An understanding of the "must-carry rule" would show how it carries out the directive of Section 2 of EO No. 205 that the CATV operation must not infringe upon the broadcast television markets, specifically the audience market. In ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Philippine Multi-Media System, Inc.,[36] the Court clarified the "must-carry rule" and its interplay in the free-signal TV, such as the petitioner, and the CATV operators, such as the respondent, and to quote: Anyone in the country who owns a television set and antenna can receive ABS-CBN's signals for free. Other broadcasting organizations with free-to-air signals such as GMA-7, RPN-9, ABC-5, and IBC-13 can likewise be accessed for free. No payment is required to view the said channels because these broadcasting networks do not generate revenue from subscription from their viewers but from airtime revenue from contracts with commercial advertisers and producers, as well as from direct sales.
	GR No. 179267 2013-06-25	JESUS C. GARCIA v. GARCIA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
As a general rule, the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity so that if not raised in the pleadings, ordinarily it may not be raised in the trial, and if not raised in the trial court, it will not be considered on appeal.[39] Courts will not anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it.[40]
	GR No. 171101 2011-07-05	HACIENDA LUISITA v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL VELASCO JR., J.
It has been emphasized in a number of cases that the question of constitutionality will not be passed upon by the Court unless it is properly raised and presented in an appropriate case at the first opportunity. [109] FARM is, therefore, remiss in belatedly questioning the constitutionality of Sec. 31 of RA 6657. The second requirement that the constitutional question should be raised at the earliest possible opportunity is clearly wanting.