What follows is our editorial staff’s response to a letter sent to us from the Chairman of the Defensores Fidei Foundation demanding that we take down our video recordings of their public event ‘Women Speak Out: The Medical And Legal Truths About The RH Bill’.
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your letter and its accompanying concern. Kindly allow us to note however that your organization’s event was advertised as free and open to the public. We attended it openly, identifying ourselves as being from the Filipino Freethinkers through our tshirts before the event, giving our names and organization during the open forum segment, and later in conversations with other attendees and the lecturers themselves after the event. We went intending to listen to other people’s opinions and evaluate information that your lecturers presented as factual during both their presentations and as indicated in the title of the event itself. During the event we were recording openly and in full view, along with several others in attendance.
Our members conducted themselves in this manner not for profit but in the interest of providing the public with information. Given freedom of the press and mass media to disseminate matters of public concern, of which the Reproductive Health Bill is surely one, it is our belief that we are not violating the law but are in fact doing a service to the Filipino people by duly providing them with information on both sides of the current RH controversy.
It is for these reasons that after having given due consideration to your concerns and consulting with our legal team, we are respectfully refusing to give in to your demands.
Allow us here to reiterate our ongoing stance that there remains a need to continue a respectful and fact-based discussion on the RH Bill. We at Filipino Freethinkers believe that keeping an open, honest discussion on RH and other matters of public policy benefits both sides.
We therefore wish to ask your good organization to help all involved in public policy issues to arrive at, as you put it in the title of your event, the real ‘Truths’. We would like to ask that Defensores Fidei do its part to propagate discussion rather than end it by resorting to threats.
Sincerely,
Red Tani
President, Filipino Freethinkers
and
The Editorial Staff of filipino-freethinkers-22d5b3.ingress-earth.easywp.com
Original Letter From Defensores Fidei:
Dear Sir,
It has been brought to our attention that transcripts and videos of “Women Speak: Medical and Legal Truths about the RH Bill”, a symposium organized by Defensores Fidei and the Chapel of the Eucharistic Lord at SM Megamall on April 30, 2011, have been posted at the website of your organization (at https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/05/02/tastebuds-tsunamis-and-the-thorough-twisting-of-truth-a-recap-of-the-anti-rh-forum-at-sm-megamall-1-of-2-parts/ and related links) without the permission of the lecturers and the event organizers.
Please be reminded that according to Article 172 (c) of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, “lectures, sermons, addresses, dissertations prepared for oral delivery, whether or not reduced in writing or other material form” are works protected by copyright, and pursuant to Section 177 of the same Code, only the copyright holder has the right to carry out, authorize, or prevent the reproduction, publication , or communication of the work to the public. Anyone who would violate such rights would incur civil, administrative, and criminal liabilities.
Thus, formal demand is hereby made on your organization to remove the aforementioned transcripts and videos from your website, and to refrain from further unauthorized publication of the said materials on your website. Should you fail to heed our just demand, our organization will be constrained to take the proper legal actions to protect our rights.
For your guidance.
Sincerely,
Gerry Castro
Chairman
Defensores Fidei Foundation
Mr Gerry Castro is simply asking to not expose what they do to people who have the ability of critical thinking. 😉
More from the law on copyright:
————–
Sec. 184. Limitations on Copyright
184.1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter V, the following acts shall not constitute infringement of copyright:
(c) The reproduction or communication to the public by mass media of articles on current political, social, economic, scientific or religious topic, lectures, addresses and other works of the same nature, which are delivered in public if such use is for information purposes and has not been expressly reserved: Provided, That the source is clearly indicated; (Sec. 11, P. D. No. 49)
(e) The inclusion of a work in a publication, broadcast, or other communication to the public, sound recording or film, if such inclusion is made by way of illustration for teaching purposes and is compatible with fair use: Provided, That the source and of the name of the author, if appearing in the work, are mentioned;
(i) The public performance or the communication to the public of a work, in a place where no admission fee is charged in respect of such public performance or communication, by a club or institution for charitable or educational purpose only, whose aim is not profit making, subject to such other limitations as may be provided in the Regulations; (n)
Sec. 185. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work.
185.1. The fair use of a copyrighted work for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, research, and similar purposes is not an infringement of copyright. Decompilation, which is understood here to be the reproduction of the code and translation of the forms of the computer program to achieve the inter-operability of an independently created computer program with other programs may also constitute fair use. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is fair use, the factors to be considered shall include:
(a) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit education purposes;
(b) The nature of the copyrighted work;
(c) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(d) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Oh Defensores Fidei… if they argue copyright laws like they argue catholic apologetic theology, then its not going to get them very far… their typical tactics like selective quote-mining and truth-twisting just won't cut it when they're threatening lawsuits instead of eternal damnation 🙁
They should put their debating skills to better use and argue the points raised by the FF writers instead of making unreasonable demands. I just had to cringe at the arrogant wordings of their demand letter. What did their holy scriptures say about "pride before the fall"?
Let me add more points to further basti2682's arguments.
Section 172.1 (c) of the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (R.A. No. 8293) explicitly designates the lecture as "… original intellectual creations… protected from the moment of their creation…."
Section 171.1 designates Dr. Montes and Atty. Montes as the "authors" of the said lecture.
Section 184.1 (c) however places a limit on the rights of Dr. Montes and Atty. Montes in this manner:
"184.1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter V, the following acts shall not constitute infringement of copyright:
(c) The reproduction or communication to the public by mass media of articles on current political, social, economic, scientific or religious topic, lectures, addresses and other works of the same nature, which are delivered in public if such use is for information purposes and has not been expressly reserved: Provided, That the source is clearly indicated; (Sec. 11, P. D. No. 49)"
Three key provisions are stated for Section 184.1 (c) to take effect:
1) That "such use is for information purposes"
2) That [the lecture] "has not been expressly reserved"
3) And "that the source is clearly indicated"
The first provision is easily verified by documentation. The second provision implies that the burden of proof that the lecture has been "expressly reserved" is on Dr. Montes and Atty. Montes. The third provision obligates the defending party to prove that they have clearly indicated the source as Dr. Montes and Atty. Montes.
References:
– http://www.chanrobles.com/legal7copyright.htm
– http://ipophil.gov.ph/main2.php?contentid=12
PS. @eebruf I hope that answers your question.
yep, salamat sir.. its just that they sounded like they had a legal army to back them up.. (or maybe they do?) kaya I just wondered if they really had a case..
First let's get the legalese out of the way:
Sec. 184. Limitations on Copyright. –
184.1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter V, the following acts shall not constitute infringement of copyright:
(c) The reproduction or communication to the public by mass media of … lectures, addresses and other works of the same nature, which are delivered in public if such use is for information purposes and has not been expressly reserved: Provided, That the source is clearly indicated;
(e) The inclusion of a work in a publication, broadcast, or other communication to the public, sound recording or film, if such inclusion is made by way of illustration for teaching purposes and is compatible with fair use: Provided, That the source and of the name of the author, if appearing in the work, are mentioned;
Sec. 185. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work. –
185.1. The fair use of a copyrighted work for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, research, and similar purposes is not an infringement of copyright.
Blah blah blah 🙂
Good on you for turning them down. Of course kunwari legal/copyright grounds pa ang basis for their objection–they know that they have even less of an illusory leg to stand on with regard to the content of the clips. Let 'em haul you to court, baka kumita pa kayo pag binasura ang kaso nila and they have to pay you your legal expenses. 😉
I am not part of FFF but, this is my two cents.
Intellectual property (IP) refers to creations of the mind: inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce.
There is no clear violation. Freethinkers did not post the sermon, information and discussions as their own. It was clearly indicated that discussion was from Defensores Fidei Foundation in an open forum, proper citations have been given negating any form of plagiarism. Credit is given to Defensores Fidei Foundation.
Freethinkers are a non-profit organization (i believe), the site and articles are free for reading, so the video is not used for monetary gain, mostly used for debate purposes. can you be sued for debating?
172.2. Works are protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their mode or form of expression, as well as of their content, quality and purpose. – Freethinkers do not claim that the presentation as theirs.
Defensores Fidei Foundation does not have a case.
Pasensya na sir, im not that good with the law
when you hold a gathering (seminar, lecture etc…) and you do it in public for free, do you really get to claim intellectual property rights? because if its true, then the media is also liable to the same sanctions?
please educate me
thanks