A copyright is the legal protection extended to the owner of the rights in an original work. Original work refers to every production in the literary, scientific, and artistic domains. IPOPHL was created by virtue of Republic Act No. 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines which took effect on January 1, 1998, under the presidency of Fidel V. Ramos.

In the Intellectual Property (IP) Code of the Philippines, literary and artistic works include books, writings, musical works, films, paintings, and other works including computer programs. According to Section 177 of the Law of Copyright, these rights consist of the right to allow, impede, or carry out the following by the author:

  • Replication of the work, or a portion of the work
  • Transformation or dramatization of the original work
  • The first public distribution of the original work and each copy of the work
  • Rental of the original work, or copy of the work embodied in any form, including audiovisuals, cinematography, sound recordings, computer programming, or graphic work, regardless of ownership of the original work
  • Public display of the original or copy of the work
  • Public performance of the work
  • Other communication of the work to the public

Moral Rights

These rights allow the author of the work to maintain their personal connection to the work, and to undertake measures in order to protect this connection. The author of the work, independent of the economic rights, also have the right to:

  • Require the authorship of the work be attributed to him or her, meaning that the author may require that their name be displayed in a prominent fashion on a copy or public distribution or use of the work
  • To make any transformation or adjustment to the work, or withhold it from publication
  • To oppose any and all mutilation or any other derogatory action to the work which could potentially be detrimental to the author's honor and reputation
  • To refuse to the use of the author's name on any mutilated or distorted version of his work, or any work not of his own creation

Exceptions to moral rights

  • Under Section 195 of the Law on Copyright, an author may waive his moral rights through a written contract. However, this contract is deemed invalid if it allows third parties to do the following:
  • Make use of the author's name, the title of the work, or the author's reputation, in any version or adaptation of the work which could harm or be detrimental to the artistic reputation of another author
  • Make use of an author's name for a piece of work not of his own creation
  • The right of an author to have his contribution to a collective work credited to his name is deemed waived. A collective work here is defined as work created by two or more persons and under the understanding that the work will be attributed to the person whose direction said work is under. It is also understood that contributing natural persons will not be identified.
  • Directly commits an infringement against copyright;
  • Benefits from the infringing activity of another person who commits an infringement if the person benefiting has been given notice of the infringing activity and has the right and ability to control the activities of the other person;
  • With knowledge of infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another.

Liabilities of infringement

Any person found infringing rights protected under RA 10372 shall be liable:

  • The quotation of published works if they are compatible with fair use and only to an extent. This includes quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals provided that the source and the name of the author, if available, are mentioned.

Factors in determining fair use

Under fair use, the use of a copyrighted work for purposes of criticizing, commenting, news reporting, teaching, creating researches, and other similar purposes is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made is under fair use, the following factors should be considered:

  • The purpose of the use, including it is of a commercial nature or for non-profit purposes
  • The nature of the copyrighted work
  • The amount and sustainability of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
  • The effect of the use to the value of the copyrighted work

List of reproductions allowed

Given the mentioned rules and regulations above about copyright, reproduction of different materials, without the permission of the author, are still allowed given that they are done for reasons allowed by the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines. Provided here are the reproductions and purposes allowed by the law.

Reproduction of published work

Under Subsection 187.1 of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines,

The Philippines was removed from Special 301 Report of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in 2014, citing "significant legislative and regulatory reforms" in the area of intellectual property. The country began to be listed in 1989 and from 1994 was annually included in the piracy watchlist. The removal was seen as an important factor in boosting investor confidence. the Philippines remains off the watchlist. Copyright registrations reached an all-time high of 6,522 in 2023, according to the Intellectual Property Office, eclipsing the registration figures that were seen before the COVID-19 pandemic, with the agency citing increased public awareness of the intellectual property.

Recent developments

Former Senator Manny Villar in his 2011 press statement called for amending the Intellectual Property Code, as he expressed concerns that the artists were not sufficiently protected, citing a 2001 copyright complaint filed by a music publisher against Freddie Aguilar over Anak which he himself originally composed. Villar also opined that Levi Celerio would not have died poor had his works like Ang Pasko ay Sumapit were given protection earlier.

IPOPHL Director General Rowel Barba warned in 2022 that simply citing "CTTO" or "Credits to the Owner" as attribution for the author of a work of art featured in a meme or film clip violates the copyright law. He emphasized that it is still recommended to seek permissions from the authors of the paintings, photographs, essays, poems, or articles before reusing them in memes or clips. Mario Cerilles Jr. of Cerilles and Fernan Intellectual Property Law opined in 2023 that content creators who slap phrases like "CTTO" or even "no copyright infringement intended" onto their content may avoid plagiarism claims, but not copyright infringement claims. While creators may invoke fair use as a defense against copyright infringement, its success depends on the circumstances of the work's use. According to Cerilles, fair use claim may be more likely to succeed if the creator did not profit from their video and used only a small part of a copyrighted song, rather than the entirety of it.

In May 2023, Representative Joey Salceda authored House Bill No. 7600, approved on final reading by the 19th Congress of the Philippines, aims to strengthen the powers and functions of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines.

The Philippine Senate Committee on Trade, Commerce and Entrepreneurship's Senate Bill Nos. 2150 and 2385 aim to amend the 27-year old IP Code by enabling online site blocking to protect intellectual property rights against online piracy. Various stakeholders, including CitizenWatch Philippines, Stratbase ADR Institute, BK3 (Bantay Konsyumer, Kalsada, Kuryente), Viva Communications, Globe Telecom, supported the proposed site blocking provision and called for its immediate passage.

In July 2024, Barba and Secretary Alfredo E. Pascual submitted proposed amendments to modernize the IP Code, Republic Act 8293. The revisions include measures to combat online piracy, the authority for a site-blocking order, increase in penalties, copyright infringement enforcements and changes to trademark regulations.

In November 2025, the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), based in the United States, told the Office of the United States Trade Representative to engage with the Philippine government concerning "problematic" amendment bills in the legislature that they claimed may "erode the country's copyright protection", specifically the extended collective licensing mechanism and vague language on the mandatory accreditation of the collective management organizations with the IPOPHL. IIPA also suggested extending the copyright duration to 70 years (from current 50 years) and replacing the "open-ended" fair use system with the "closed-list" fair dealing system.

Notable cases

Cases resulting to actions

La Concepcion College vs. Catabijan

Author and publisher Raymund Sta. Maria Catabijan was issued 608,450.00 pesos in damages from La Concepcion College, who he claimed directly copied his work books in order to sell to students. La Concepcion College was found guilty of copyright infringement by the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL).

St. Mary's vs. Chinese firm and local partners

Fujian New Technology Color Making and Printing Co. Ltd., based in China, and its local partners M.Y. Intercontinental Trading Corporation (MITC) and Allianz Marketing and Publishing Corporation, were ordered to pay ₱24,695,830 worth of damages to St. Mary's Publishing Corporation (SMPC). This stemmed from Fujian's failure to abide by their contract with SMPC to deliver promised textbooks that they printed. The Chinese printing firm instead gave the marketing contract to MITC, with Allianz as the importer. The erring parties were also ordered to stop publications, importations, and distributions of textbooks, inclusive of revised versions. This landmark decision was ruled by Manila City Regional Trial Court Branch 24 on December 8, 2017; the Court of Appeals of the Philippines upheld the decision on April 11, 2019. The latter court said that while Fujian is a foreign company, "its act constitute copyright infringement pursuant to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works," of which the Philippines and China are signatories.

FILSCAP vs. Anrey

The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled, on August 11, 2022, that Anrey, Inc. must pay ₱10,000 worth of temperate damages to the Filipino Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, Inc. (FILSCAP) and ₱50,000.00 worth of attorney's fees, all subject to varying interest rates: 12% per year "from September 8, 2009 until June 30, 2013," 6% per year "from July 1, 2013 until finality of the Court's judgment," and 6% per year from the judgment finality "until fully satisfied." The case was in response to the unlicensed use of copyrighted songs from FILSCAP's repertoire in two restaurants in Baguio owned by Anrey, Inc. in 2008. Anrey, Inc. responded to FILSCAP's letters of request to secure proper licensing by claiming their restaurants were playing "whatever was being broadcasted on the radio they were tuned in." Granting FILSCAP's petition for review on certiorari, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling of Branch 6 of Baguio Regional Trial Court dismissing FILSCAP's complaint as well as the Court of Appeals ruling that upheld the regional trial court's decision.

According to the high court, "the act of playing radio broadcasts containing copyrighted music through the use of loudspeakers (radio-over-loudspeakers) is, in itself, a performance." It added, it does not fall under fair use as the restaurants' manner of use of loudspeakers in transmitting musical content from radio is commercial. The Supreme Court stated that this decision "will also affect other uses in similar establishments like malls, department stores, retail stores, lounges and the like"; However, the high court stressed that denying FILSCAP's petition would cause great harm to the economic rights of the copyright holders in which the users "use free radio reception" instead of paying royalties. By setting up a precedence for the proper use of copyrighted music, the Court said that this will create "a huge economic impact on the music industry in general."

Cases resulting to dismissals

ABS-CBN vs. Willing Willie

ABS-CBN demanded 127 million pesos from their former reality show star, Willie Revillame, citing copyright infringement due to stark similarities in Revillame's show, Willing Willie, and ABS CBN's Wowowee. ABS-CBN listed 5 acts of plagiarism allegedly committed by Willing Willie in their complaint as follows:

The Supreme Court ruled on January 28, 1999, that the format or mechanics of a television show is not included in the list of the protected work provided by Presidential Decree no. 49 and Republic Act No. 8293. It further state that copyright, in the strict sense of the term, is purely a statutory right and does not extend to an idea, procedure, process, system, method or operation, concept, principles or discovery regardless of the form to which it is described, explained, and illustrated or embodied in the work.

Pearl & Dean filed this instant case for infringement of trademark and copyright, unfair competition and damages. SM on its part maintained that it independently developed its poster panels using commonly known techniques and available technology, without notice of or reference to Pearl and Dean's copyright.

The ruling stemmed from a dispute between LEC Steel Manufacturing Corporation and Metrotech Steel Industries where the former accused the latter infringing its intellectual property rights.