SY 2012-2013, First Semester
In all of our transactions whether in a public or private institution we are required to divulge information about ourselves, it may be about our address, telephone number, educational background or medical background all of this information are stored in their database and left to their disposal. In this type of scenario the foreseeable danger that this information which we have freely disclosed might be used and abused by other individuals. A total stranger gains total access on relevant information about us, one who is stoker might know our number or address.
With the passage of House Bill 4115 or the “Data Privacy Act of 2011” this possible danger will be prevented, laws with corresponding penalties will be imposed thereby posing threat to unscrupulous individuals who might abuse information about us that we have freely given.
Under our Constitution It is expressly recognized in section 3 (1) of the Bill of Rights Sec. 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law. It is the states duty to provide laws in order that this fundamental right of person will not be violated. House Bill 4115 embodies this principle and thus should be supported in order to become a law and provide protection.
In Ople v. Torres, Administrative order no. 308 was declared to be unconstitutional being violative of the rigght to privacy of an individual by having an ID system which will store information in every transaction we enter into. Such Administrative order is totally different compared to HB 4115 for it provides a system wherein a government agency that collects information freely given will be protected. HB 4115 further task an information controller to monitor and secure that information gathered be kept and secured.
Fan fiction or Fan art is a genre of amateur creative expression that features characters from movies, TV shows, and popular culture in new situations or adventures. The vast majority of these stories and poems are written by fans with no commercial interest who disseminate their work over the Internet, email lists, or newsgroups.
The Intellectual property code gives protection to the author or artist on his work of art and imposes sanctions to anyone who imitates or adopt his work without his consent however the 1987 Constitution guarantees the freedom of Speech and of expression, in the hierarchy of civil rights the freedom of expression ranks higher than the property rights of an individual , Fan art can thus be considered legal and non violative of the copyright law so long as it is an expression of new ideas entirely foreign from the work on which the character was adopted.
Fan art in the Philippines can be considered legal so long as it conforms with the fair use doctrine which says that otherwise copyrighted works may be used for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. To decide whether a use is “fair use” or not, the following should be considered:
(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;
) 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.
Parody is also fair use.
Under this doctrine, artists have been permitted to create and display their art even if it uses copyrighted works of others. See Court Allows Artist to Sell Barbie Art, for an example.
There is a strong argument that many fan fiction stories are transformative since they create a different persona and set of events for the character. To create a new story cannot be seen as the same as posting video clips on a website. There must be a balancing between protecting copyrights in order to encourage innovation by authors and between allowing works to be in the public domain to allow creative uses.
Whether a court will view this as the case for a particular work of fan fiction depends on how much of the story relies on copyrighted materials, whether the story is sold, or affects the market for the copyrighted work, and other factors. There is no easy answer to the question, which is why it is often a good idea to consult a lawyer who can assess the particular facts of your case .(http://www.chillingeffects.org/fanfic/faq.cgi#QID138)
Fan Art does not actually result to the prejudice of the author or the original copyright holder oftentimes it even serves as a free advertisement,from a copyright holder viewpoint, fan fiction and art is usually not very harmful. Fans create works that are openly recognized to be non-canon to the story and are not replacements for the original.In fact, some feel these fan communities actually serve a valuable service to copyright holders by providing a thriving site for fans to visit, keeping them entertained and engage between official releases. In short, since fan creations don’t take away sales of the original work, they are often seen as free promotion and a way to grow the brand without cost or effort.
In this modern society where the use of internet is considered by almost everyone as a necessity for it provides quick access to information regarding almost everything from all over the globe. Dissemination of ideas come in handy through the internet, through this means we are able to know whats hot and trending in the music industry, sports, and fashion. Almost everyone among us from the time we first learned how to use the internet for sure have downloaded a music or movie clip,does this act of downloading copyrighted works,shared by others who are not copyrighted owners of such works constitute as an act of copyright infringement on the part of the down loader? The Intellectual property states: 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 substantial portion of the work. We might reason out that the prohibition only refers to the one who is reproducing thus the one who is downloading is not covered by the prohibition against copyright infringement furthermore we might justify the act on the ground of “fair use” as long as our act of downloading is for personal use alone there is no infringement, besides it would not make a difference at all but if we look into the intent of the law with regards to copyright the mere of act downloading copyrighted works shared by others who are not copyrighted owners which is usually for free should be prohibited and reasonably penalized for the simple reason that it is a copyrighted work already. Before a work is placed under the protective mantle of copyright it has to be registered.A step has already been taken by its author to protect his rights mainly for the purpose of deriving profit in its dissemination, he is expecting profit from an individual who will be interested in his work and will then in its desire to have a copy pay him money. Thus downloading a copyrighted work in the internet for me would already constitute an infringement for the purpose which its author seeks to be avoided is already committed one way or the other. An individual who is supposed to pay him already procures and enjoy his work for free. First world countries are now adopting laws and treaties such as: SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act);PIPA (Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act); three strike rule of New Zealand; and,ACTA (Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) in order to better protect copyrighted works against infringement for me the Philippines should likewise adopt said laws or ratify such treaty. The Philippine movie and music industry is suffering a backdrop because of piracy I believe that stiffer laws should be imposed in order resolve such problem. The constitutional right to privacy and communication compared to property rights, the former should be considered supreme. With regards to the idea that the imposition of SOPA, PIPA, three strike rule, and ACTA in the Philippines should not be considered outright as a violation against the constitutional right to privacy and communication. The quickness and easy access the internet provides might give the impression that the right to privacy and of expression is violated but in reality it is not we might compare it to a scenario wherein a property which is known to be stolen by someone who found it and knows who is its true owner is can already appropriate it and consider such stolen property as his own. The constitutional right of freedom of expression and privacy is not limitless and the state is not without authority to suppress such right when it violates the rights of another. A copyrighted work springs from the original idea of its owners the tangible outcome of his expression and his desire to communicate it and be attributed as his own of course there are also instances wherein such work can be appropriated but downloading it in its entirety to be use by an individual is certainly not one.