While vacationing in Boracay, Valentino surreptitiously took photographs of his girlfriend Monaliza in her skimpy bikini. Two weeks later, her photographs appeared in the Internet and in a national celebrity magazine.
Monaliza found out that Valentino had sold the photographs to the magazine and, adding insult to injury, uploaded them to his personal blog on the Internet.
a. Monaliza filed a complaint against Valentino for damages based on, among other grounds, violation of her intellectual property rights. Does she have any cause of action? Explain. (2%)
b. Valentino’s friend Francesco stole the photographs and duplicated them and sold them to a magazine publication. Valentino sued Francesco for infringement and damages. Does Valentino have any cause of action? Explain. (2%)
c. Does Monaliza have any cause of action against Francesco? Explain. (2%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
Monaliza has no IP claim against Valentino but can sue for privacy violation; Valentino cannot sue Francesco for infringement; and Monaliza can sue Francesco for privacy violation. Under Section 178.1 of R.A. 8293, copyright belongs to
Unlock the full Commercial and Tax Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Under Section 178.1 of R.A. 8293, who owns the copyright over a photograph taken by a photographer?
Section 178.1 provides that copyright belongs to the photographer who created the work.
Can a person whose photograph was surreptitiously taken sue the photographer for copyright infringement?
The subject of a photograph does not own the copyright and cannot sue for copyright infringement.
What legal cause of action can a person bring if her private bikini photos are published without consent?
Unauthorized publication of private photographs constitutes a tortious violation of the right to privacy under Article 26.
Under Philippine copyright law, what is the effect when a photographer sells his original photo copy to a magazine?
Choices available with full access.
Can a subject whose private photos were stolen and sold by a third party sue that third party for damages?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Copyright Ownership Rules
Under Section 178.1 of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (Republic Act Number 8293), copyright ownership over a photographic work belongs fundamentally to the photographer who created the visual work, rather than the person who serves as the subject of the photograph. Although the subject holds constitutional and statutory privacy rights against unauthorized publication, the subject does not acquire copyright ownership merely by appearing in the photograph. Consequently, the subject cannot maintain an action for copyright infringement against the photographer or third parties.
2. Right to Privacy
Under Article 26 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, every person has a statutory right to personal privacy, dignity, and peace of mind. Surreptitiously taking intimate photographs of an individual and subsequently publishing or uploading them on public internet blogs and commercial magazines without express consent constitutes an actionable tortious invasion of privacy. Both the original photographer and any third-party publishers who unauthorizedly distribute or commercialize such private photographs are civilly liable for moral damages and injunctive relief.
3. Copyright First Sale
Under Section 177 and Section 200 of the Intellectual Property Code (Republic Act Number 8293), copyright ownership grants the creator exclusive economic rights to reproduce, distribute, or transfer the work. Under the first sale doctrine, when the copyright owner voluntarily sells or transfers a physical copy of the photograph to a commercial magazine publication without retaining exclusive distribution rights, his control over that particular copy is exhausted. He cannot subsequently sue a third party for copyright infringement regarding that sold physical copy.