Copyright breach by candidates
Except for the use of social media, the campaign techniques in this year’s elections are no different from the past.
When the campaign period officially started on Feb. 8, the presidential and vice presidential candidates, including their senatorial lineups, held proclamation rallies in vote-rich areas.
Most of these events had the usual array of entertainers, streamers, balloons and other campaign paraphernalia. And with the way the crowds came together and mixed, it was as if COVID-19 had already ceased to be a medical problem in the country.
After that inaugural ritual, the candidates were off and running in the campaign trail.
In what may be considered as traditional fare, their motorcades and handshaking sorties are accompanied by songs, jingles and other audiovisual materials that are meant to catch attention and keep the candidates’ names in the voters’ memory bank.
The possibility of that retention process extending up to Election Day is enhanced if they have the same ring or beat of tunes or jingles that have gained popularity in the airwaves.
On this point, the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines has advised the candidates to strictly observe the Intellectual Property Code “… by seeking authorization from intellectual property owners and compensating them to use their works for their campaigns.
“Even as candidates are willing to pay a handsome fee, they first and foremost have to ask copyright holders’ permission to use their works in their political ads, and respect their decision if their proposals are turned down if it’s because they refuse any association from a certain political party.”
Copyright is the exclusive right of an author over the product of his or her intellect or imagination. That right entitles him or her to all the benefits that may accrue or arise from that product as a form of reward or compensation for his or her efforts.
Besides, that entitlement (and the enjoyment of its fruits) would redound to the benefit of the public because it would encourage other gifted persons to come up with innovative ideas.
Thus, if anybody wants to make use of that product, then he or she, for legal and ethical reasons, should secure first the permission of its author and, if demanded by the latter, pay a fee for such use.
Who knows, the author may allow its use without any charges if the request is intended for a good cause and made properly.
It is common knowledge that the infringement of copyright of songwriters, musicians and other creators of audiovisual materials by candidates during election campaigns is rampant.
These candidates are either unaware of copyright rules or even if they are, do so anyway because they know they can get away with it with hardly a slap on the wrist.
On the part of the disrespected authors, going to court to sue for damages for breach of copyright would be an expensive and tiring proposition in light of the slow pace of justice in the country.
The success of the handful of infringement cases filed in the past may be attributed to the determination and grit of the association of songwriters and musicians that pursued them.
But sadly, even with those legal victories, the infringement of copyright continues unabated, if not considered a fact of life already.
Our law enforcement authorities cannot be faulted for their inability to take a more aggressive stance on those offenses because they are shorthanded and have other equally important crime-related matters to attend to.
Under these circumstances, when appeal to reason or morality would be ineffective, the infringement victims have no alternative but to go to social media to demand that the infringing parties cease the illegal use or, better still, get their permission and pay the appropriate fee.
If that post goes viral, the concerned candidates may be compelled to own up to the error and comply with copyright rules.
That may look like a stab in the dark, but we can dream, can’t we? INQFor comments, please send your email to [email protected].
