Source: https://emirvmendoza.wordpress.com/tag/intellectual-property-law/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:36:20+00:00

Document:
There is no fixed definition of “lost media”. However, two definitions provided by forum users of the Lost Media Wiki, “a community effort to track down lost or hard to find media” (Source: LMW home page).
The unreleased media is lost to the general public, they can’t view it. The lost media is lost to everyone, no one can view it.
The pure definition the site (The Lost Media Wiki) goes by is “media that isn’t available to the general public”.
There is no movement or endeavor to track down lost media in the Philippines. Rather, what is happening is the reverse. Jojo Bailon, on his page View on the 3rd, makes available media that may fall under the definitions of “lost media” stated above.
The copyright is distinct from the property in the material object subject to it. Consequently, the transfer or assignment of the copyright shall not itself constitute a transfer of the material object. Nor shall a transfer or assignment of the sole copy or of one or several copies of the work imply transfer or assignment of the copyright.
185.1. The fair use of a copyrighted work for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching including limited number of 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 a computer program to achieve the interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs may also constitute fair use under the criteria established by this section, to the extent that such decompilation is done for the purpose of obtaining the information necessary to achieve such interoperability.
185.2. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not by itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
It may be argued that “similar purposes” may include “preservation and availability of lost media”, based on the principle of ejusdem generis.
Making available lost media to the public may be argued to be not for a commercial purpose. Those who make available such lost media do not usually derive profit from such endeavor. There is no evidence of the effect of making available lost media upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
First, the purpose and character of the use of the copyrighted material must fall under those listed in Section 185, thus: “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, research, and similar purposes.”117 The purpose and character requirement is important in view of copyright’s goal to promote creativity and encourage creation of works. Hence, commercial use of the copyrighted work can be weighed against fair use.
Second, the nature of the copyrighted work is significant in deciding whether its use was fair. If the nature of the work is more factual than creative, then fair use will be weighed in favor of the user.
Third, the amount and substantiality of the portion used is important to determine whether usage falls under fair use. An exact reproduction of a copyrighted work, compared to a small portion of it, can result in the conclusion that its use is not fair. There may also be cases where, though the entirety of the copyrighted work is used without consent, its purpose determines that the usage is still fair.121 For example, a parody using a substantial amount of copyrighted work may be permissible as fair use as opposed to a copy of a work produced purely for economic gain.
Lastly, the effect of the use on the copyrighted work’s market is also weighed for or against the user. If this court finds that the use had or will have a negative impact on the copyrighted work’s market, then the use is deemed unfair.
Once a news broadcast has been transmitted, the broadcast becomes relatively worthless to the station. In the case of the aerial broadcasters, advertising sales generate most of the profits derived from news reports. Advertising rates are, in turn, governed by market share. Market share is determined by the number of people watching a show at any particular time, relative to total viewers at that time. News is by nature time-limited, and so re-broadcasts are generally of little worth because they draw few viewers. Newscasts compete for market share by presenting their news in an appealing format that will capture a loyal audience. Hence, the primary reason for copyrighting newscasts by broadcasters would seem to be to prevent competing stations from rebroadcasting current news from the station with the best coverage of a particular news item, thus misappropriating a portion of the market share.
115Habana v. Robles, 369 Phil. 764 (1999) [Per J. Pardo, First Division], citing 18 AM JUR 2D §109, in turn citing Toksvig v. Bruce Pub. Co., (CA7 Wis) 181 F2d 664 ; Bradbury v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., (CA9 Cal) 287 F2d 478, cert den 368 US 801, 7 L ed 2d 15, 82 S Ct 19 ; Shipman v. R.K.O. Radio Pictures, Inc., (CA2 NY) 100 F2d 533 .
117 Rep. Act No. 8293 (1997), sec. 185.
118See Matthew D. Bunker, Transforming The News: Copyright And Fair Use In News-Related Contexts, 52 J. COPYRIGHT SOCY U.S.A. 309, 311 (2004-2005).
119 Id., citing Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994).
121See Matthew D. Bunker, Transforming The News: Copyright And Fair Use In News-Related Contexts, 52 J. COPYRIGHT SOC’Y U.S.A. 309, 314 (2004-2005), citing Nunez v. Caribbean International News Corp., 235 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2000).
122See John J. McGowan, Competition, Regulation, and Performance In Television Broadcasting, 1967 WASH. U. L. Q. 499 (1967), and William T. Kelley, How Television Stations Price Their Service, 11 J. BROAD. 313(1966-1967).
123 See Michael W. Baird, Copyrighting Newscasts: An argument for an Open Market, 3 Fordham Ent. Media & Intell. Prop. L.F. 481, pp. 518-519. The author of the article argues that “news broadcasts [should be taken] out of the realm of copyright entirely, creating instead a separate ‘rebroadcast right‘ for factual works of a time-limited nature. . . [in that] [s]uch a right would allow the taping of newscasts, but protect the source of broadcasters’ incomes, i.e., the advertising revenues from the original broadcast.” In essence, the author recognizes broadcasting organizations’ right to rebroadcast, which we defined earlier as a related or neighboring right of copyright.
124See Instagram, available at (last visited on 8 February 2015).
125See Vine, available at (last accessed on 8 February 2015).
126See 1 Second Everyday, available at (last accessed on 8 February 2015).
This post is subject to revision as new information arises. Information is offered as-is and with no guarantees made.

References: v. 
 §109
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.