THE Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that letting customers listen to a short 20-second sample of a ringtone before they buy it does not violate copyright laws.
In a decision promulgated on February 25, 2025 but only made public yesterday, the Court en banc, through Associate Justice Mario Lopez, upheld the ruling of Branch 93 of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC) that dismissed the complaint of the Filipino Society of Composers and Publishers (FILSCAP) against Wolfpac Communications, Inc. for copyright infringement and damages.
Wolfpac develops mobile phone apps and distributes them through partner networks such as Smart Communications, Incorporated.
FILSCAP, which collects royalties for songwriters and composers, filed the complaint as it objected to a Smart newspaper ad that allowed customers to preview ringback tones online before purchasing.
In its complaint, the group claimed playing ringtones required a license and payment of royalties.
But Wolfpac argued there was no copyright violation because there was no public performance, that the samples were free and had no independent commercial value, and were only listened to privately by potential consumers.
It also claimed that it had deals with the composers authorizing the public performance of their music by converting them into downloadable ringtones.
In a 2008 ruling, the RTC sided with Wolfpac, declaring that the 20-second ringtone preview did not count as a public performance.
The RTC also held that the preview was allowed under the Fair Use Doctrine, which it explained permits limited use of copyrighted material without needing the owner’s permission.
The RTC further held that since Wolfpac was only using the short clip for promotional purposes and had agreements with the composers, it did not need a separate performance license.
FILSCAP appealed the RTC ruling until it reached the SC. But the SC said it agreed with the RTC ruling.
“All told, the Court cannot uphold the composers’ reservation of rights since the use of the copyrighted works falls under Fair Use. As Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen pointed out, fair use under the Intellectual Property Code may supersede the preservation of rights made by the copyright owners,” the SC said.
“In this case, the Court stresses that this is only limited to Wolfpac’s act of making the song samples available to the public for purposes of allowing the potential consumers to make an informed decision before downloading the songs. Consequently, Wolfpac’s use of the sample songs in the pre-listening function does not constitute copyright infringement,” the SC added.
The SC held that copyright is violated when someone uses a protected work without permission in ways that go against the owner’s rights, such as performing, copying, or distributing it for profit.
However, it said that the Intellectual Property Code allows certain exceptions, such as private performance done for free or use of the work for teaching, information, charity, or religious purposes.
There is also no copyright infringement, it added, if the use qualifies as fair use, which is determined by looking at four factors, namely, the purpose and character of the use, including whether it is for profit or non-profit educational purposes, the nature of the work, how much of the work is used; and the effect of the use on the value of the work.
The SC also said the previews do not harm the composers or replace the value of the copyrighted work, and that the samples are not meant to entertain and cannot be downloaded, so they do not substitute for the paid ringtones.
“In this case, the Court found that the preview is a form of communication to the public because it allows users to access the song samples online, at a time and place of their choice,” it added.
