Copyright In Automated PhilIPpine Mythology Illustrated Novels.
I. Core Legal Framework
The governing law is the Intellectual Property Code (IPC), particularly:
Section 172 – Literary and artistic works protected
Section 173 – Derivative works
Section 178 – Copyright ownership
Section 177 – Economic rights
Section 193 – Moral rights
When AI is used to generate text and illustrations, the legal questions typically are:
Is Philippine mythology protected by copyright?
Who owns AI-generated works?
Are illustrated mythology novels derivative works?
Does AI training infringe copyright?
What about moral rights and attribution?
II. Are Philippine Mythological Stories Protected?
A. Public Domain Status
Most Philippine mythological figures (e.g., Bathala, Maria Makiling, Bernardo Carpio, Lam-ang) originate from pre-colonial oral traditions. Works whose authors are unknown and ancient are generally in the public domain.
Under Section 175 of the IPC, works whose copyright has expired become public domain.
Thus:
The original folklore is public domain.
Anyone may retell the myth itself.
However, a specific modern retelling (e.g., a 1995 illustrated version) is protected.
Key Principle:
The myth is free; the specific expression is protected.
III. AI-Generated Mythology Illustrated Novels: Copyrightability
Philippine law assumes human authorship. Section 178 states copyright belongs to the “author.”
There is no explicit recognition of AI as an author.
Thus, if:
A human substantially directs and controls the AI → copyright likely belongs to the human.
The AI generates content autonomously with minimal human creativity → copyright protection becomes doubtful.
Philippine jurisprudence emphasizes original intellectual creation by a human.
IV. Major Philippine Case Laws (Detailed Discussion)
1. Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Court of Appeals
Facts:
Columbia Pictures sued for unauthorized public exhibition of films.
Legal Doctrine:
The Supreme Court emphasized that copyright protects original expression, not ideas.
Relevance to AI Mythology Novels:
The idea of Maria Makiling is free.
But copying a modern film’s script, character design, or dialogue is infringement.
If AI reproduces distinctive elements from a protected version, infringement may occur.
This case clarifies that copyright infringement does not require literal copying — substantial similarity suffices.
2. ABS-CBN Corporation v. Gozon
Facts:
ABS-CBN alleged infringement regarding news footage and broadcast materials.
Ruling:
The Court distinguished between:
Unprotected facts
Protected creative presentation
Application:
In mythology:
The fact that Bernardo Carpio is trapped between mountains is unprotected.
A unique screenplay, artistic rendering, or narrative structure is protected.
If AI copies stylistic presentation from a modern show or illustrated book, that may constitute infringement.
3. Pearl & Dean (Phil.), Inc. v. Shoemart, Inc.
Facts:
Dispute over advertising display units and copyright registration.
Key Doctrine:
Registration is not required for copyright to exist.
Copyright arises upon creation.
Application to AI:
Even if a modern illustrated mythology novel is not registered:
It is still protected.
AI developers cannot argue absence of registration as defense.
This case is crucial when AI is trained on unpublished or unregistered illustrated works.
4. Ching v. Salinas
Facts:
Concerned technical drawings and authorship claims.
Doctrine:
Originality requires independent intellectual effort.
Mechanical reproduction is not protected.
Application:
If AI:
Merely recombines existing illustrations without meaningful human creative intervention,
Or produces predictable outputs without creative control,
Copyright protection may be denied.
This case supports the argument that human intellectual input is essential.
5. McDonald's Corporation v. L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc.
(Primarily a trademark case, but doctrinally useful.)
Doctrine:
The Court looks at overall similarity and likelihood of confusion.
Relevance to AI Illustrations:
If AI-generated illustrated characters closely resemble copyrighted commercial depictions of mythological characters, courts may assess:
Substantial similarity
Overall visual impression
Market confusion
Though a trademark case, the reasoning on similarity is influential.
6. Filipino Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (FILSCAP) v. Anrey, Inc.
Facts:
Concerned public performance of copyrighted musical works.
Doctrine:
Economic rights include reproduction, public performance, and communication to the public.
Application:
If an AI-generated mythology novel:
Incorporates copyrighted music lyrics
Adapts protected scripts
Is publicly distributed online
The author or platform may infringe reproduction and communication rights.
7. Laktaw v. Paglinawan
Historical Case (Pre-IPC but influential)
Doctrine:
Translation constitutes a derivative work requiring permission.
Application:
If AI translates a copyrighted modern mythology novel into graphic form:
It is a derivative work.
Authorization is required.
This case is highly relevant for illustrated adaptations.
V. Derivative Works in AI Mythology Novels
Under Section 173 of the IPC:
Derivative works include:
Adaptations
Dramatizations
Illustrations based on existing works
Thus:
If AI:
Takes a 2005 copyrighted Maria Makiling novel
Generates illustrated panels based on it
That is a derivative work requiring permission.
VI. AI Training and Infringement
Philippine law does not yet have explicit AI training jurisprudence.
However, applying IPC principles:
If training involves:
Reproduction of copyrighted books
Storage of digital copies
This may implicate reproduction rights (Sec. 177).
Fair use (Sec. 185) may apply, depending on:
Purpose (commercial vs. research)
Nature of work
Amount used
Effect on market
Commercial AI training on illustrated novels may face difficulty invoking fair use.
VII. Moral Rights Issues
Under Section 193 IPC:
Authors have:
Right to attribution
Right to integrity
If AI:
Distorts a copyrighted mythology novel
Removes the author’s name
Alters artistic meaning
The original author may sue for violation of moral rights.
VIII. Ownership Scenarios in AI-Generated Mythology Novels
| Scenario | Likely Legal Result |
|---|---|
| AI retells ancient folklore with human creative control | Human owns copyright |
| AI copies modern illustrated mythology | Infringement |
| Fully autonomous AI creates work | Copyright status uncertain |
| AI adapts protected novel without permission | Derivative infringement |
IX. Policy Gaps in Philippine Law
The IPC was enacted in 1997 — before generative AI.
Unresolved issues:
Can AI be an author?
Is training “reproduction”?
Who is liable — developer, user, or platform?
Philippine courts have not yet ruled directly on AI authorship.
X. Conclusion
For Automated Philippine Mythology Illustrated Novels:
Ancient myths are public domain.
Modern retellings are protected.
AI-generated works likely require meaningful human creative input.
Derivative use of modern mythology books requires permission.
Moral rights remain enforceable.
Philippine jurisprudence emphasizes originality and human authorship.
The key doctrine repeated in case law:
Copyright protects expression, not ideas — and requires human intellectual creation.
RELATED Blog
comments