Philippines: Why a 20-Second Ringtone Preview Is Communication to the Public, and Fair Use
Music licensing in the Philippines rests on a distinction that is easy to miss: public performance and communication to the public are separate economic rights under the Intellectual Property Code (Republic Act No. 8293). In FILSCAP v. Wolfpac Communications, Inc. (G.R. No. 184661, decided 25 February 2025), the Supreme Court drew the line between them for the first time, and a recent BusinessWorld commentary has put the ruling back in focus.
The facts
FILSCAP, the collective management organisation for composers and publishers, saw a newspaper advertisement for ringtones and ringback tones offered by Wolfpac. Wolfpac's website let users play a roughly 20-second preview before downloading. FILSCAP sued for infringement and sought a public performance licence and royalties. Wolfpac argued that the preview was not a public performance at all.
Two different rights
Under Section 171.6 of the IP Code, public performance of a sound recording means making the recorded sounds audible where people outside the normal family circle are or can be present, and where the performance can be perceived without the need for communication within the meaning of Section 171.3. Section 171.3 defines communication to the public as including making a work available by wire or wireless means so that members of the public may access it from a place and time individually chosen by them.
The court said that, because the IP Code itself keeps the two rights apart, it had to distinguish them even if other countries treat communication to the public as a form of public performance. A preview streamed on demand from a website falls under communication to the public, not public performance.
Why the preview was fair use
The court then found the preview was fair use under Section 185 of the IP Code, even though it was commercial. The preview served a different purpose from the songs, helping users identify and confirm a track before buying, which the court treated as a form of consumer information. The 20-second portion was significant, and the songs were creative works, but the preview did not substitute for the paid product and did not substantially harm the market.
Why it matters
For streaming platforms, app stores and e-commerce sites in the Philippines, the ruling clarifies which licence a given use needs and confirms that short, purpose-limited previews can qualify as fair use. For collective management organisations, it is a reminder that a claim built on the wrong economic right can fail even where music is clearly being used. The ruling also adds to earlier Supreme Court decisions on music in commercial venues, such as FILSCAP v. Anrey (2022).
Sources
Do you or your clients need trademark, patent, annuity or industrial design work in Indonesia? We handle filings, prosecution and renewals, with updates in English. Email us for a quote.
Contact UsIf you enjoyed this article on our portal, you can buy me a coffee via the PayPal link below.
PayPal
