ABIVA vs WEINBRENNER

G.R. No. 26661-R

10 December 1964

FACTS:

Plaintiff, Abiva Publishing House, is engaged in the publication and sale of literary works or creations of
Christmas cards depicting Philippine scenery of local color and designs. On the other hand, the defendant,
Weinbrenner, is likewise engaged in the same printing and selling of Christmas cards under the name of Fil-Art.

Abiva filed an application for copyright with the Bureau of Public Libraries of Christmas Greeting Cards
with Philippine views and scenes. Evidence shows that Abiva claims their copyrightable component parts such as
the rice terraces, the huts, the woman, the pine trees, etc., were duplicated by the defendants cards.

Weinbrenner denied the allegations of Abiva, stating that she asked her printer, Serafin Serna, to paint
the images based in her own interpretations and requests. Further, he compared the Christmas cards with that of
the defendants and found that they were not identical and therefore forwarded the latters application for
approval to the Director.

ISSUE:

Whether defendants cards cited in any manner infringed the copyrighted cards of plaintiff in violation of the
provisions of the Philippine Copyright Law

RULING: NO.

There is no protection in the subject of a copyrighted work. One work does not violate the copyright of
another simply because there is a similarity between the two, if the similarity results from the fact that both deal
with the same subject or have the same common source. Similarity alone is not sufficient to constitute
infringement. It should be a copy, and one approved definition of a copy is that which comes so near to the
original as to give to every person seeing it the idea created by the original. The test of copyright infringement is
whether an ordinary observer comparing the works can readily see that one has been copied from the other. In
the case of prints and/or pictorial illustrations, an exact reproduction is not essential to constitute infringement;
the question is whether the main design of the original has been copied. A copyright on a work of art does not
protect a subject, but only the treatment of a subject.

Originality refers to form of expression and not to novelty in the subject matter. Novelty does not thereby
give a party a monopoly on the subject matter. To constitute an infringement, the imitation must be of a
substantial part, must have essence, and be so far perfected as to establish identity. Similarity not due to copying is
not an infringement. The copyrighting of pictorial illustrations or chromolithographs merely precludes another
from copying it, not from making his own.

We agree with the lower court that although they have identical contents, (they) do not have the same
arrangement and combination.