← Back to Blog

Striking a Chord: High Court Sets the Score on Boundary of Fair Use in Music Previews

By FMC Law•January 4, 2026
Striking a Chord: High Court Sets the Score on Boundary of Fair Use in Music Previews

Imagine the bustling energy of the mid-2000s when mobile phones transitioned from simple communication tools into personal jukeboxes. You are scrolling through a glowing digital catalog on your screen, looking for that one perfect melody to serve as your ringback tone. Before you commit your load to a purchase, you tap a button to hear a quick, twenty-second burst of the chorus. This brief flash of sound ensures the beat matches your style, acting as a digital "try-before-you-buy" experience that has become a staple of our modern convenience.

This interaction, however, hides a deep legal friction. On one side, technology companies strive to provide a frictionless experience for users. On the other, composers and artists seek to protect the creative sparks that produce these melodies. The tension lies in whether these short, promotional bursts of music are a harmless part of the consumer journey or an unauthorized use of protected intellectual property. This conflict highlights the need for a law that balances the light of innovation with the rights of creators.

Rhythm and Regulations

The legal structure governing creative works in the Philippines ensures that the fire of creativity is rewarded while allowing for the flow of information. This balance is maintained through the Intellectual Property Code (R.A. No. 8293).

The Core Economic Rights

Section 177 of the Code outlines the exclusive rights of a copyright owner. These include the right to authorize the reproduction, transformation, and, most importantly, the communication of the work to the public. Essentially, the owner holds the keys to how the work is distributed and used for profit.

Communication vs. Performance

Under Section 171.3, the law distinguishes between a physical performance and "Communication to the Public." The latter refers to making a work available to people by wire or wireless means in a way that allows them to access the work from a place and time of their choosing. This distinction is necessary when dealing with digital platforms and mobile networks.

Safety Valve of Fair Use

Not every use of a copyrighted work requires permission. The Doctrine of Fair Use, as provided under Section 185 allows for the limited use of protected material without the owner’s consent for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, or research. 

Determining fair use requires application of the four-factor test. The law examines four specific pillars:

  • The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;

  • The nature of the copyrighted work;

  • The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

  • The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

A Discordant Dispute

The definitive ruling on whether digital snippets violate artist rights came from the Supreme Court in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez. The dispute began when the Filipino Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (FILSCAP) challenged the practices of Wolfpac Communications, Inc., a developer of mobile applications. Wolfpac provided a "pre-listening function" that allowed potential buyers to hear a free, 20-second snippet of a ringback tone before purchasing the full version. FILSCAP argued that these previews constituted unauthorized public performances and demanded the payment of additional royalties and licenses.

The Supreme Court, however, viewed the situation through the lens of digital reality. First, the Court categorized the snippets as a "communication to the public" rather than a traditional public performance. More importantly, the Justices applied the four-factor test to determine if this use qualified as Fair Use. The Court noted that the purpose of the 20-second preview was purely promotional and informative, helping customers identify the song rather than replacing the need to own the full work.

In analyzing the substantiality of the use, the Court found that a 20-second burst was a reasonable and necessary amount to allow for song identification. Crucially, the Court addressed the market effect, finding that these previews actually served to increase the sales of the ringback tones rather than detracting from the song's value. The Court observed that preventing such previews might actually harm the composers by making it harder for consumers to find and buy their music. Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of FILSCAP's complaint, ruling that the short previews were a legitimate exercise of Fair Use that did not infringe upon the artists' copyrights.

Setting the Tempo

Copyright law is not an absolute monopoly. It is a carefully calibrated balance designed to reward creators while encouraging digital innovation. For technology and content providers, this decision provides a "safe harbor" for promotional sampling. As long as the use remains transformative and does not harm the primary market for the original work, such digital conveniences are legally protected.

The case also highlights the necessity for precise language in contracts. Professional law services are necessary to distinguish between "fair use" and "infringement." Whether you are a tech firm building a platform in Manila or an artist based in Western Visayas protecting your beats, securing expert guidance is the best way to avoid disputes.To ensure your digital strategy aligns with current jurisprudence, reach out to an Iloilo litigation attorney or seek a legal consultation in a reputable Manila law office so that your intellectual property strategy remains as clear and bright as the melodies we enjoy every day.