LWB486 Intellectual Property LawPeter Black

p2.black@qut.edu.au3138 2734

Roadmap

This week: Duration Ownership Direct infringements

Next week: Authorisation of

infringement Indirect infringement Defences - including

parody and satire

Week 5: Remedies Technological prevention

measures Performer’s rights Moral rights Indigenous art & culture

Online Resources QUT Blackboard

http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/

LWB486 Copyright Hub http://www.netvibes.com/lwb486

Formspring: ask me questions http://www.formspring.me/lwb486

Delicious: copyright in the news http://delicious.com/peterjblack/lwb486

Twitter: hashtag #lwb486 http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23lwb486

Failin.gs: give me feedback http://failin.gs/profile/lwb486

Exercise

Read: IceTV Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited

[2009] HCA 14 (22 April 2009)

Be prepared to discuss these questions: What were the facts of the case? What did the High Court hold? What impact will this decision have on

copyright law relating to compilations and databases?

Tutorial Question

Be prepared to discuss: Tutorial Question 2(b)

2.3 Duration of copyright in works

Extended with the AUSFTA.

Original works (s 33): Literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work:

70 years after the death of the author. Unpublished literary, dramatic, or musical work (excluding

computer programs): 70 years after first publication.

Part IV subject matter: Sound recordings, cinematograph films:

70 years from year of publication (ss 93 and 94). Broadcasts:

50 years from year broadcast was made (s 95). Published edition:

25 years from year of first publication (s 96).

2.4.1 Part III:Ownership of copyright in “works” The basic rule is that the creator, called in the 1968 Act the

“author”, is the first owner of copyright (s 35(2)).

No general definition of author is given– interpret as the creator of the work, from whom the form of expression originates. Donoghue v Allied Newspaper Ltd

The author of a photograph is the taker of it (s 10(1)).

There are three exceptions to this basic rule:1. Work produced in the course of employment.2. Journalists.3. Commissioned artistic works.

Ownership of copyright can always be modified by contract.

2.4.1.1 Joint ownership

Joint authorship: “work of joint authorship” means “a work that has

been produced by the collaboration of two or more authors and in which the contribution of each author is not separate from the contribution of the other author or the contributions of the other authors” (s 10(1)).

2.4.1.1 Joint ownership

Joint authorship: The definition in s 10(1) does not mean that all

jointly produced works will result in joint authorship.

Joint authorship does not apply where each author supplies a distinct part.

Supplying ideas only doesn’t give rise to joint authorship. Donoghue v Allied Newspapers Ltd

Held, where a person communicates an idea to an author and the author clothes the idea in the form of an article or articles, the copyright is in the author.

Joint authors take ownership as tenants in common – each has title to sue and can sue each other. Prior v Sheldon

Bulun Bulun v R & T Textiles Pty Ltd John Bulun Bulun, an Aboriginal artist, painted an artistic work in

1978, with permission of senior members of the Ganalbingu people (in Arnhem Land), in accordance with customary law. The respondent imported and sold fabric that infringed the copyright in the artistic work. Bulun Bulun sued as copyright owner and George Milpurrurru sued as a representative of the Ganalbingu people. R & T Textiles admitted infringement with respect to Bulun Bulun, but did not admit that the Ganalbingu people were the equitable owners of the copyright.

Held: Rejected a claim of “community ownership”. There was a fiduciary relationship. The Ganalbingu people permitted

Bulun Bulun to create the artistic work that embodied part of their ritual knowledge derived from their ancestors, but Bulun Bulun could not exploit the work in a manner contrary to customary law, and was bound to take appropriate action against third parties to restrain and remedy any infringement of copyright.

This did not grant equitable interest in copyright, but if Bulun Bulun breached the fiduciary duty, an action in personam or a constructive trust could be imposed.

However, Bulun Bulun had not breached the obligations of his fiduciary duty in this case.

2.4.1.2 Equitable ownership

AG (UK) v Guardian Newspapers (No 2) Breach of Confidence – former UK spy publishing

secret information in Australia (Spycatcher). Obiter, copyright in the book, written in breach of his

duty of confidence, might vest in the Crown in equity. Scope to argue that there might be a general principle that

copyright in material created by an employee in breach of an obligation of confidence is to be held on trust for the employer, even where the employer would not otherwise be entitled to copyright.

ABC v Lenah Game Meats Obiter, a trespasser may hold copyright in a film on a

constructive trust in favour of the owner of the premises.

2.4.1.2 Equitable ownership

Under a contract of employment, the employer owns copyright of works produced in the course of employment (s 35(6)).

The employee must be working under a contract of service, as distinguished from a contract for services. The test is “whether on the one hand the employee is

employed as part of the business and his work is an integral part of the business, or whether his work is not integrated into the business but is only accessory to it, or, […] the work is done by him in business on his own account” Beloff v Pressdram Ltd

2.4.1.3 Work produced in the course of employment

Beloff v Pressdram Ltd The plaintiff, a political correspondent of the “London

Observer”, issued a politically sensitive internal memo to the editor and senior staff on the Prime Minister. It was published in full by the “Private Eye”. The plaintiff sued for infringement of copyright.

Held, as the plaintiff was employed under a contract of service, the copyright in the memo was vested in the owners of the “London Observer” and not in the plaintiff.

A person employed as a consultant retains copyright in the work he/she produces, subject to contrary express agreement. Oceanroutes (Australia) Pty Ltd v M C Lamond

2.4.1.3 Work produced in the course of employment

2.4.1.4 Journalists

Journalists are the owners of copyright only with respect to (s 35(4)):1. reproduction of the work for the purpose of

inclusion in a book; or2. reproduction of the work in the form of a hard

copy facsimile made from a paper edition of an issue of the newspaper.

The proprietor of the newspaper or magazine is the owner of copyright for any other purpose (s 35(4)).

2.4.1.4 Journalists Journalists won copyright for the purposes of

reproduction in press clipping services. De Garis v Neville Jeffress Pidler Pty Ltd

De Garis was a university lecturer and occasional contributor to The West Australian. He was not an employee. Moore, second plaintiff, was employed by the Sydney Morning Herald. The defendant operated a press clipping service. De Garis and Moore sued the defendant for breach of copyright in respect of pieces written for their respective newspapers which the defendant had subsequently photocopied and distributed to client.

Under pre-1988 legislation, publisher only owned rights to make and distribute photocopies in so far as they relate to publication in a newspaper. Accordingly, Jeffress infringed Moore’s rights to reproduce in a material form.

As the Act now stands, journalists only have a right to sue if photocopies are made. Press services can negotiate exclusively with the publisher to

make and communicate electronic copies, for example.

2.4.1.5 Commissioned artistic works

In the following cases, the person who commissioned the work owns copyright (s 35(5)):1. the taking of a photograph for a “private or

domestic” purpose. defined to mean a portrait of family members, children or

a wedding party (s 35(7)).

2. the painting or drawing of a portrait.3. the making of an engraving.

Copyright in all other commissioned works generally vests in the author.

Copyright can always be modified by agreement.

If the party made known, expressly or by implication, at the time of the agreement, the purposes for which it was required, the commissioned party can restrain the use of work for other purposes (s 35(5)). Blackwell v Wadsworth

The plaintiff artist was commissioned to make a drawing of a hotel. Two years later, ads in the paper for the sale of the hotel included a reproduction of the drawing. The plaintiff sued for infringement of copyright.

Held, the defendant’s had infringed copyright – no implied license for the defendant’s to reproduce the work.

2.4.1.5 Commissioned artistic works

2.4.1.6 Crown Ownership Crown ownership includes:

works made by or under the direction or control of the Crown (s 176);

works first published by the Crown (s 177); sound recording and films made by or under the direction

or control of the Crown (s 178).

Duration crown copyright is 50 years.

CLRC recommends abolition of these special privileges of the Crown. Crown Copyright (2005).

2.4.1.6 Crown Ownership Copyright Agency Limited v State of NSW [2007] FCAC 80

The Copyright Tribunal heard a claim by the Copyright Agency Limited (CAL), whose members include surveyors, for orders under ss 183(5) and 183(A) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) in respect of a number of surveyors' plans and the State of New South Wales' 'dealings' in respect of them. Following the determination of the Tribunal, questions of law were referred to the Full Federal Court.

Held, that the New South Wales Government did not own copyright in the surveyors' plans. The court stressed that, when considering the issue of Crown copyright, it is important to understand the relevant legislation under which the works are created and its history.

Finkelstein J on Crown copyright: “As regards to work made by the Crown, we are necessarily dealing with a

fiction. Generally for copyright purposes a work is made by its author. What s 176 contemplates is that, in certain circumstances, the act of the author in making a work is to be attributed to the Crown. An attribution of this kind is a concept well known in the law.”

2.4.1.7 Proof of ownership

Unless put in issue, copyright is presumed to subsist, and the plaintiff is presumed to be the owner (s 126).

Labels or marks indicating year and place of publication or making of a work are admissible as prima facie evidence (ss 126A and 126B).

Name appearing on a work is presumed to be author and first owner (s 127).

Name of publisher appearing on work published in last 70 years is presumed to be the owner, if s 127 does not apply (s 128).

2.4.1.7 Proof of ownership

The Copyright Amendment Act 2006 (Cth) adopted these same presumptions relating to subsistence and ownership of copyright for the prosecution for offences against Division 5 (except s 132AM). See s 132A.

New presumptions were also introduced to recognise industry-specific labelling practices and amend other existing industry-specific presumptions. If copyright owners do not meet the requirements

of the relevant industry-specific presumptions, they can rely on the general evidential presumptions in ss 126A, 126B and 132A.

21

2.4.2 Part IV: Ownership of copyright in “Subject matter other than works”

Ownership of copyright in: sound recordings (s 97); cinematographic films (s 98); television and sound broadcasts (s 99); published editions of works (s 100).

2.4.2.1 Sound recordings

Ownership of copyright: s 97

Exclusive rights granted to makers of records. The “maker” of the sound recording – usually

recording company – is the person who owned that record at that time (s 23(3)).

The maker of a sound recording is the owner of any copyright subsisting in the recording (s 97).

Performers of live performances also get some share of ownership in sound recordings made (s 22(3A)).

2.4.2.2 Cinematographic films

Ownership of copyright: s 98

The “maker”' of a film is the producer – the person who organises and pays for the film (s 22(4)).

Directors recently given economic rights. Copyright Amendment (Film Directors'

Rights) Act 2005 (Cth).

2.4.2.3 Television and sound broadcasts Ownership of copyright: s 99

The maker of a television broadcast or sound broadcast is the owner of any copyright subsisting in the broadcast (s 99).

A broadcast is taken to have been made by the person who provided the broadcasting service by which the broadcast was delivered (s 22(5)).

2.4.2.4 Published editions of works Ownership of copyright: s 100

The publisher of an edition of a work or works is the owner of any copyright subsisting in the edition (s 100).

2.5 Assignments and Licenses

“Copyright is personal property and […] is transmissible by assignment, by will and by devolution by operation of law” (s 196(1)).

Future copyright can be assigned (s 197).

Can assign or license all copyright, or specific rights, and can limit to specific jurisdictions (s 196(2)). For example, APRA takes performance rights in

all present and future music.

2.5.1 Assignments

An assignment is a transfer of ownership of copyright (s 196).

An assignment:1. Must be in writing (s 196(3)).2. May be total or partial.

Partial assignments mean that a number of assignees are entitled to copyright in their respective interests (s 16).

3. May be future (s 197). Copyright will come into existence at a future time or

on happening a future event, with copyright vesting in the assignee when the work comes into existence (for example, copyright in a yet unwritten book).

2.5.1 Assignments

Partial assignments are treated as separate copyrights (s 30).

Allow recipient to do anything in the copyright, including license, assign, sue for infringement.

Assignor retains no special rights to the work.

Can be sued for copyright infringement.

2.5.2 Licenses

A license is a permission to deal with the copyright subject matter for certain purposes.

An exclusive license is “a licence in writing, signed by or on behalf of the owner or prospective owner of copyright, authorizing the licensee, to the exclusion of all other persons, to do an act that … the owner of the copyright would, but for the licence, have the exclusive right to do” (s 10(1)). Exclusive licences give the licensee the power to

sublicense and the title to sue for infringement (s 119).

Where there is a non exclusive, others may have rights.

2.5.2 Licenses

A license is the product. Where use of a product would necessarily

infringe copyright (as in software), then it could be said that you’re not paying for the product (i.e., CD), but the licence.

You get some rights over the physical medium, but you have no right to use it without a copyright licence

Often the licence is inside the box the software comes in – Shrinkwrap license.

Or as a pre-requisite to a download – Clickwrap license.

2.5.3 Implied licenses

Licenses can be implied from the circumstances. For example:

A newspaper editor has an implied licence to publish letters to the editor.

Question: if you post material to the internet are you giving any implied license?

Always subject to directions to the contrary.

An implied license exists to use commissioned copyright material for the purposes contemplated. Beck v Montana Constructions Pty Ltd

2.5.4 Compulsory licensing

Statutory licenses: Usually it is an infringement to exercise any of the

copyright owner’s exclusive rights without having first obtained the owner’s permission (or licence) to do so, or to authorise anyone else to infringe those rights

However, the Copyright Act contains statutory licences – operate so that it is not an infringement of copyright to use copyright material in a way that involves an exercise of the exclusive rights, without having first obtained permission to do so.

A feature of these schemes is that, although prior permission to do the acts is not needed, arrangements must be put in place so that the copyright owner receives equitable remuneration or is otherwise compensated for the exercise of his or her rights.

2.5.4 Compulsory licensing Part VB – reproducing material for schools and

university. Can reproduce without permission of copyright owner but

must pay statutory licence fees. Copyright Agency Limited (CAL) – collects the fees. Copyright Tribunal sets the fees.

Part VA – audio visual rights. Organisations assisting persons with an intellectual

disability may make off-air copies of broadcasts. Administered by Screenrights.

Part VC – retransmission of works, sound recordings and films included in free-to-air broadcasts.

2.5.4 Compulsory licensing

Compulsory licensing for musical works (ss 54-64). Able to make a sound recording of music or

lyrics without permission of the copyright owner but must pay a statutory licence fee.

Music must have already been recorded in Australia.

There is no such right in relation to the sound recording – sampling is not permissible.

Does not extend to use in films. Record-making rights are ‘mechanical’ rights of

musical works. Administered by Australasian Mechanical

Copyright Owners’ Society (AMCOS).

2.5.5 Open source and contracting in the digital environment

Free and Open Source Software Allows anyone to use and modify software. Uses copyright to impose a restriction that they can not

distribute modified material without giving changes back to the community.

For example, GNU, a UNIX-compatible software system.

Creative Commons Licences

Discussion Topic

Visit the Creative Commons website and then evaluate this statement by the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers: Creative Commons (CC) is a new form of license that

originated in the US and is now being developed for use internationally. The license is purported to offer an alternative copyright scheme to allow creators to stimulate the dissemination and re-use of their copyrighted works be they films, images, music, written or scientific works. But in fact, CC offers considerable benefits to internet users wanting to use creators' works without having to seek permission, and very little to the creative community.

Do you agree or disagree? Why?

2.6 InfringementDirect infringement:

Part III copyrightsPart IV copyrights

Authorisation of infringement

Indirect infringement:Importation of infringing articlesSale of infringing articles

2.6.1 Direct infringement of Part III copyrights It is an infringement of copyright to do or authorise

any of the exclusive rights comprised in copyright without the permission of the copyright owner (s 36).

The exclusive rights are set out in s 31(1) for literary, dramatic and musical works (s 31(1)(a)):

i. to reproduce the work in a material form;ii. to publish the work;iii. to perform the work in public;iv. to communicate the work to the public;v. [repealed];vi. to make an adaptation of the work.

for an artistic work (s 31(1)(b)):i. to reproduce the work in a material form;ii. to publish the work;iii. to communicate the work to the public.

2.6.1 Direct infringement of Part III copyrights The infringing act need not be done in relation to the

whole of the work or other subject-matter. It is sufficient if it is done in relation to a substantial part of the work (s 14(1)).

“Substantial” is a question of fact to determined in the circumstances – requires a consideration of the quality of the work taken in relation to the work as a whole, rather than just as a question of quantity.

For example, consider: Hawkes and Son (London) Ltd v Paramount Film Service Ltd Blackie & Sons (London) Ltd v Lothian Book Publishing Co

Pty Ltd Zeccola v Universal City Studios Inc AGL Sydney Ltd v. Shortland County Council

2.6.1.1 Infringement: reproduce the work in a material form

There is an exclusive right to reproduce the work in material form (ss 31(1)(a)(i) and 31(1)(b)(i)).

Reproduction means copying and does not include cases where the author or compiler produces a substantially similar result by independent work without copying. Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill

(Football) Ltd

2.6.1.1 Infringement: reproduce the work in material form The notion of reproduction involves two elements:

1. Objective similarity – there must be a sufficient degree of objective similarity between the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s work (that is, the defendant must have produced a work which closely resembles the plaintiff’s); and

2. Causal connection – the defendant’s work must be derived directly or indirectly from the plaintiff’s copyright work (that is, there must be some causal connection between the two works).

SW Hart & Co. v Edwards Hot Water Systems Francis Day & Hunter v Bron

Subconscious copying is sufficient provided there is evidence of copying. Francis Day & Hunter v. Bron per Willmer J.

Plaintiff sued alleging the defendant’s infringed copyright in a musical work.

Held, similarities probably coincidental, and there was no evidence that the defendant had copied or heard song ⇒ unable to infer sufficient knowledge and memory for conscious or subconscious copying.

2.6.1.1 Infringement: reproduce the work in a material form An infringement may be indirect.

LED Builders Pty Ltd v Eagle Homes

Deemed reproductions:1. A literary, dramatic or musical work is deemed to have been

reproduced in a material form if a sound recording or film is made of the work (s 21(1)).

2. Copyright in an artistic work in two-dimensional form will be infringed by its reproduction in a three dimensional form and vice versa (s 21(3)).

A lot of cases of copyright infringement concern project homes. When dealing with a work, such as a project home design, which is by its nature very simple and commonplace, it will be more difficult to prove infringement. Ancher, Mortlock, Murray & Woolley Pty Ltd v Hooker Homes Pty Ltd

(1971) 20 FLR 481 Ownit Homes Pty Ltd v D. and F. Mancuso Investments Pty Ltd

[1987] AIPC 90-426

2.6.1.1 Infringement: reproduce the work in a material form

Note that the simpler and more commonplace the design is, the more closely the defendant’s plans must follow the plaintiff’s. Dixon Investments Pty Ltd v Hall

Note that the copyright in a building or a model of a building is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the building or model or by the inclusion of the building or model in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast (s 66).

2.6.1.2 Infringement: publish the work There is an exclusive right to publish the

work (ss 31(1)(a)(ii) and 31(1)(b)(ii)).

Publish means to make available to the public in Australia something which has not previously been made available. Avel Pty Ltd v Multicoin Amusement Pty Ltd

The definitions of published in s 29(1)(a) do not apply to s 31(1)(a)(ii).

2.6.1.3 Infringement: perform the work in public There is an exclusive right to perform the work in public

(s 31(1)(a)(iii)).

A performance of a work given to members of the public is a performance “in public” unless it is shown to be domestic in character. Australasian Performing Rights Association v Canterbury-

Bankstown League Club Ltd Australasian Performing Rights Association v Tolbush Pty

Ltd Australasian Performing Rights Association v

Commonwealth Bank of Australia Rank Film Productions Ltd v Dood

2.6.1.4 Infringement: right to communicate to the public There is an exclusive right to communicate the work

to the public (ss 31(1)(a)(iv) and s 31(1)(b)(iii)).

This right was introduced by the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000 (Cth), replacing and extending the former “broadcasting” right.

“Communicate” is defined as meaning to “make available online or electronically transmit (whether over a path, or a combination of paths, provided by a material substance or otherwise) a work or other subject-matter” (s 10(1)).

2.6.1.4 Infringement: right to communicate to the public Communication other than broadcast is taken to

have been made by the person responsible for determining the content of the broadcast (s 22(6)).

It includes cable transmissions.

It also includes making available of copyright material online. For example, uploading material onto the Internet.

2.6.1.5 Infringement: make an adaptation of the work There is an exclusive right to make an

adaptation of the work (s 31(1)(a)(vi)).

Adaptation includes (s 10):1. the dramatisation of a non-dramatic literary

work;

2. a translation;3. a pictorial version of a literary work;4. an arrangement of a musical work.

2.6.1.6 Infringement: entry into commercial rental arrangement There is an exclusive right to enter into a

commercial rental arrangement, but is limited to:

1. a sound recording (for example, a CD or tape) (s 85(1)(d));

2. a literary, musical or dramatic work reproduced in sound recording (s 31(c));

3. a computer program (s 31(d)).

Tutorial Questions

Be prepared to discuss: Tutorial Question 2(d) Tutorial Question 2(f) Tutorial Question 2(e) Tutorial Question 2(g)

2.6.2 Direct infringement of Part IV copyrights

Where Part IV copyrights are concerned, direct infringement is a much more restricted concept than in relation to works.

2.6.2.1 Sound recordings

Protection of copyright: s 85

Exclusive right to (s 85): make a copy of the recording; cause the recording to be heard in public; communicate the record to the public; enter into commercial rental agreements.

One of the few copyrights that allows the owner to control rental (along with computer programs). Owners can control the renting of music CDs but

not films.

2.6.2.1 Sound recordings

Exclusive right to make a copy of the recording (s 85): “Copy” means “a record embodying a sound

recording …” (s 10(3)(c)). Making a “sound alike” version of a popular song

does not infringe copyright in the sound recording, although it may in the underlying works (the lyrics and music). CBS Records Australia v Telmak Teleproducts (Aust) Pty Ltd

Telmak produced recordings and compilation of chart hits by cover bands. CBS, who owned the sound recording copyright, sued for infringement of sound recording copyright.

Held, copyright only protects the actual embodiment of the very sounds on the original record.

2.6.2.2 Cinematographic films

Protection of copyright: s 86

Exclusive rights given to makers of films (s 86).

Exclusive right to (s 86): make a copy of the film; cause the film to be seen/heard in public; communicate the film to the public.

2.6.2.2 Cinematographic Films

Zeccola v Universal City Studios Inc Universal owned copyright in film Jaws, screenplay

Jaws, and novel Jaws. Zeccola made a film about man eating sharks called Great White. Universal sued for copyright infringement.

Held that Zeccola had not infringed copyright in the “film” as there was no copy of the visual images. As to whether Zeccola had infringed copyright in the novel

and screenplay, the primary judge watched both films (“with some degree of fortitude”) and held there was such a marked degree of similarity between the two films that there was an inescapable inference of copying.

The Full Federal Court wasn’t as certain, but did not find fault with the primary judge’s opinion.

2.6.2.2 Cinematographic Films

Australian Video Retailers Association Ltd v Warner Home Video Pty Ltd As there are no commercial rental right in films, but there

are in computer programs (see s 30A), Warner Home Video argued that DVD movies are also computer programs.

Held, that the commands which controlled the flow of the DVD were computer programs, but that the audiovisual content was not part of the program. Accordingly, when a video store hires out a movie, the essential object of the rental is not the computer program, but the film. Although computer programs can be “films”, films do not

suddenly become programs when put on a DVD.

2.6.2.3 Television and sound broadcasts Protection of copyright: s 87

Exclusive right to (s 87): make a film of a television broadcast; make a sound recording of a broadcast; re-broadcast or communicate to the public.

2.6.2.3 Television and Sound Broadcasts Network Ten Pty Ltd v TCN Channel Nine

Pty Ltd (“The Panel”) Ten’s show broadcast clips taken from other networks.

Nine sued under right to rebroadcast. The Full Federal Court held that any unauthorised

rebroadcasting of a broadcast would be an infringement of copyright (subject to any defence of fair dealing that Ten might have had)

Appealed to the High Court. Held, copyright is only infringed if you rebroadcast the

program, or a substantial part of the program. Otherwise broadcast makers would get much more protection than other copyright owners.

2.6.2.4 Published editions of works

Protection of copyright: s 88

Exclusive right to make a facsimile copy of a published edition of one or more literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic works (s 88).

Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Copyright Agency Limited The appellants owned the majority of Australian newspapers and a

significant proportion of magazines. The respondent, Copyright Agency Limited (CAL), was a collecting society representing copyright owners of literary, dramatic and artistic works. Separate from its statutory functions as a collecting society, CAL entered into voluntary licenses with educational institutions for the copying of articles from newspapers and magazines, passing royalties back to the authors. The appellants claimed that this infringed their rights in the published edition.

Held, the newspaper and magazine owners had rights to published editions, but that infringement must copy a substantial part of the published edition as a whole.

More relevant when the aim of copying is to utilise the “typography, layout or presentation of the published edition”.

As the intention was to copy the articles (which are owned by the authors), and not the presentation, there was no infringement.

Next Week

Next week is YouTube week: Authorisation of infringement Indirect infringement Defences - including parody and satire Remedies