Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
Next revision Both sides next revision
ausip:copyrightinfringement [2019/03/10 10:12]
jessiej_87 update content
ausip:copyrightinfringement [2019/03/10 12:36]
jessiej_87
Line 81: Line 81:
 #### Element 1 - Causal Connection #### Element 1 - Causal Connection
  
-An infringement may be indirect. ((//LED Builders Pty Ltd v Eagle Homes//)) In order to prove a causal link it will generally be a requirement that the plaintiff show the defendant had access to the plaintiff'​s work. ((//Barret Property Group Pty Ltd v Dennis Family Homes Pty Ltd// (2011) 91 IPR 1))+An infringement may be indirect. ((//LED Builders Pty Ltd v Eagle Homes// ​[1999] FCA 584)) In order to prove a causal link it will generally be a requirement that the plaintiff show the defendant had access to the plaintiff'​s work. ((//Barret Property Group Pty Ltd v Dennis Family Homes Pty Ltd// (2011) 91 IPR 1))
  
 This will not always be the case, because causal links may be established indirectly. Copyright could exist in the artistic work of a dress design drawing. A person may infringe this copyright without access to the artistic work. The could do so by copying the dress fashioned from the design drawing. ((//Burke & Margot Burke Ltd v Spicers Dress Designs// [1936] Ch 400))    This will not always be the case, because causal links may be established indirectly. Copyright could exist in the artistic work of a dress design drawing. A person may infringe this copyright without access to the artistic work. The could do so by copying the dress fashioned from the design drawing. ((//Burke & Margot Burke Ltd v Spicers Dress Designs// [1936] Ch 400))   
  
-Subconscious copying is sufficient provided there is evidence of copying. ((//Francis Day & Hunter v. Bron// per Willmer J))+Subconscious copying is sufficient provided there is evidence of copying. ((//Francis Day & Hunter v. Bron// ​[1963] Ch 587 per Willmer J))
  
-__Francis ​Day & Hunter v. Bron__+__//​Francis ​Day & Hunter v. Bron//​(([1963] Ch 587))__ ​
  
-* Plaintiff ​sued alleging the defendant’s infringed copyright in a musical work.+In the case of //Francis Day & Hunter v. Bron// the plaintiff ​sued alleging the defendant’s infringed copyright in a musical work.
 * As a question of law, it is possible to infringe by subconscious copying. * As a question of law, it is possible to infringe by subconscious copying.
 * Held, similarities probably coincidental,​ and there was no evidence that the defendant had copied or heard the song. The Plaintiff was unable to infer that there was sufficient knowledge and memory for conscious or subconscious copying. * Held, similarities probably coincidental,​ and there was no evidence that the defendant had copied or heard the song. The Plaintiff was unable to infer that there was sufficient knowledge and memory for conscious or subconscious copying.
Line 111: Line 111:
  
  
-__Zeccola ​v Universal City Studios Inc (1982) 46 ALR 189__+__//​Zeccola ​v Universal City Studios Inc// (( (1982) 46 ALR 189))__
  
 In the case of [Zeccola v Universal City Studios Inc](http://​classic.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​1982/​241.html) 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.  ​ In the case of [Zeccola v Universal City Studios Inc](http://​classic.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​1982/​241.html) 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.  ​
Line 121: Line 121:
 There is no copyright in the central idea: the idea of a shark terrorising a community cannot be protected. However, in this case, there was significant overlap in situations, characters, and location (even though the dialogue was different). The Full Federal Court wasn’t as certain, but did not find fault with the primary judge’s opinion. There is no copyright in the central idea: the idea of a shark terrorising a community cannot be protected. However, in this case, there was significant overlap in situations, characters, and location (even though the dialogue was different). The Full Federal Court wasn’t as certain, but did not find fault with the primary judge’s opinion.
  
-__Telstra ​Corp Ltd v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Ltd (2003) 57 IPR 453__+__//​Telstra ​Corp Ltd v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Ltd// (( (2003) 57 IPR 453))__
  
 In the case of [Telstra Corp Ltd v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Ltd](http://​classic.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​2003/​786.html) Shannons car insurance ran a parody advertisement appropriating the format, story, and character of Telstra'​s Goggomobil advertisements. In the case of [Telstra Corp Ltd v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Ltd](http://​classic.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​2003/​786.html) Shannons car insurance ran a parody advertisement appropriating the format, story, and character of Telstra'​s Goggomobil advertisements.
Line 135: Line 135:
    
  
-__Baigent ​v Random House Group Ltd [2007] All ER (D) 456 (Mar)__+__//​Baigent ​v Random House Group Ltd// (([2007] All ER (D) 456 (Mar)))__
  
 Authors and publishers of "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" alleged that Dan Brown had copied the “central theme” of the book in “The Da Vinci Code”. The “central theme” was argued to be a series of claims including that Jesus was of royal blood and Mary Magdalene carried his child. Authors and publishers of "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" alleged that Dan Brown had copied the “central theme” of the book in “The Da Vinci Code”. The “central theme” was argued to be a series of claims including that Jesus was of royal blood and Mary Magdalene carried his child.
Line 141: Line 141:
 It was held that Brown had taken ideas, but not expression from HBHG. Therefore, there could be no copyright infringement. It was held that Brown had taken ideas, but not expression from HBHG. Therefore, there could be no copyright infringement.
  
-__EMI Songs Australia Pty Ltd v Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd [2011] FCAFC 47__+__//​EMI ​Songs Australia Pty Ltd v Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd// (([2011] FCAFC 47))__
  
 In the case of [EMI Songs Australia Pty Ltd v Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd](http://​classic.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCAFC/​2011/​47.html) it was held that the flute riff in Men at Work's song "Down Under" reproduced two bars of the old song “Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree” In the case of [EMI Songs Australia Pty Ltd v Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd](http://​classic.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCAFC/​2011/​47.html) it was held that the flute riff in Men at Work's song "Down Under" reproduced two bars of the old song “Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree”
Line 152: Line 152:
  
  
-There is an exclusive right to publish the work ((//CA// 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 control the meaning of the words 'to publish'​ in s 31(1)(a)(ii) for the purposes of infringement. This is the right of first publication. ​+There is an exclusive right to publish the work ((//CA// 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// [1990] HCA 58)) The definitions of published in s 29(1)(a) do not control the meaning of the words 'to publish'​ in s 31(1)(a)(ii) for the purposes of infringement. This is the right of first publication. ​
  
 It is not an infringement of the right to republish something that has already been made public. It may however, be an infringement of the reproduction right. It is also an infringement to communicate the work without permission or legal excuse. This will be discussed below in the '​Infringement - Communicate to the Public'​ section of this chapter. It is not an infringement of the right to republish something that has already been made public. It may however, be an infringement of the reproduction right. It is also an infringement to communicate the work without permission or legal excuse. This will be discussed below in the '​Infringement - Communicate to the Public'​ section of this chapter.
Line 220: Line 220:
 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). 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__+__CBS Records Australia v Telmak Teleproducts (Aust) Pty Ltd(([1987] FCA 138))__
  
 In the case of //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. In the case of //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.
Line 236: Line 236:
 * communicate the film to the public. * communicate the film to the public.
  
-__Australian Video Retailers Association Ltd v Warner Home Video Pty Ltd__+__Australian Video Retailers Association Ltd v Warner Home Video Pty Ltd (([2001] FCA 1719))__
  
 In the case of [Australian Video Retailers Association Ltd v Warner Video Pty Ltd](http://​classic.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​2001/​1719.html) Warner Home Video argued that DVD movies are also computer programs. They argued this because there are no commercial rental right in films, but there are in computer programs, ((See //CA// s 30A))  In the case of [Australian Video Retailers Association Ltd v Warner Video Pty Ltd](http://​classic.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​2001/​1719.html) Warner Home Video argued that DVD movies are also computer programs. They argued this because there are no commercial rental right in films, but there are in computer programs, ((See //CA// s 30A)) 
Line 254: Line 254:
 * re-broadcast or communicate to the public. * re-broadcast or communicate to the public.
  
-__Network ​Ten Pty Ltd v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd ("The Panel"​)__+__//​Network ​Ten Pty Ltd v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd ("The Panel")// (([2002] FCAFC 146))__
  
 In the case of [Network Ten Pty Ltd v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd](http://​classic.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCAFC/​2002/​146.html) Ten’s show broadcast clips taken from other networks. ​ Nine sued under right to re-broadcast. In the case of [Network Ten Pty Ltd v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd](http://​classic.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCAFC/​2002/​146.html) Ten’s show broadcast clips taken from other networks. ​ Nine sued under right to re-broadcast.
Line 266: Line 266:
 Section 88 of the //Act// protects published editions of works by providing the copyright owner the exclusive right to make a facsimile copy of a published edition of one or more literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic works. ((//CA// s 88)) Section 88 of the //Act// protects published editions of works by providing the copyright owner the exclusive right to make a facsimile copy of a published edition of one or more literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic works. ((//CA// s 88))
  
-__Nationwide ​News Pty Ltd v Copyright Agency ​Limited__+__//​Nationwide ​News Pty Ltd v Copyright Agency ​Limited// ((1996] FCA 257))__
  
 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. 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.
Line 283: Line 283:
 Quality is the most important factor, not quantity: Quality is the most important factor, not quantity:
  
-"​Whether a part is substantial must be decided by its quality rather than its quantity. The reproduction of a part which by itself has no originality will not normally be a substantial part of the copyright and therefore will not be protected"​. ((*Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill (Football) Ltd*))+"​Whether a part is substantial must be decided by its quality rather than its quantity. The reproduction of a part which by itself has no originality will not normally be a substantial part of the copyright and therefore will not be protected"​. ((//Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill (Football) Ltd// [1964] 1 WLR 273))
  
-__Folsom ​v Marsh 9 Fed Cas 342, 348 (Mass 1841) (US)__ ​+__//​Folsom ​v Marsh// ((9 Fed Cas 342, 348 (Mass 1841) (US) ))__ 
  
 >"​It is certainly not necessary, to constitute an invasion of copyright, that the whole of the work should be copied, or even a large portion of it, in form or in substance. If so much is taken, that the value of the original is sensibly diminished, or the labors of the original author are substantially to an injurious extent appropriated by another, that is sufficient, in point of law, to constitute a piracy pro tanto … Neither does it necessarily depend upon the quantity taken … [i]t is often affected by other considerations,​ the value of the materials taken, and the importance of it to the sale of the original work … In short, we must often, in deciding questions of this sort, look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work." >"​It is certainly not necessary, to constitute an invasion of copyright, that the whole of the work should be copied, or even a large portion of it, in form or in substance. If so much is taken, that the value of the original is sensibly diminished, or the labors of the original author are substantially to an injurious extent appropriated by another, that is sufficient, in point of law, to constitute a piracy pro tanto … Neither does it necessarily depend upon the quantity taken … [i]t is often affected by other considerations,​ the value of the materials taken, and the importance of it to the sale of the original work … In short, we must often, in deciding questions of this sort, look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work."
  
  
-Substantial part is assessed in respect to the work as a whole ((//​Ladbroke v William Hill//)) and by reference to originality of the part taken.((// IceTV Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited// [2009] HCA 14))+Substantial part is assessed in respect to the work as a whole ((//​Ladbroke v William Hill// ​[1964] 1 WLR 273)) and by reference to originality of the part taken.((// IceTV Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited// [2009] HCA 14))
  
  
Line 296: Line 296:
  
  
-__IceTV ​Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited [2009] HCA 14 (22 April 2009)__+__//​IceTV ​Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited// (([2009] HCA 14 (22 April 2009) ))__
  
 In the High Court Case of [IceTV Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited](http://​classic.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​HCA/​2009/​14.html) Channel 9 created a Weekly Schedule of television programmes to be broadcast each week. They alleged that each Weekly Schedule was a compilation,​ and therefore a literary work under the* Copyright Act 1968*, and that IceTV had infringed copyright by taking part of the time and title information from the Aggregated Guides (guides produced by third party Aggregators,​ authorised by Nine and to whom Nine provides the Weekly Schedule) and including it in their own (electronic) guide, the "​IceGuide"​. Nine alleged that this constituted a reproduction of a substantial part of the copyright work. IceTV denied that they had reproduced in a material form a substantial part of any Weekly Schedule and denied that reproduction from any Aggregated Guide was a reproduction of any Weekly Schedule. In the High Court Case of [IceTV Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited](http://​classic.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​HCA/​2009/​14.html) Channel 9 created a Weekly Schedule of television programmes to be broadcast each week. They alleged that each Weekly Schedule was a compilation,​ and therefore a literary work under the* Copyright Act 1968*, and that IceTV had infringed copyright by taking part of the time and title information from the Aggregated Guides (guides produced by third party Aggregators,​ authorised by Nine and to whom Nine provides the Weekly Schedule) and including it in their own (electronic) guide, the "​IceGuide"​. Nine alleged that this constituted a reproduction of a substantial part of the copyright work. IceTV denied that they had reproduced in a material form a substantial part of any Weekly Schedule and denied that reproduction from any Aggregated Guide was a reproduction of any Weekly Schedule.
Line 308: Line 308:
 >"​in assessing the quality of the time and title information,​ as components of the Weekly Schedule, baldly stated matters of fact or intention are inseparable from and co-extensive with their expression. It is difficult to discern the expression of thought in statements of which programmes will be broadcast and when this will occur. If the facts be divorced from the other elements constituting the compilation in suit, as is the case with the use by IceTV of the time and title information,​ then it is difficult to treat the IceGuide as the reproduction of a substantial part of the Weekly Schedule in the qualitative sense required by the case law". ( Gummow, Hayne, Heydon JJ) >"​in assessing the quality of the time and title information,​ as components of the Weekly Schedule, baldly stated matters of fact or intention are inseparable from and co-extensive with their expression. It is difficult to discern the expression of thought in statements of which programmes will be broadcast and when this will occur. If the facts be divorced from the other elements constituting the compilation in suit, as is the case with the use by IceTV of the time and title information,​ then it is difficult to treat the IceGuide as the reproduction of a substantial part of the Weekly Schedule in the qualitative sense required by the case law". ( Gummow, Hayne, Heydon JJ)
  
-__Network ​Ten Pty Ltd v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd ("The Panel"​)__+__//​Network ​Ten Pty Ltd v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd// ("The Panel"​)__
  
 Substantiality is a question of fact and degree. Substantiality is a question of fact and degree.
Line 323: Line 323:
  
 >"​The programme centred upon the dinner and presentation of the inaugural Allan Border Medal for the Australian cricket player of the year. The extract was of Glen McGrath’s reaction to the announcement that he was the winner of the award, his displayed emotion and the congratulations from his surrounding team mates. The cameras were trained on the winner to capture that moment. The cameras then followed Mr McGrath as he moved towards the stage. The excerpt was plainly a material and important part of the programme. The evidence of Mr Burns was that the announcement of Glen McGrath as the Australian cricketer of the year was 'the highlight of the dinner'"​. (Finkelstein J) >"​The programme centred upon the dinner and presentation of the inaugural Allan Border Medal for the Australian cricket player of the year. The extract was of Glen McGrath’s reaction to the announcement that he was the winner of the award, his displayed emotion and the congratulations from his surrounding team mates. The cameras were trained on the winner to capture that moment. The cameras then followed Mr McGrath as he moved towards the stage. The excerpt was plainly a material and important part of the programme. The evidence of Mr Burns was that the announcement of Glen McGrath as the Australian cricketer of the year was 'the highlight of the dinner'"​. (Finkelstein J)
- +> 
-Further: +> 
 +>
 >"​this Panel Segment takes a portion of a live Nine broadcast during which a number of awards are presented. The particular segment re-broadcast shows the passage of the winner of the inaugural Allan Border medal, Mr Glen McGrath, from his seat to the stage. The Panel re-broadcast 10 seconds of a source work that was 2 hours 11 minutes 44 seconds in length. The portion taken does not include any critical moments or highlights of the original broadcast such as Mr McGrath receiving the award or giving his acceptance speech. The material used by the Panel is only incidental to the source broadcast, and the part taken is trivial, inconsequential or insignificant in terms of the source broadcast"​. (Hely J) >"​this Panel Segment takes a portion of a live Nine broadcast during which a number of awards are presented. The particular segment re-broadcast shows the passage of the winner of the inaugural Allan Border medal, Mr Glen McGrath, from his seat to the stage. The Panel re-broadcast 10 seconds of a source work that was 2 hours 11 minutes 44 seconds in length. The portion taken does not include any critical moments or highlights of the original broadcast such as Mr McGrath receiving the award or giving his acceptance speech. The material used by the Panel is only incidental to the source broadcast, and the part taken is trivial, inconsequential or insignificant in terms of the source broadcast"​. (Hely J)
  
Line 331: Line 331:
  
 >"​Wide World of Sports (Grand Final Celebration/​Glen Lazarus cartwheel): Ten copied eight seconds of the programme. The footage of the Glen Lazarus cartwheel was, on any view, a "​highlight"​. Mr Lazarus was a prop (affectionately known as "the brick with eyes"​). He was playing his very last game of rugby league and was able to celebrate it with a win in the 1999 grand final"​. (Finkelstein J) >"​Wide World of Sports (Grand Final Celebration/​Glen Lazarus cartwheel): Ten copied eight seconds of the programme. The footage of the Glen Lazarus cartwheel was, on any view, a "​highlight"​. Mr Lazarus was a prop (affectionately known as "the brick with eyes"​). He was playing his very last game of rugby league and was able to celebrate it with a win in the 1999 grand final"​. (Finkelstein J)
- +> 
-Further: +>
 >"​this Panel Segment takes a portion of Nine’s live broadcast of the National Rugby League grand final. The particular portion taken features one of the players, Mr Glen Lazarus, performing a cartwheel as part of the post-match celebrations. He was not the only player to do so, and the footage taken does not show that there were other players following suit doing cartwheels of their own. The part taken is fleeting in character, and is not in any sense a highlight of the broadcast. Even if it be accepted that the original broadcast had as its subject matter both the grand final itself as well as the post-match presentations,​ the footage taken was only incidental to the source broadcast, and was trivial, inconsequential or insignificant in terms of that broadcast"​. (Hely J) >"​this Panel Segment takes a portion of Nine’s live broadcast of the National Rugby League grand final. The particular portion taken features one of the players, Mr Glen Lazarus, performing a cartwheel as part of the post-match celebrations. He was not the only player to do so, and the footage taken does not show that there were other players following suit doing cartwheels of their own. The part taken is fleeting in character, and is not in any sense a highlight of the broadcast. Even if it be accepted that the original broadcast had as its subject matter both the grand final itself as well as the post-match presentations,​ the footage taken was only incidental to the source broadcast, and was trivial, inconsequential or insignificant in terms of that broadcast"​. (Hely J)
  
Line 346: Line 345:
 Ten appealed to the High Court, but special leave was denied. Justices Kirby and McHugh reiterated that the identification of whether a substantial part has been taken is a question of "fact and degree"​. Ten appealed to the High Court, but special leave was denied. Justices Kirby and McHugh reiterated that the identification of whether a substantial part has been taken is a question of "fact and degree"​.
  
-__EMI Songs Australia Pty Limited v Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Limited [2011] FCAFC 47__+__//​EMI ​Songs Australia Pty Limited v Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Limited// (([2011] FCAFC 47))__
  
 A two-bar flute riff in Men at Work's Down Under was held to be a substantial part of the old tune "​Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree". A two-bar flute riff in Men at Work's Down Under was held to be a substantial part of the old tune "​Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree".
Line 381: Line 380:
 It is an infringement of copyright in any work in which copyright subsists to import an article into Australia for sale, hire or other commercial purpose, without the license of the copyright owner. This is on the basis that the importer knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that if the article had been made by the importer in Australia, it would have constituted an infringement of copyright. ((//CA// ss 37 and 102)) It is an infringement of copyright in any work in which copyright subsists to import an article into Australia for sale, hire or other commercial purpose, without the license of the copyright owner. This is on the basis that the importer knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that if the article had been made by the importer in Australia, it would have constituted an infringement of copyright. ((//CA// ss 37 and 102))
  
-__Milpurrurru ​v Indofurn Pty Ltd__+__//​Milpurrurru ​v Indofurn Pty Ltd// (([1994] FCA 975))__
  
 A company imported carpets from Vietnam which reproduced Aboriginal artworks made by the applicant. A company imported carpets from Vietnam which reproduced Aboriginal artworks made by the applicant.
Line 390: Line 389:
  
 Parallel importation is where an overseas supplier who has legally acquired copies of the works, imports these works into Australia without a license of the copyright holder.  ​ Parallel importation is where an overseas supplier who has legally acquired copies of the works, imports these works into Australia without a license of the copyright holder.  ​
- 
-**Video overview by Friedrich Kuepper on[Parallel Importation](vimeo>​122722775).** 
    
 **Video overview by Jordan Gregory on[Section 44C and Parallel Importation](https://​www.youtube.com/​watch?​v=5NtqSfnjTxc).** **Video overview by Jordan Gregory on[Section 44C and Parallel Importation](https://​www.youtube.com/​watch?​v=5NtqSfnjTxc).**
Line 427: Line 424:
 Copyright in a work is infringed by a person who sells or hires an article if the person knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the making of the article constituted an infringement of the copyright or, in the case of an imported article, would, if the article had been made in Australia by the importer, have constituted such an infringement. ((//CA// ss 38 and 103)) Copyright in a work is infringed by a person who sells or hires an article if the person knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the making of the article constituted an infringement of the copyright or, in the case of an imported article, would, if the article had been made in Australia by the importer, have constituted such an infringement. ((//CA// ss 38 and 103))
  
-__Raben ​Footwear Pty Ltd v Polygram Records ​Inc__ (([1997] FCA 370))+__//​Raben ​Footwear Pty Ltd v Polygram Records ​Inc//​__ ​(([1997] FCA 370))
  
 Raben imported 1000 copies of a Cher CD from Germany. ​ Polygram sued for infringement of copyright. ​ Raben argued that he had no knowledge – Raben had asked the supplier about licensing for the CDs and received a guarded reply. Raben imported 1000 copies of a Cher CD from Germany. ​ Polygram sued for infringement of copyright. ​ Raben argued that he had no knowledge – Raben had asked the supplier about licensing for the CDs and received a guarded reply.
  
 Held, Raben had infringed copyright – supplier’s response ought reasonably have led the defendant to assume the true position and therefore reasonably knew that making the CD in Australia would have constituted an infringement of copyright. Held, Raben had infringed copyright – supplier’s response ought reasonably have led the defendant to assume the true position and therefore reasonably knew that making the CD in Australia would have constituted an infringement of copyright.
  • ausip/copyrightinfringement.txt
  • Last modified: 2 months ago
  • by nic