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
ausip:copyrightownership [2019/02/28 18:20]
175.36.50.222
ausip:copyrightownership [2019/10/28 15:41] (current)
220.233.35.68
Line 1: Line 1:
 # Copyright Ownership # Copyright Ownership
  
 +This chapter explores copyright ownership and the different situations which may effect ownership of copyright content. ​
 +
 +A copyright creator is a person who uses their intellectual abilities, to create a work of literary, dramatic, musical or artistic creativity. There can be more than one creator of a work. In legal documents and legislation,​ the creator is often referred to as the ‘author’. The term ‘author’ is used broadly, so that an author may be an artist or a music composer (not just the writer of a book).
 +
 +A copyright owner is a person who owns the copyright either through creation or by assignment (legal transfer of ownership). Generally, a person who creates the work also automatically owns the copyright. However, there are certain exceptions to this rule. The creator of a work and its copyright owner will not always be the same person.
 +
 +<WRAP round info 60%>
 +It’s interesting to note that under the law, only a human being can be the *creator* of a copyrightable work. However, the right to own copyright extends to artificial entities such as a company.
 +</​WRAP>​
 +
 +A copyright owner has exclusive rights in their work. This means that if anybody else wants to use a copyright protected work, they must obtain the copyright owner’s permission or they must operate under a legal exception.
  
 ## Ownership of Original (Part III) Works ## Ownership of Original (Part III) Works
Line 24: Line 35:
 ### Work Produced in the Course of Employment ### Work Produced in the Course of Employment
  
-Where a creator is working under a contract of employment, the rule is that the employer owns copyright of works produced in the course of employment. ((//CA// s 35(6) )) The creator must be working under a contract *of* service, as distinguished from a contract *for* services. In other words, they must be an employee and not an independent contractor. ​ Additionally,​ 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//​)) ​+Where a creator is working under a contract of employment, the rule is that the employer owns copyright of works produced in the course of employment. ((//CA// s 35(6) )) The creator must be working under a contract *of* service, as distinguished from a contract *for* services. In other words, they must be an employee and not an independent contractor. ​ Additionally,​ 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// ​[1984] AIPC 90)) 
  
  
Line 30: Line 41:
  
  
-In determining whether the work is created in the course of employment, it can be helpful to ask: "​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". ((//Mr Diljeet Titus v Mr. Alfred A Adebare// 130 (2006) DLT 130 (Delhi High Court) ))+In determining whether the work is created in the course of employment, it can be helpful to ask: "​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." ​((//Mr Diljeet Titus v Mr. Alfred A Adebare// 130 (2006) DLT 130 (Delhi High Court) ))
  
-__//Beloff v Pressdram Ltd//__ (([1973] FSR 33))+<WRAP case>__//Beloff v Pressdram Ltd//__ (([1973] FSR 33))
  
 The plaintiff, a political correspondent of the "​London Observer",​ issued a politically sensitive internal memo to the editor and senior staff about the Prime Minister. ​ It was published in full by the “Private Eye”. ​ The plaintiff sued for infringement of copyright. The plaintiff, a political correspondent of the "​London Observer",​ issued a politically sensitive internal memo to the editor and senior staff about 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. 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.
 +</​WRAP>​
  
 The issue of ownership also arises when dealing with student produced work. Unless specifically employed to produce work in the course of employment (as outlined above), any work produced by a student will be owned by the student. ​ The issue of ownership also arises when dealing with student produced work. Unless specifically employed to produce work in the course of employment (as outlined above), any work produced by a student will be owned by the student. ​
  
-The below table is a guide for students when considering copyright and ownership. 
- 
-Copyright Ownership for Students - a step by step guide adapted from " Copyright Ownership for Students"​ by Laura Falkner and Harriet Salisbury CC-BY 4.0  
- 
-^ Question ^ If No ^ If Yes |  
-| 1. Are you a University/ College, TAFE or other student? | You should refer to the ownership section of this chapter | Continue to question 2. |  
-| 2. Have you created an output as part of your assessment? | You may need to consider whether you created the output as part of your employment. | Continue to question 3. | 
-| 3. Have you agreed to assign all or part of your copyright to your institutional provider or anyone else? To answer this question you should familiarise yourself with the task sheet, the submission process for the assessment item, your intellectual property policy for your institutional provider. If you work for your institutional provider you may need to additionally consult your employment contract. | If you do not think you have assigned any of your copyright, proceed to question 4.  | If you have assigned some or all of your copyright to your institutional provider (or to some other person or entity) they may own all or part of the copyright in your output. This will depend on what you have assigned, your institutional provider'​s intellectual property policy and any employment contacts you may have that pertain to the output. | 
-| 4. Do you own copyright in your work? | If you said no to question 4. you own the copyright in your work. As the copyright owner you have the exclusive right to cause your output to be seen, heard, reproduced, or communicated to the public. Your lecturer, teacher or someone else might want to make use of your work in some way - perhaps as an example in future teaching.| You have assigned some or all of your copyright to someone else. You no are no longer the copyright owner (or the sole copyright owner) in some or all of the output. | 
-| 5. Do you want to give someone permission to use your work in a particular way? Has anyone asked you permission to use your work? | If no, any unauthorised use of your work may amount to copyright infringement. | If yes, you have the ability to agree to let someone use your work in a particular way. You can provide a license to a person to make use of your work in a set way for a specific period of time.  |  
- 
- 
-      
  
 ### Journalists ### Journalists
Line 75: Line 74:
 * the painting or drawing of a portrait; and * the painting or drawing of a portrait; and
  
-* the making of an engraving. ((//CA// s 35(5) of the //Copyright Act//))+* the making of an engraving. ((//CA// s 35(5) ))
  
 Copyright in all other commissioned works, such as works commissioned for a commercial purposes, vests in the author. Recall, however, that copyright ownership can always be modified by agreement. Copyright in all other commissioned works, such as works commissioned for a commercial purposes, vests in the author. Recall, however, that copyright ownership can always be modified by agreement.
Line 83: Line 82:
 Under s 35(5), if the person who commissions the relevant artistic works makes known to the author, either expressly or impliedly at the time of making the agreement commissioning the work, the purpose for which the work is required, then the author can restrain the person from using the work for other purposes.  ​ Under s 35(5), if the person who commissions the relevant artistic works makes known to the author, either expressly or impliedly at the time of making the agreement commissioning the work, the purpose for which the work is required, then the author can restrain the person from using the work for other purposes.  ​
  
- +<WRAP case> 
-__//​Blackwell v Wadsworth//​__ (( (1982) 64 FLR 145 ))+__//​Blackwell v Wadsworth//​__ (((1982) 64 FLR 145 ))
  
 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. 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 defendants had infringed copyright – there was no implied license for the defendants to reproduce the work. Held, the defendants had infringed copyright – there was no implied license for the defendants to reproduce the work.
 +</​WRAP>​
  
 ### Joint Ownership ### Joint Ownership
Line 97: Line 96:
 Section 10 of the //Act// defines a "work of joint authorship"​ as “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"​. Section 10 of the //Act// defines a "work of joint authorship"​ as “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"​.
  
-This definition does not mean that all jointly produced works result in joint authorship. This will only be the case where each author'​s contribution cannot be separated from the others'​. Where each person supplies a distinct part of the work, then they will not own copyright in the work as a whole jointly. Instead, they will own copyright separately in their respective parts. Supplying ideas for a work does not give rise to a claim of joint authorship over the expression.+This definition does not mean that all jointly produced works result in joint authorship. This will only be the case where each author'​s contribution cannot be separated from the other. Where each person supplies a distinct part of the work, then they will not own copyright in the work as a whole jointly. Instead, they will own copyright separately in their respective parts. Supplying ideas for a work does not give rise to a claim of joint authorship over the expression.
  
  
-__//​Donoghue v Allied Newspapers Ltd//__+<WRAP case> 
 +__//​Donoghue v Allied Newspapers Ltd//​__ ​(([1938] Ch 106))
  
 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 owned by the author. 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 owned by the author.
 +</​WRAP>​
  
  
Line 108: Line 109:
  
  
-**Video overview by Olivia Wright on [Tenants in Common and Copyright](https://​youtu.be/​SuR0HoFVO2Y).**+**Video overview by Olivia Wright on [Tenants in Common and Copyright](https://​www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuR0HoFVO2Y).**
  
  
Line 123: Line 124:
  
  
-Pursuant to s 97, where a person commissions a sound recording for valuable consideration,​ then the person who commissioned the recording is the copyright owner, subject to any agreement to the contrary. ((//Copyright Act 1968// (Cth )) +Pursuant to s 97, where a person commissions a sound recording for valuable consideration,​ then the person who commissioned the recording is the copyright owner, subject to any agreement to the contrary. ((//CA//)) 
  
  
Line 154: Line 155:
 Labels or marks indicating the year and place of the publication or the making of a work are admissible as prima facie evidence of copyright subsistence ((//CA// ss 126A and 126B)) Labels or marks indicating the year and place of the publication or the making of a work are admissible as prima facie evidence of copyright subsistence ((//CA// ss 126A and 126B))
  
-The name appearing on a work is presumed to be author and first owner of the work.((//​CA//​ s 127)) If s 127 does not apply, then the name of the publisher appearing on a work published in last 70 years is presumed to be the owner. ((//CA// s 128))+The name appearing on a work is presumed to be the author and first owner of the work.((//​CA//​ s 127)) If s 127 does not apply, then the name of the publisher appearing on a work published in the last 70 years is presumed to be the owner. ((//CA// s 128))
  
 Section 132A applies these same presumptions with respect to the criminal provisions of the //Copyright Act//. The exception to this is found in s 132AM. This section also introduces new presumptions to recognise industry-specific labelling practices. Section 132A applies these same presumptions with respect to the criminal provisions of the //Copyright Act//. The exception to this is found in s 132AM. This section also introduces new presumptions to recognise industry-specific labelling practices.
Line 168: Line 169:
 * works first published by the Crown; ((//CA// s 177)) and * works first published by the Crown; ((//CA// s 177)) and
  
-* sound recording and films made by or under the direction or control of the Crown. ((//CA// s 178))+* sound recording and films made byor under the direction or control of the Crown. ((//CA// s 178))
  
 The duration of Crown copyright is 50 years. The duration of Crown copyright is 50 years.
  
-The Copyright Law Review Committee (CLRC) recommended the abolition of special privileges for the Crown in their report, Crown Copyright(2005),​ but the Australian Government did not implement these recommendations.+The Copyright Law Review Committee (CLRC) recommended the abolition of special privileges for the Crown in their report, Crown Copyright (2005), but the Australian Government did not implement these recommendations.
  
 __//​Copyright Agency Limited v State of NSW//__ (([2007] FCAC 80)) __//​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.+In the case of [Copyright Agency Limited v State of NSW](http://​classic.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCAFC/​2007/​80.html) 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. 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.
  • ausip/copyrightownership.1551338413.txt.gz
  • Last modified: 9 months ago
  • by 175.36.50.222