An abstract or summary of an article that a publisher or author provides with an article or paper (usually in academic, technical or scientific journals) is generally likely to be a “literary work” in its own right. This means that if you want to copy it (for example, to circulate to staff or to put into a catalogue), you will generally need permission.

However, if you are working in an educational institution or within a State or Federal government department or agency, you may be able to rely on provisions in the Copyright Act to copy and use the abstract. If you are studying or researching, or you are a library copying the item for a researcher or student, you may also be able to copy the item (subject, in the case of libraries, to the various procedures you will need to follow). For further information, see our information sheets Libraries (non-profit): introduction to copyright; Educational institutions and Copying for research or study, available from the Copyright Council website.

In other cases, organisations with licences from Copyright Agency Limited (CAL), a collecting society whose members are authors and publishers, may be able to copy abstracts for certain purposes. Alternatively, permission might be obtained from the publisher, either on a case-by-case basis or, for example, before renewing a subscription.

Back to top | Permalink

You do not need permission to make an abstract or summary of a book or article unless the abstract or summary reproduces a “substantial part” of the way the information is expressed in the source work.

An example from US law concerned a half page, 300-word synopsis of a three act, forty-six page opera. The publisher of the opera unsuccessfully sued the publisher of the synopsis. The court held that the synopsis did “not use the author’s language ... [but gave] just enough information to put the reader on inquiry, precisely as … the review of a book or the description of a painting induces the reader to examine further”. The court in that case contrasted an abstract with an abridgment, which it described as a “colourable shortening of the original text”, indicating that people are more likely to need permission to make an abridged version of a work.

An example of an abridgment which infringed copyright is found in an early Australian case. In that case, the publishers of the Gippsland Mercury summarised news items from the Reuter’s news telegrams published in the Argus newspaper. The court held that the Mercury had made a “copy, colourable alteration or adaptation” that should be prevented.

The uncertainty in this area lies in predicting whether the amount of the source work taken amounts to an important, distinctive or essential part. This will be a question of fact and degree in each case. As a rule of thumb, you are unlikely to need permission if you just briefly outline the main points and arguments in a book or article.

Back to top | Permalink

If you want to use published material, the first point of contact is usually the publisher, who may be able to give you permission or give you some information about whom to contact. For unpublished material, the first point of contact is usually the author.

Back to top | Permalink

The first owner of copyright is usually the “author”. The “author” of a book is the person who writes it. A person who provides suggestions or ideas, but does not do any of the writing, is not an “author” or copyright owner.

Back to top | Permalink

If there is a dispute about who wrote a work, and it cannot be resolved by negotiation, it may need to be resolved by a court. A court will consider all the relevant evidence. The most important evidence is usually the writer’s oral evidence. Other evidence may be drafts and source materials for the work.

Back to top | Permalink

For books, the writer’s contract should generally state who is responsible for getting all necessary permissions to include third party copyright material. In many cases, the writer undertakes to do this. However, in many cases, publishers should generally also assess what permissions are needed, and check that they have been obtained and properly documented.

The reason for this is that, generally, it is the publisher who is sued for copyright infringement, not the author. The publisher may be entitled to recover money from the author if the author has breached an undertaking in his or her agreement, but this is only useful if the author is able to pay.

Back to top | Permalink