Francis Gurry, the Director-General of the World Intellectual Property Organisation, addressed the recent Copyright Law and Practice Symposium on copyright reform at the global level.
To read his speech, click here.
Francis Gurry, the Director-General of the World Intellectual Property Organisation, addressed the recent Copyright Law and Practice Symposium on copyright reform at the global level.
To read his speech, click here.
Public submissions to the Attorney-General’s consultation on revising the scope of the Copyright Safe Harbour Scheme closed on 22 November.
The rationale for the safe harbour scheme is to provide legal incentives for service providers to work cooperatively with copyright owners to deter copyright infringements that are not initiated or controlled by these service providers, but which occur through their systems or networks.
Currently, Carriage Service Providers (CSPs), as defined under the Telecommunications Act 1997, are the only type of service providers that qualify for the safe harbour remedial limitations. The Government has proposed expanding the scope of the scheme to include other service providers undertaking the kinds of activities covered by the scheme. The Attorney-General’s Department invited submissions from interested stakeholders and will now make its deliberations on the matter.
To see the Copyright Council’s submission to the safe harbour consultation, click here:
http://www.copyright.org.au/admin/cms-acc1/_images/7517789194ed4128f27ba8.pdf
Australian fashion designer Collette Dinnigan has landed in the middle of a copyright dispute concerning the use, without permission, of photos of Kate Middleton wearing a Collette Dinnigan design. The dispute raises interesting issues about the rights of fashion designers in their creations, the rights of media photographers in their photos, and the scope of the Australian fair dealing exceptions – in particular fair dealing for the purposes of reporting the news.
According to a recent article published in the Sydney Morning Herald, the photos of Middleton, which were taken by photographers belonging to London-based agency Ikon Pictures, were reproduced by Dinnigan’s press agency in a media release as well as on her Facebook page. Dinnigan’s company has reportedly received several letters requesting payment for use of the photos but it appears the company will seek to rely on the fair dealing defence for reporting the news.
What is interesting is that Dinnigan owns the dress design and copyright protects unique fashion designs. In theory, a photographer would need to seek permission from a designer to take a photo of a unique fashion garment. However, the designer will usually lose copyright protection once the fashion item is commercially applied. At this point, a photographer would be free to photograph it without infringing any copyright.
Copyright also protects original photographs and the value for the photographers in this case lies in the fact that a celebrity has been captured. These kinds of photos can be licensed for many thousands of dollars and safeguarding the rights is imperative for a photography business.
Australia has a number of fair dealing exceptions, including for the purposes of reporting news. Arguably, the fact that a high profile individual, like the Duchess of Cambridge, is wearing a particular design is a newsworthy event for a fashion designer. But to rely on fair dealing, you also need to be able to establish that the use is fair in all the circumstances.
In one sense it might be argued that the particular use was fair, given that it is the designer’s own work that is featured in the photo. But in another sense, it may not be fair where the use has jeopardised a photographer’s chances of further licensing deals. Also, the availability of other options for reporting news such as linking back to the original photos on the internet or purchasing the rights to use the photos, rather than reproducing them without permission, may be relevant in this case.
Read the full article here:
A recent end-of-year exam set by the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA) has raised some interesting copyright issues for writer and columnist Helen Razer.
The Age reports[1] that the VCAA used an article written by Razer in one of its English exams, made several modifications to the text and attributed the article to a “Helen Day” and not the real author. VCAA’s edits to the article substituted words and changed the flow of the original piece and the author has taken issue with this use of her work.
Unless an exception applies, a person planning to reproduce a news article in their own work would seek permission from the copyright owner (often the author or newspaper in which the article appeared). An exception in Australian copyright law allows material to be reproduced without permission if done as part of an examination question, however, even if this exception covers any potential copyright issues, it does not cover the author’s moral rights in the article.
Creators of written, musical and artistic works have several moral rights in addition to copyright in their works, which include the right not to be falsely attributed as well as the right to not have their work treated in a derogatory manner – particularly if this causes some harm to the reputation or honour of the creator.
While it is usually the answers to an exam that are given close scrutiny, in this case the questions themselves have become the focus and it will be interesting to see what happens next.
[1] http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/sloppy-copy-in-exam-raises-ire-20111109-1n7eo.html
The launch in the United States of a new service called ReDigi, that purports to be a second-hard store for digital music, has come to the attention of music industry representatives as well as music consumers – and it’s going to be a potentially bumpy ride for the new startup.
Walk down any main street or jump on to an online auction site like Ebay or Trading Post and you will see a thriving market in second hand books, films and music. This material has been resold in hard copy form for years, without issue in most cases. But as more and more of our film, music and reading material is purchased in digital formats, the question of whether resale of this material is legitimate becomes more complex due to copyright issues.
So, how does ReDigi work? Users sign up and submit the music files they want to sell via ReDigi’s proprietary ReDigi Music Manager. ReDigi’s system verifies the music file to make sure that it is legitimate and then uploads it to ReDigi servers, where it is made available for purchase by another user. ReDigi deletes any copies of the music file that remain on the seller’s computer and does not allow the seller to retain or replace that music file on their own system once it’s been uploaded. The idea is that only one version of the file is being distributed at any time. Other ReDigi users can purchase and download the file offered for resale, which is then removed from ReDigi’s servers. Percentages of sales go to the relevant artists and labels.
The site raises some interesting legal questions. Firstly, distributing digital files to a third party often means making a reproduction of that file, which usually requires permission or licence from the copyright owner. Secondly, when users purchase the music file from the original vendor (such as Amazon or iTunes), there are usually terms and conditions agreed to before they are able to purchase the file and these terms may prohibit selling the files to a third party.
ReDigi states on its website that it is relying on the US First Sale Doctrine, which allows owners of legitimately acquired copies of copyright material to re-sell that particular material without interference from the copyright owner [1]. The US-based RIAA, which represents the recording industry, has objected to ReDigi’s model and sent a cease and desist letter to ReDigi’s operators in which it responds that the first sale doctrine only applies to the particular copy purchased, arguing that “it does not permit the owner to make another copy, sell the second copy and destroy the original” [2]. Under ReDigi’s model, even though copies are deleted, a copy of the music is being made when it is uploaded to the ReDigi servers for resale and it is this copying that the RIAA argues is being done without a license. Further, RIAA objects to ReDigi allowing 30-second previews of songs in its database to users.
In Australia, resale of physical items is largely unproblematic in copyright terms, while the resale of legally purchased digital material remains a legally grey area. The first place to look are the terms and conditions under which the digital items were purchased to verify whether these allow sale of the material to another person. Beyond that it becomes a question of whether a reproduction or communication of the digital material has been made without the copyright owner’s permission.
Any legal action between the US parties involved in this issue will be informed by other decisions on resale of legally purchased digital material. Interested readers should see our October 2010 issue, which contains a round up of Vernor v Autodesk Inc, a US case that addressed sale of second hand software in the context of the first sale doctrine and software licences. You can view this at http://copyright.org.au/news-and-policy/details/id/1841/
[1] ReDigi website at https://www.redigi.com/education.html
[2] Letter from RIAA to ReDigi CEO CEO John Ossenmacher dated 10/11/2011
Collecting societies Viscopy and Copyright Agency today announced their plans to merge their service operations in an arrangement expected to produce additional income for artists. The proposed services agreement is expected to take effect from mid 2012, subject to regulatory approval. To read the media announcement, click here.