On the 22 of June 2017, the Australian Government passed the Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Act 2017 (Act), which introduced major changes to the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) that aim to simplify how long materials can be protected by copyright laws. From 1 January 2019, changes to the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) will apply to all literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works (Works), sound recordings and films that are not made public before 1 January 2019, or that are created or made public on or after 1 January 2019.
New duration of protection for copyright Works
Previously, unpublished materials were protected indefinitely. However, copyright will now subsist for the life of the author plus 70 years for all Works provided that the material is not first made public before 1 January 2019.
New duration of protection for sound, film and unknown authors
For sound or film recordings, or Works where the author is unknown, copyright will only subsist for 70 years after creation, unless those materials are made public within 50 years of creation, in which case copyright will subsist for 70 years after being made public.
New duration of protection of Government-owned copyright material
For copyright material that is owned by the Commonwealth or State Government, the copyright will subsist for 50 years after creation.
How is copyright material ‘made public’?
The concept of copyright material being made public is broader than ‘publication’. ‘Publication’ would involve supplying or offering copies of the material to the public, whereas copyright material could be ‘made public’ if it is merely available to the public. For example, copyright material will be made public if has been published or posted online or performed in public.
Takeaways
While the Act was enacted to “enhance access to copyright material for persons with a disability”,[1] it also “set new standard terms of protection for published and unpublished materials and for crown copyright in original materials.”[1] The multifaceted nature of the Act is outside the scope of this article. In relation to the new regime described above for the duration of protection – it is important to remember that a party seeking to be protected by these rules is not required to show that the Works have definitely never been made available to the public before 1 January 2019. A reasonable search for evidence that it hasn’t is all that is required.
Links and further references
Legislation
Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Act 2017
Explanatory Memorandum, Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Bill 2017
Further information about intellectual property
If you need assistance with an intellectual property matter, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:
Malcolm Burrows B.Bus.,MBA.,LL.B.,LL.M.,MQLS.
Legal Practice Director
T: +61 7 3221 0013 (preferred)
M: +61 419 726 535
E: mburrows@dundaslawyers.com.au
Disclaimer
This article contains general commentary only. You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstances.
[1] Explanatory Memorandum, Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Bill 2017.
Related insights about intellectual property
-
Understanding contributory liability for patent infringement
In Australia, the Patent Act 1990 (Cth) provides protection for inventors by preventing others from using, making, or selling patented inventions without permission. The Act also extends liability to parties that are not directly infringing patents but may contribute to or enable patent infringement by supplying a product.
-
Cross-border licensing – Maxim Media Inc. v Nuclear Enterprises
The Federal Court decision in Maxim Media Inc. v Nuclear Enterprises Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1443 involved an interlocutory application seeking injunctive relief by Maxim Media Inc. and Maxim Inc. (together, Maxim) (Applicants) for alleged breaches of sections 18 and 29 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), passing off and infringement of a…
-
Misuse of confidential information in source code
In Australia, computer code can amount to confidential information as well as being subject to copyright protection. In some cases the two things overlap as was the case in decision of the Court in Optus Networks Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd (2010) 265 ALR 281; [2010] FCAFC 21.
-
Federal Court requirements for electronic discovery and metadata
Electronic discovery in the Federal Court of Australia (FCA) is nothing new. From July 2014, the FCA began implementing the Court’s electronic court file (ECF) across its Australian registries. This enabled the Court to embrace the use of technology in proceedings, including the use of electronic discovery, eLodgement, eTrials, eCourtroom, and video conferences.
-
Software developer obtains Court order – names behind IP addresses
Justice Burley of the Federal Court of Australia in the case of Siemens Industry Software Inc v Telstra Corporation Limited [2020] FCA 901 ordered that Telstra, within fourteen (14) days, provide to Siemens all documents in its control relating to the identity of certain Telstra Account holders. Those account holders were suspected by Siemens of…
-
“User principle” damages for breach of copyright
The usual position in intellectual property infringement matters is that the successful applicant can elect between an account of profits or damages. However, what if the applicant has not suffered any direct loss as a result of the actions of the respondent that is held to have infringed its copyright?
-
Ed Sheeran wins “Shape of You” copyright infringement lawsuit
This article examines the legal test for copyright infringement in Australia, using Ed Sheeran’s Court case in the UK as an example. Find out how the Courts determine when a song is a copy of another and what the implications are for musicians.
-
Use of competitors trade marks for comparative advertising
Comparative advertising can be a powerful tool, but it must be done within the bounds of the law. Learn more about the legal implications of comparative advertising in Australia, including the case of GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Limited (No 2) [2018] FCA 1.
-
Hermès sues artist over NFTs of Birkin bags
Explore the implications of virtual artworks created with the help of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and how this has caused a legal battle between a renowned fashion house and an American artist. Learn more about the copyright and trade mark infringement issues, and the implications of this case for the future of digital art.
