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Previously, unpublished materials were protected indefinitely.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copyright material for persons with a disability”,[1] it also “set new standard terms of protection for published and unpublished materials and for crown copyright in original materials.”[1] The multifaceted nature of the Act is outside the scope of this article.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
-
Designer wins High Court case over Katy Perry trade mark dispute
On 11 March 2026, the High Court of Australia (High Court) delivered its judgment in the case of Taylor v Killer Queen, LLC [2026] HCA 5 (Taylor v Killer Queen), ending the seventeen (17) year trade mark dispute between pop star Katy Perry and Australian fashion designer Katie Jane Taylor. In a 3:2 majority decision,…
-
Importance of meta data in discovery – Hamlan v Levonix
The recent copyright case of Hamlan Homes Pty Ltd trading as Hamlan Homes and Geelong Homes v Levonix Homes Pty Ltd (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC2G 565 (Hamlan v Levonix)involved a dispute between Hamlan Homes Pty Ltd 006 313 015 (Hamlan) and Levonix Homes Pty Ltd ACN 168 777 384 (Levonix) that provides insight into preservation…
-
Proposed changes to copyright for orphan works
On 5 November 2025, the Copyright Amendment Bill 2025 (Cth)(Bill) was introduced to the Federal Parliament to amend the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)(Copyright Act). The media release to the Bill explained that it proposed two (2) reforms to the Copyright Act by establishing Australia’s first statutory “orphan works” scheme and clarifying the permitted use of…
-
Federal Gov rules out copyright text and data mining exception for AI
On 26 October 2025, the Attorney-General, Hon Michelle Rowland MP, published a media release reiterating that the current Federal Government will not introduce a text and data mining (TDM) exception to copyright infringement in the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Copyright Act). The Attorney-General’s Department will instead engage in further consultations with members of the Copyright…
-
Malcolm Burrows on ABC’s “Legal Eagles” segment – copyright law and the Anthropic case
On 10 September 2025, Malcolm Burrows appeared live on Katherine Feeney’s ABC Radio program, “Legal Eagles” as the Technology and Intellectual Property Lawyer to discuss legal issues associated with copyright subsisting in artificial intelligence (AI) training data.
-
Canva – who owns the artwork created by users?
The general rule about ownership of copyright in a literary or artistic work is that copyright vests in the ‘original author’, as per section 35(2) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Copyright Act). From there, ownership depends on whether or not the original author is doing the work within the scope of their employment, in…
-
Understanding contributory liability in 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 within 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.
