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Previously, unpublished materials were protected indefinitely.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copyright material for persons with a disability”,[1] it also “set new standard terms of protection for published and unpublished materials and for crown copyright in original materials.”[1] The multifaceted nature of the Act is outside the scope of this article.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
-
Contracting with Minors – is it even possible?
In the innovation economy it is becoming more prevalent for individuals aged less than eighteen (18) years (Minors) to seek to build enterprises. From time to time we are asked to consider whether a client can contract with a Minor. The law in Australia[1] and Queensland[2] states that a Minor is someone who has yet…
-
Baseless threats of trade mark infringement
Businesses must be aware of the legal considerations when making allegations of trade mark infringement. Learn more about the Pacific Ale Case and the two possible defences, Section 129(4) and (5) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), to protect your brand and avoid potential legal ramifications.
-
What exactly is a “Confidentiality Agreement”?
This article explores the importance of Confidentiality Agreements (NDAs) and what must be established in order to protect confidential information. Learn what elements and expectations are typically found in such agreements.
-
Is your confidential information truly protected?
This article examines the complex nuances around protecting confidential information, essential for commercial transactions. It looks at the quality of confidence, circumstances implying an obligation of confidence, and various Court cases to determine the confidentiality of information.
-
Intellectual property theft and employee information theft
Leica Geosystems Pty Ltd v Koudstaal (No 3) [2014] FCA 1129 (Leica Geosystems) is a notable court case involving an Anton Piller order and employee theft. Find out more about what this means for companies and their intellectual property rights.
-
Online copyright infringement and stolen websites in Australia
This article examines copyright infringement, using the case of Motorcycle Aftermarket Spares Pty Ltd v Tamworth Cycle Tune Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1433 as a warning to those who reproduce copyrighted material without permission. The Courts take a serious view of such actions.
-
Ownership of employee inventions – disputing ownership of patents
Section 35(6) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) establishes a general rule that an employer will own the copyright in many types of works if they were created by an employee or apprentice, in the course of their employment. Unfortunately, there is no such legislative equivalent in the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (Act). The absence…
-
Reverse engineering of software – legal boundaries?
Reverse engineering software in Australia is complex, with legal implications and cases providing authority on “infringing” verses “non-infringing” reverse engineering. Courts have provided some protection to intellectual property (IP) through licence agreements and distinguishing between ideas and expressions of a program.
-
Dallas Buyers Club wins preliminary discovery order
The Federal Court of Australia has granted a controversial application that could allow copyright holders to identify and pursue alleged infringers of their work. Find out what conditions were imposed on the copyright holders and what this could mean for the future of online copyright infringement.
