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Previously, unpublished materials were protected indefinitely.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copyright material for persons with a disability”,[1] it also “set new standard terms of protection for published and unpublished materials and for crown copyright in original materials.”[1] The multifaceted nature of the Act is outside the scope of this article.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
-
What exactly is a Norwich Pharmacal order?
In situations where an innocent third party has information about conduct which may assist a litigant, an applicant apply to the Court to have that third party disclose such information. For example, a bank which has knowledge of a transaction or conduct that would assist a litigant it may be obliged to hand over the…
-
Interlocutory injunctions and damages undertakings
An interlocutory injunction may be sought by a patent owner to stop a defendant from infringing their patent. This article examines the two elements that must be established by an Applicant and the considerations the Court will take into account when making its decision.
-
Calculating account of profits – trade mark infringement
This article examines the calculation of damages when an account of profits is awarded as a remedy for trade mark infringement. It covers the general principle, the proportionality rule, and the deduction of overhead costs.
-
Non-fungible tokens – a new way to hold IP?
Discover the rising phenomenon of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) and how they can help protect your Intellectual Property (IP). Learn how NFTs works, its benefits for rights holders, and potential legal issues. Get the full picture here.
-
Unjustified trade mark infringement threats
Comprehensive list of Australian Court decisions and related legislation covering corporate, technology, intellectual property, commercial, employment, negligence, confidentiality, copyright, moral rights, user generated content, click wrap/browse wrap, trademarks, torts and social media law.
-
What exactly are moral rights?
This article provides an overview of moral rights in Australia, including the three moral rights available to authors and performers, the works protected by them, their retrospective application, when they may be infringed, and the case of Meskenas v ACP Publishing Pty Ltd [2006] FMCA 1136 (Meskenas). Helping readers understand the implications of moral rights…
-
How much copying leads to copyright infringement?
This article outlines the definition of Literary Works, the subsistence of copyright in such works, and the test for infringement of copyright under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). It also provides an overview of the four major characteristics to consider when determining if copying is substantial.
-
What is the proposed “patent box” tax incentive?
The Federal Government has announced a ‘patent box’ tax regime to boost Australian biotech and medtech innovators with a $206 million corporate tax cut. Learn more about the scope, qualifications and prerequisites for patenting an invention.
-
Accessory liability and copyright infringement
Manufacturers and service providers can be held liable for copyright infringement, but when? This article examines the legal implications of the Sea Shepherd (UK) v Fish & Fish Ltd [2015] UKSC 10 case and accessory liability.
