Intellectual property protection

Employee or contractor – implications for intellectual property

HomeBlogCommercial lawEmployment law for employersEmployee or contractor – implications for intellectual property

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

We are often asked to advise whether an individual engaged by an organisation is an employee or contractor.  The answer to this question can have profound implications for commercialisation of intellectual property.

The answer to this question is often not straightforward as the law needs to be examined in the context of all the facts.

Test under the Fair Work Act

Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Fair Work Act) reference to an employee is taken to have its ordinary meaning.  Section 15 of the Fair Work Act states an employee with its ordinary meaning includes a person who is usually such an employee, except for a person on a vocational placement.

Determining what the ordinary meaning of an employee is can be a challenge, especially with society constantly evolving and new workplace relations developing over time.

Level of control

This question of employee vs contractor used to be answered by considering the level of control the organisation had over the worker.  The less control there was, the more likely it would be that a worker is an independent contractor, rather than an employee.  Although this may still be the case, looking at the level of control alone is not sufficient to answer this question.

Multi-factor test for employee vs contractor

In the case of Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16, Mason J said:

“the existence of control, whilst significant, is not the sole criterion by which to gauge whether a relationship is one for employment.  The approach of this Court has been to regard it merely as one of a number of indicia which much be considered in the determination of that question…”

Mason J subsequently set out a number of other matters to be considered when determining whether a person is an employee or a contractor.  These include, but are not limited to:

  •                the mode of remuneration;
  •                the provision and maintenance of equipment;
  •                the obligation to work;
  •                the hours of work and provision for holidays;
  •                the deduction of income tax; and
  •                the delegation of work by the putative employee.

In Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (Victoria) (1997) 37 ATR 528, the Court said that the question involves identifying:

“factors or indicia that are capable of pointing in one direction or another… and weighing or balancing them in order to reach a conclusion.” 

Parties’ intentions

The fact a person calls themself an employee or a contractor is not decisive of their status.  Although it may be relevant, cases such as Young & Woods Ltd v West [1980] IRLR 201 have well established that the intention of the parties’ or the labels which they put on themselves cannot alter or decide their true legal relationship.

Contract – “for Services” vs “of Service”

The contractual relationship between an employer and employee is often referred to as a Contract of Service.  In contrast, the contractual relationship between an organisation and independent contractor is referred to as a Contract for Services.

Some indications that a person is engaged under a Contract for Services include:

  • they provide their own materials, plant and equipment;
  • they have the power to delegate work to others;
  • they get paid by an agreed contract price once a particular result is produced or a particular project is completed;
  • they work on one off occasions rather than on a regular basis;
  • they can work for others without the organisation’s permission; and
  • they are personally responsible for the defects in their work.

In contrast, when taking into account other factors, indications that a person is employed under a Contract of Service include:

  • their employer has a right to exercise control over the them;
  • they are required to wear a uniform;
  • they work set hours; and
  • they receive paid leave, such as annual leave, sick leave and long service leave.

Implications for intellectual property

It is important to distinguish between an employee and an independent contractor when it comes to intellectual property rights.

Generally, where there is a Contract of Service, any intellectual property created by the employee will belong to their employer.  In contrast, it would be difficult for an organisation to claim ownership over intellectual property created by an independent contractor.

An example is copyright.  Copyright is a type of intellectual property created immediately upon the creation of a work protected by copyright.

Under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Copyright Act), the creators of works are the owners of the copyright.  However, section 35(6) of the Copyright Act provides that where such works are created under a Contract of Service, then the employer is the owner of the copyright in those works.

In contrast, if there was no Contract of Service, then the creator would retain copyright provided there is no contrary agreement.

There is a similar provision under section 13 of the Designs Act 2003 (Cth) in relation to ownership of a design.  Generally, an employer will be the registered owner of a design created by an employee during their employment unless there is an agreement to the contrary.

Assigning intellectual property

Intellectual property can be assigned between an organisation and its workers.  An agreement to assign intellectual property should be in writing.  Assignment of copyright does not have legal effect unless it is in writing and signed pursuant to section 196(3) of the Copyright Act.

Part 10 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) provides that trade marks should be assigned in writing and recorded with the Registrar of Trade Marks.

Section 14(a) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) also provides that an assignment of a patent must be in writing and signed.

To ensure intellectual property is properly assigned and recorded, the agreement should always be in writing and signed by the assignor and assignee.

The need to distinguish

For these reasons, it should be evident why a strict determination of whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor is necessary.  Not only will it assist in determining who will own the copyright or other intellectual property, but it will also clarify the rights and obligations of an individual, depending on the nature of the relationship they have with the organisation.

It is always best to put any kind agreement in writing, especially an agreement regarding who will own intellectual property rights that may arise during a project or length of employment.

Further information

If you’re unsure of the relationship with your workers or if you have concerns regarding your intellectual property rights, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:

Doyles Recommended TMT Lawyer 2024

Related insights about Intellectual Property Protection

  • Understanding contributory liability for patent infringement

    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.

    Read more …

  • Changes to the Franchising Code of Conduct

    Changes to the Franchising Code of Conduct

    The current Franchising Code of Conduct (Old Code) is scheduled to “sunset” (meaning it will automatically expire unless extended or replaced) on 1 April 2025, with the Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes–Franchising) Regulations 2024 (Cth) (New Regulations) coming into effect on the same date.

    Read more …

  • Cross-border licensing – Maxim Media Inc. v Nuclear Enterprises

    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…

    Read more …

  • Domain name disputes – a summary of the process

    Domain name disputes – a summary of the process

    A domain name is a string of text that maps to an alphanumeric IP address, enabling users to access websites through client-side software.[1]  Domains can be valuable business assets, and they frequently become the subject of disputes regarding the legitimacy of their registration among organisations with competing rights.

    Read more …

  • New Anti-Money Laundering Bill

    New Anti-Money Laundering Bill

    On 11 September 2024 the (Bill) was introduced to the House of Representatives.[1]  The Bill will amend the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth) (AML/CTF Act) to include provisions regarding deterrence, detection and disruption of money laundering and terrorism financing.[2]  Most changes will take effect from 31 March 2026.

    Read more …

  • Misuse of confidential information in source code

    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.

    Read more …

  • IP Australia adopts Madrid Goods and Services list

    IP Australia adopts Madrid Goods and Services list

    From 26 March 2024, IP Australia has implemented the internationally recognised Madrid Goods and Services list (Madrid List), replacing the AU Goods and Services Picklist.[1]  The adoption of the Madrid List comes as Intellectual Property Australia (IP Australia) seeks to align the Australian classification standards with the other intellectual property offices around the world.

    Read more …

  • The “right to disconnect” from modern workplaces

    The “right to disconnect” from modern workplaces

    The right to disconnect, as contained in Part 8 of the  Fair Work Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill (Bill), gives employees the right to refuse contact from their employers (or related parties) outside of their working hours, unless the refusal is unreasonable.  The changes in Part 8 amend various sections of the Fair Work…

    Read more …

  • Software developer obtains Court order – names behind IP addresses

    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…

    Read more …

Send this to a friend