On 29 March 2017, the Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Bill 2017 (Bill) was introduced to the Senate. The Bill proposes to amend the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Act) to allow for new situations where the use of copyright material will not result in an infringement of copyright, and to change the standard terms of copyright duration. The Bill’s Explanatory Memorandum sets out that these amendments aim to:
“enhance access to copyright material for persons with a disability, … streamline and modernise provisions for the education, libraries and archives sectors of Australia; and harmonise terms of copyright for published and unpublished materials, and allow greater access to and use of culturally valuable materials.”
Uses that do not infringe copyright
The Bill proposes to insert a new Part IVA into the Act which outlines four (4) situations where the use of copyright material will not result in an infringement.
Division 2 – Access by or for persons with a disability
The Act currently permits the making of accessible copies of books and other copyright material under a number of different provisions. The Bill proposes to replace these with two new exceptions. The first is a fair dealing exception for persons with a disability and anyone assisting them. The second is an exception for organisations assisting persons with a disability. The proposed fair dealing exception will set out four factors to determine whether a use of copyright material is a “fair dealing”: the purpose and character of the dealing, the nature of the copyright material, the effect of the dealing upon the potential market for, or value of the material, and the amount and substantiality of the part dealt with taken in relation to the whole material.
Division 3 – Libraries and archives
At current, the Act includes a number of separate exceptions that allow staff of libraries, archives and certain key cultural institutions to make or communicate copies of material in collections for preservation purposes. Presently, a distinction is drawn between preservation copying of works and subject-matter other than works, and also between materials in their original or published form. The Bill proposes to replace these provisions with simpler, uniform provisions that give libraries, archives and prescribed key cultural institutions greater flexibility in copying and digitisation of copyright material, whether published or unpublished, to preserve or administer their collections.
Division 4 – Educational institutions – statutory licence
Statutory licenses are at present dealt with in Parts VA and VB of the Act. The Bill proposes to repeal these provisions and replace them with a simplified system of educational statutory licenses, whereby educational institutions may copy or communicate works and broadcasts provided they agree to pay equitable remuneration to a collecting society.
Division 5 – Collecting societies
The Bill provides a framework for the operation of declared collecting societies under the new statutory licence, including record keeping and reporting requirements.
Duration of copyright
The Bill establishes new standard terms of protection for works, sound recordings and cinematograph films. For works, the Bill proposes a new standard protection period of “life of author plus seventy (70) years” that does not differentiate between works that are made public and those that are not.
For sound recordings and cinematographic films, if the material is made public within fifty (50) years of being made, then copyright subsists for seventy (70) years from the date it was first made public, but if the material is not made public within fifty (50) years of being made, then copyright subsists for seventy (70) years from the date it was made.
Links and further references
Legislation
Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Bill 2017 (Cth)
Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Bill 2017 (Cth) – Explanatory memorandum
Further information about copyright
If you need assistance with any aspect of copyright, please telephone me for an obligation free and confidential 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.
Related insights about copyright
-
Federal Court guidelines for e-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 in copyright breach cases
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 case
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 a 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 NFT “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.
-
Ex-employees and intellectual property protection
Ex-employees can be a threat to a company’s intellectual property, but with the right contractual clauses, employers can protect their trademarks, copyright, patent, and design. Learn more about how to safeguard your company’s intellectual property.
-
Use of confidential information – the springboard injunction
This article examines the UK decision of Forse & ors v Secarma Ltd & ors [2019] EWCA Civ 215, which discussed the legal concept of a springboard injunction, and its implications in Australia. The Court must consider similar principles to determine if an injunction should be granted.
-
Trade mark infringement – the good faith defence
Navigating trade mark law can be difficult. This article explains the good faith defence and what circumstances must be fulfilled for it to be available, as well as relevant case law and further info.
