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for the education, libraries and archives sectors of Australia; and harmonise terms of copyright for published and unpublished materials, and allow greater access to and use of culturally valuable materials.”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key cultural institutions greater flexibility in copying and digitisation of copyright material, whether published or unpublished, to preserve or administer their collections.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
-
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.
-
Palmer breaches copyright – liable for $1.5m AUD in damages
Court found Respondent infringed copyright of Daniel “Dee” Snider’s works, awarding $1.5M for flagrant, contumelious infringements. It was found as not fair and not satirical/parodical.
-
Cost awards in unfair dismissal cases – part 1
Employers in Australia must be aware of potential costs involved when defending an unfair dismissal claim at the Fair Work Commission. Despite success, employers rarely get the option to recover costs from the complainant employee.
-
Implied terms in copyright licensing
Court determines scope of implied licence for digital content, emphasizing need for clear written terms to protect intellectual property rights.
-
What exactly is the springboard doctrine?
This article examines the ‘springboard’ doctrine which refers to the benefit that is derived because of misuse of confidential information by a defendant that enables them to ‘springboard’ a new product or service to market more rapidly than if they had used their own mind.
