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for the education, libraries and archives sectors of Australia; and harmonise terms of copyright for published and unpublished materials, and allow greater access to and use of culturally valuable materials.”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key cultural institutions greater flexibility in copying and digitisation of copyright material, whether published or unpublished, to preserve or administer their collections.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
-
Computer code libraries and copyright ownership
The Australian case of Redrock Holdings Pty Ltd and Hotline Communications Ltd v Hinkley [2001] VSC 91 has shed light on how the ownership of copyright in code libraries is determined. Learn more about the dispute and its implications for copyright ownership in this blog post.
-
Compilations from the public domain – confidential or not?
The Court of Appeal in Ezystay Systems Pty Ltd v Link 2 Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 180 had to re-examine the test for confidential information. It found that for information to be protected, it must have the necessary attributes of confidentiality and must be the product of skill and ingenuity of the human brain.
-
Patentability of computer-implemented inventions
The question of patentability of so called “computer-implemented” inventions has been the subject of legal debate in Australia for a number of years. The September 2018 of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Encompass Corporation Pty Ltd v Infotrack Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 161 was long anticipated by intellectual property lawyers and patent…
-
Phasing out the innovation patent system
The Senate has recommended a bill that could have a major impact on small and medium-sized businesses. Find out what changes are proposed and what it could mean for your intellectual property.
-
Software litigation – how much evidence is sufficient?
The Court was asked to decide if the applicant had enough info to begin proceedings for copyright infringement and breach of confidence in Qudos Mutual Ltd v Infosys Ltd [2019] FCA 702. Qudos was not satisfied with what they had, so the Court ordered the production of further documents and source code.
-
Has my software been copied? – legal test explained
This article examines the legal test for a “substantial reproduction” of computer code, as established by the High Court in Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 49 and further discussed in subsequent cases. The Court will consider the essential features of the work to determine if there has been a substantial…
-
Not so swole – Trade marks removed for non-use
The Federal Court examined the evidence needed to prove intention to use a trade mark in good faith. Find out what happened when an application for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal was refused.
-
Confusing marks – Sensis v Senses
Sensis Pty Ltd v Senses Direct Mail and Fulfillment Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 719: Court ruled SENSES marks deceptively similar to SENSIS marks, highlighting importance of engaging intellectual property lawyers when building a brand. Marks can be infringing if spelling is only slightly different, if it resembles another and likely to deceive and cause confusion.
-
Security for legal costs in patent invalidity cross-claims
This article examines the application of section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in 50/50 or equal ownership disputes. The WA Supreme Court has found that oppressive conduct can still be asserted in equal ownership situations.
