copyright dispute lawyer

Proposed changes to use of orphan works

HomePrivate: BlogIP litigation and disputesCopyright infringementProposed changes to use of orphan works

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

Reading Time:

3–4 minutes

On 13 August 2020, Paul Fletcher MP, Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts, announced amendments to the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Act).  The amendments follow two (2) years of stakeholder consultation, and finalise the Government’s response to the Productivity Commission’s 2016 Intellectual Property Arrangements Report.  The reforms focus on the use of “orphan works”, with an aim to provide a framework for copyright that is fit for the digital age.

What are orphan works?

Orphan works are works where the copyright owner cannot be identified, meaning it is difficult for a proposed user to seek permission to reproduce them.  An orphan work can be any type of work in which copyright subsists, such as photographs, paintings, written works and sound recordings (Orphan Work).

Works may be orphaned through a variety of circumstances, including where:

  • the work created was a long time ago;
  • required information was missing or deliberately removed, such as lack of metadata on images online; and
  • the owner has inadequate skills or tools to accurately claim rights in the works.

There is no specific provision in relation to the use of Orphan Works in the Act.  Unless covered by an exception or licence, the use of an orphan work may amount to an infringement of copyright.

Exceptions

There are some exceptions which allow individuals to use or reproduce orphan works.  These include the fair dealing exception and a statutory license.  The fair dealing exception only covers specific circumstances, including:

  • giving legal advice;
  • news reporting;
  • criticism;
  • research; and
  • parody.

Libraries and archives may also utilise orphan works for socially useful purposes under section 200AB of the Act.  The Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Act 2017 (Cth) enhanced protection for libraries and archives to an extent by permitting them to create “preservation copies” of resource in their collections without infringing copyright.

A proposed limited liability scheme for use of orphan works

The proposed amendments include a limited liability scheme for use of Orphan Works.  This scheme will permit the use of copyright material where:

  • a reasonably diligent search has been performed, but the copyright owner cannot be identified or located; and
  • as far as reasonably possible, the work has been clearly attributed to the author.

The scope of diligent searches has not yet been confirmed, so it is strongly recommended for creative industries and other relevant sectors to assist in establishing guidelines around performing diligent searches.

If a copyright owner comes forward, users will be exempt from liability for use of the work for the period it was orphaned.  However, users will only be allowed to continue using the work on reasonable terms as agreed with the copyright owner or as fixed by the Copyright Tribunal.  If reasonable terms cannot be met, the copyright owner may seek an injunction against future use of their work.

Other proposed amendments

There are other proposed amendments of the limited liability scheme, including:

  • new specific fair dealing exception for quoting copyright material, subject to the quotation occurring for the purposes of non-commercial use;
  • the update of the library and archives exceptions, so that they are equally applied to all copyright materials and are technologically neutral;
  • the amendment of education exceptions, where current limitations and uncertainties around the use of copyright material in classroom teaching are removed; and
  • the streamline of government statutory licensing regime, which involves simplifying the method of determining fees payable to collecting societies and how these are paid.

Takeaways

The proposed reforms are forecast to benefit both the owner of an Orphan Work and the users of the works. It will allow orphan works to be utilised in creative industries, and will result in larger collections of works to be increasingly accessible by libraries, archives and educational institutions.

Links and further references

Legislation

Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)

Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Act 2017 (Cth)

Report

2016 Intellectual Property Arrangements Report

Further information about orphan works

If you need advice on any protecting your copyright, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free and discussion:


Related insights about orphan works

  • Groundless copyright infringement threats

    Groundless copyright infringement threats

    This article explores the legal implications of copyright threats, offering guidance on how to protect your intellectual property, and what to do when facing an infringement. Discover valuable insight into the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) and how to obtain relief.

    Read more …

  • Contracting with Minors – is it even possible?

    Contracting with Minors – is it even possible?

    In the innovation economy it is becoming more prevalent for individuals aged less than eighteen (18) years (Minors) to seek to build enterprises.  From time to time we are asked to consider whether a client can contract with a Minor. The law in Australia[1] and Queensland[2] states that a Minor is someone who has yet…

    Read more …

  • Baseless threats of trade mark infringement

    Businesses must be aware of the legal considerations when making allegations of trade mark infringement. Learn more about the Pacific Ale Case and the two possible defences, Section 129(4) and (5) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), to protect your brand and avoid potential legal ramifications.

    Read more …

  • What exactly is a “Confidentiality Agreement”?

    What exactly is a “Confidentiality Agreement”?

    This article explores the importance of Confidentiality Agreements (NDAs) and what must be established in order to protect confidential information. Learn what elements and expectations are typically found in such agreements.

    Read more …

  • Is your confidential information truly protected?

    Is your confidential information truly protected?

    This article examines the complex nuances around protecting confidential information, essential for commercial transactions. It looks at the quality of confidence, circumstances implying an obligation of confidence, and various Court cases to determine the confidentiality of information.

    Read more …

  • Intellectual property theft and employee information theft

    Intellectual property theft and employee information theft

    Leica Geosystems Pty Ltd v Koudstaal (No 3) [2014] FCA 1129 (Leica Geosystems) is a notable court case involving an Anton Piller order and employee theft. Find out more about what this means for companies and their intellectual property rights.

    Read more …

  • Online copyright infringement and stolen websites in Australia

    Online copyright infringement and stolen websites in Australia

    This article examines copyright infringement, using the case of Motorcycle Aftermarket Spares Pty Ltd v Tamworth Cycle Tune Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1433 as a warning to those who reproduce copyrighted material without permission. The Courts take a serious view of such actions.

    Read more …

  • Ownership of employee inventions – disputing ownership of patents

    Ownership of employee inventions – disputing ownership of patents

    Section 35(6) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) establishes a general rule that an employer will own the copyright in many types of works if they were created by an employee or apprentice, in the course of their employment. Unfortunately, there is no such legislative equivalent in the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (Act). The absence…

    Read more …

  • Reverse engineering of software – legal boundaries?

    Reverse engineering of software – legal boundaries?

    Reverse engineering software in Australia is complex, with legal implications and cases providing authority on “infringing” verses “non-infringing” reverse engineering. Courts have provided some protection to intellectual property (IP) through licence agreements and distinguishing between ideas and expressions of a program.

    Read more …

Send this to a friend