AI can make up songs now, but who owns the copyright? The answer is complicated; The Conversation, May 13, 2024

Wellett Potter, Lecturer in Law, University of New England , The Conversation; ; AI can make up songs now, but who owns the copyright? The answer is complicated

"With the rapid development of this technology, it is timely to debate whether a similar right of publicity should be introduced in Australia. If so, it would help to safeguard the identity and performance rights of all Australians and also protect against potential AI voice crimes."

Internet Archive’s digital library has been found in breach of copyright. The decision has some important implications; The Conversation, August 22, 2023

Agata Mrva-Montoya, Lecturer, Department of Media and Communications, University of Sydney, The Conversation; Internet Archive’s digital library has been found in breach of copyright. The decision has some important implications

"The outcome of the court case may affect the fate of controlled digital lending more broadly."

Prosecraft has infuriated authors by using their books without consent – but what does copyright law say?; The Conversation, August 9, 2023

Dilan Thampapillai Associate Professor, University of New South Wales, UNSW Sydney , The Conversation; Prosecraft has infuriated authors by using their books without consent – but what does copyright law say?

"In amending its laws, Australia legislated that parody or satire could form the basis of a fair dealing exception. A specific transformative use exception was not created. 

So, it is significantly less clear as to whether the use contemplated by Prosecraft or Shaxpir would be considered fair dealing in Australia. 

Australia has either missed a trick or dodged a bullet by failing to include transformative use as a fair dealing exception. It depends where you stand in the ongoing conflict between AI tech and human authors. But Australia’s laws are less AI-friendly than the US.

For the moment, published human authors are banking on the idea that if they can knock out the shadow library, they can hobble the reach of AI tech."

Intellectual property waiver for COVID vaccines should be expanded to include treatments and tests; The Conversation, November 21, 2022

Deborah Gleeson, Associate Professor in Public Health, La Trobe University, Dianne Nicol
Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Tasmania, James Scheibner
Lecturer in Law, Flinders University, The Conversation;

 Intellectual property waiver for COVID vaccines should be expanded to include treatments and tests

"Low and middle-income countries have been impacted disproportionately by the pandemic so far, suffering 85% of the estimated 14.9 million excess deaths in 2020 and 2021. 

Globally, progress in reducing extreme poverty was set back three to four years during 2020–21. But low-income countries lost eight to nine years of progress.

Expanding the WTO decision on COVID vaccines to include treatments and tests could be vital to reduce the health burden on poorer countries from COVID and enable them to recover from the pandemic. The Australian government should get behind this initiative and encourage other countries to do the same."

Aboriginal flag copyright transferred to Commonwealth, as artist agrees to make flag freely available to all; ABC News, January 24, 2022

Jake Evans, ABC News; Aboriginal flag copyright transferred to Commonwealth, as artist agrees to make flag freely available to all

"The iconic flag that has become a symbol of Aboriginal Australia is now freely available for public use, after its designer agreed to transfer copyright to the Commonwealth following long negotiations.

Luritja artist Harold Thomas created the flag in 1970 to represent Aboriginal people and their connection to the land, and it has been an official national flag since the end of the last century — but its copyright remained with Mr Thomas.

Anyone who wanted to use the flag legally had to ask permission or pay a fee.

Indigenous Affairs Minister Ken Wyatt said following negotiations with Mr Thomas, the flag now belonged to all Australians...

Copyright issues with the flag had repeatedly drawn conflict, such as when Mr Thomas handed the rights to use the flag on clothing to a non-Indigenous company, which later threatened legal action against the NRL and AFL for using the flag on player uniforms.

That led to Mr Wyatt encouraging football fans to drape themselves in the Aboriginal flag in protest.

Mr Thomas will retain moral rights over the flag, but has agreed to give up copyright in return for all future royalties the Commonwealth receives from flag sales to be put towards the ongoing work of NAIDOC.

The government has also agreed to establish an annual scholarship in Mr Thomas's honour worth $100,000 for Indigenous students to develop skills in leadership, and to create an online history and education portal for the flag."

Australia to reform copyright laws in face of digital and COVID-19 world; ZDNet, August 13, 2020

Campbell Kwan , ZDNet; Australia to reform copyright laws in face of digital and COVID-19 world

The changes include a new fair dealing exception that allows cultural and educational institutions, governments, and other persons engaged in public interest or personal research to quote copyright material.

"The Australian government has announced it will make reforms to the nation's copyright laws in a bid to better support the needs of Australians in an increasingly digital environment.

The decision comes after two years of industry consultation and is the government's response to copyright recommendations made by the Productivity Commission four years ago...  

"The need for change has been further highlighted during COVID-19, with schools, universities, cultural institutions, and governments moving more services online."  

The proposed copyright reforms are focused on five main measures: Introducing a limited liability scheme for use of orphan works; a new fair dealing exception for non-commercial quotation; amendments to library and archives exceptions; amendments to education exceptions; and streamlining the government's statutory licensing scheme."

Explainer: who owns the copyright to your tattoo?; The Conversation, August 10, 2020

Marie Hadley, The Conversation; Explainer: who owns the copyright to your tattoo?

"So, why don’t tattooists sue over copying?

In some art industries, there can be a big gap between holding rights and exercising them. 

To tattooists, appropriation is mostly seen as a matter of ethics or manners rather than law...

These norms aside, copyright law does apply to tattoos. Whether or not more tattoo enthusiasts will seek an appropriate licence, as occurred in the case of Jarrangini (buffalo), or a copyright owner will sue for a rights violation, is another matter."

Bondi Beach at centre of trademark tussle between Sydney cosmetics company and Abercrombie & Fitch By Jano Gibson; ABC, July 26, 2017

Jano Gibson, ABC; Bondi Beach at centre of trademark tussle between Sydney cosmetics company and Abercrombie & Fitch

"The United States retailer, which has no presence in Australia, is the registered owner of the 'Bondi Beach' trademark in the US for a range of products, including beauty lotions, body sprays and fragrances.

When Sydney company Bondi Wash applied to trademark its name in the US, it was prevented from doing so because of the similarity to Abercrombie & Fitch's existing rights.

The case has raised concerns about foreign companies gaining exclusive ownership of high-profile Australian place names in their branding."

Amazon takes on small WA retailer Live Clothing in 'Glamazon' trademark stoush; ABC, July 24, 2017

Frances Bell, ABC; Amazon takes on small WA retailer Live Clothing in 'Glamazon' trademark stoush

"Live Clothing has been the registered owner of the Glamazon trademark for clothing, footwear and headgear since 1999, but has recently applied to extend the trademark to a wider range of retail and wholesale services.

But documents lodged with IP Australia show the application has been opposed by Amazon Technologies, which owns the trademark for the name "Glamazon fashionweek".

Glamazon is also the name of an internal Amazon social group for LGBTIQ employees, promoting diversity in the workplace."

Fair Use Vs Fair Dealing: How Australian Copyright Law Differs; Lifehacker, July 18, 2017

Nicolas Suzor, Lifehacker; Fair Use Vs Fair Dealing: How Australian Copyright Law Differs

"Copyright law sometimes allows you to use someone else’s work - as long as it’s fair. In Australia this is called “fair dealing”, and it’s different to the law in the US, which is called “fair use”. We explain the difference.

These exceptions are safety valves in copyright law – they allow lots of beneficial uses that society has agreed copyright owners should not be able to charge for, or worse, prevent.

There’s a serious ongoing debate about whether Australia should update its copyright laws and introduce fair use. The current law is not easy to understand – our research shows that Australian creators are often confused about their rights – and many think we already have fair use.

Fair dealing: What can you do in Australia?

The key difference between “fair use” and “fair dealing” is that Australia’s “fair dealing” laws set out defined categories of acceptable uses. As we will see, “fair use” in the US is much more flexible.

Australian copyright law sets out five situations where use of copyrighted material without permission may be allowed:

• research or study
• criticism or review
• parody or satire
• reporting the news
• provision of legal advice.

We’ll explain the first four, as they’re most useful to the average Australian."

Intellectual Property: Copyright rules make us break the law 80 times a day, says Productivity Commission; Sydney Morning Herald, 12/20/26

Peter Martin, Intellectual Property: Copyright rules make us break the law 80 times a day, says Productivity Commission:

"If you are anything like the typical Australian, you probably break the copyright law 80 times a day, according to figures included in the Productivity Commission's final report to the government on intellectual property.

Most of the breaches are harmless, things such as including a copy of an email in the reply to an email. But the commission says that laws that are routinely flouted are bad laws, bringing themselves into disrepute.

In place of the labyrinthine system of complicated rules governing what can or can't be copied, the report released on Tuesday recommends the US system of fair use, under which the use of copyrighted material is legal so long as it is fair, taking into account the purpose of the use, the nature of the work, the amount copied and the effect on the potential market value of the work."

Piracy discussion paper focuses on copyright stick not content carrot; Gen Why? via ZDNet, 7/31/14

Josh Taylor, Gen Why? via ZDNet; Piracy discussion paper focuses on copyright stick not content carrot:

"If we are to understand the government's move to crack down on online copyright infringement from its now-officially-released discussion paper, the plan is to disproportionately address the symptoms without addressing the underlying causes.

Censoring websites and forcing ISPs to police their consumers' internet use seems to be the main thrust of the questions arising from the discussion paper released by Attorney-General George Brandis and Communications Malcolm Turnbull yesterday...

For now, it seems like any new legislation brought in will be all about making it harder for customers and ISPs. As one executive remarked to me recently, the government is being very small government when it comes to the copyright industry, and very big government when it comes to consumers and the telecommunications industry."

WIPO Director General Election: How It Works; Intellectual Property Watch, 2/3/14

William New, Intellectual Property Watch; WIPO Director General Election: How It Works:

"On 6 March, the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization will hold its once-every-six-year election for a director general, a prized post in the multilateral system. Tomorrow (4 February), the candidates will face member states and answer their questions. Intellectual Property Watch explains the election process.

On 6-7 March, the WIPO Coordination Committee, a rotating executive body of 83 WIPO member states (out of nearly 200), will hold an extraordinary meeting to decide on a director general (DG)...

The new DG will take over in October 2014, until 2020...

There are four candidates running for the DG post (IPW, WIPO, 6 December 2013), having been nominated by their governments by the December deadline.

The candidates are current DG Francis Gurry (Australia), Deputy DG Geoffrey Onyeama (Nigeria), Amb. Jüri Seilenthal (Estonia), and Amb. Alfredo Suescum (Panama)."

Telstra left hanging on copyright ruling; Sydney Morning Herald, 8/23/10

Clare Kermond, Sydney Morning Herald; Telstra left hanging on copyright ruling:

"TELSTRA faces an anxious wait, likely to be several months, to learn the fate of its legal battle to protect the copyright of its Yellow Pages and White Pages directories."

http://www.smh.com.au/business/telstra-left-hanging-on-copyright-ruling-20100822-13aud.html

Obama Reiterates Support For ACTA, As More People Point Out How Far ACTA Is From The Purpose Of Copyright; TechDirt, 5/20/10

Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Obama Reiterates Support For ACTA, As More People Point Out How Far ACTA Is From The Purpose Of Copyright:

"A few months back, President Obama publicly stood behind ACTA despite tons of concerns about it from the public. It's disappointing that as more and more concerns and problems with ACTA have been highlighted, Obama has not reconsidered. He still seems to be taking the position that "more copyright must be good, and ACTA therefore is good." That's a naive position. The group Open ACTA points us to a statement made by Obama in Mexico, concerning better trade relations with Mexico, where he again insists that ACTA is a key part of better trade relations:

Innovation and investment in technology and human capital are keys to sustained economic growth and competitiveness in both Mexico and the United States. The protection of intellectual property rights is essential to promote such innovation and investment. With this in mind, the Presidents charged their administrations to work together to formalize and expand the efforts of the existing bilateral Intellectual Property Rights Working Group. These efforts will include industry training (including of small and medium size enterprises); work between Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to streamline patent reviews; and collaboration, training and increased intelligence sharing among law enforcement agencies to enforce intellectual property rights more effectively. The Presidents also reaffirmed their commitment to the negotiation of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and charged their administrations to conclude these negotiations soon.

But, this blind assertion that stricter copyright enforcement without key exceptions and consumer protections that actually contribute more value to the economy than copyright restrictions, isn't just wrong, it goes against the very purpose of copyright law.

Hephaestus points us to a submission to the Australian government, by the Australian Digital Alliance, that does a great job highlighting the negative impact of ACTA (pdf) and how it goes against basic copyright law:

"The text of ACTA does not reflect one of the most important objectives of copyright -- to ensure access to information for the benefit of society. Protecting creators to encourage continued innovation is only one half of the copyright equation, ACTA fails to recognise the dual purpose of copyright." The whole submission is worth reading, as it highlights all sorts of serious issues with ACTA and the impact it would have:

ACTA might have a negative impact on individuals as Internet citizens and as consumers of digital technologies because some of its requirements go beyond Australian law. ACTA will facilitate excessive damages payouts by mandating the controversial 'lost sale analysis' for the assessment of damages and encouraging punitive style statutory damages that set arbitrary amounts for infringement. ACTA will also broaden the scope of commercial scale infringement to criminalise purely private acts that occur in the homes of some Australians....

ACTA might have a negative impact on intermediaries that will damage Australia's digital economy by diminishing Internet innovation, the free flow of information and legitimate commerce. ACTA provides for the unqualified award of injunctions against intermediaries, which creates new rights with significant potential for abuse and cost implications for ISPs. ACTA defines where third party liability will be imposed, which is a highly controversial issue that requires the flexibility of being dealt with at a domestic level. ACTA will burden intermediaries with more onerous requirements for safe harbour protection that may encourage three strikes.

What's most frustrating about all of this is that it really does appear that many ACTA supporters are simply going by the boilerplate myth that "stronger copyright protection" is "good for society," without ever once bothering to understand the details and why such a statement isn't just wrong, but dangerous."

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100519/1615029494.shtml

Growers, Jessica in boat copyright flap; Sydney Morning Herald, 5/6/10

Lisa Martin, Sydney Morning Herald; Growers, Jessica in boat copyright flap:

"A fruit-growing corporation which warned Jessica Watson her boat name, Ella's Pink Lady, breached international copyright wants to make the teenage sailor a poster girl for apples.

Ella's Pink Lady has a similar heart logo to the Pink Lady apple trademark.

Pink Lady Australia spokesman John Durham told AAP the company wrote to Watson's management in October last year advising them of its registered trademarks on the Pink Lady name and flowing heart symbol in more than 70 countries world-wide.

"Given that this was a global sailing attempt and given that our registrations were global, we just wanted them to be aware of that," Mr Durham said.

"We just requested ... that no person associated with Jessica Watson's solo around the world sailing attempt to take any action or make any statements which could cause damage or bring into disrepute APAL's (Apple & Pear Australia Ltd) Pink Lady flowing heart trademark.

"We never imagined that she would (damage the trademark), the letter was just to make her management aware."

Mr Durham said the organisation had extended its best wishes to the 16-year-old Queenslander.

"Personally I think she is a fantastic young lady and very much admire her courage, fortitude and pluck sailing around the world," he said.

He said Pink Lady Australia would talk to Jessica Watson's people about a potential deal."

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/growers-jessica-in-boat-copyright-flap-20100506-ucj9.html

Lawyers sue, men plunder; Sydney Morning Herald, 11/2/09

Sydney Morning Herald; Lawyers sue, men plunder:

A throwaway line in a television quiz show was the prelude to a multimillion-dollar court battle that could change the way musicians go about creating music, writes Joel Gibson.

"The courts have been reluctant to interpret copyright law too heavily against new works, she said, for fear of stymying creativity - but the music industry will be anxiously awaiting the outcome of this case.

''It does create uncertainty about how people can reference other songs … It means you can never have a thought or write a song without looking over your shoulder. Musicians would have to start retro-fitting their songs with some kind of analysis.''

McKeough said the protection of creative works had to be balanced by the knowledge that ''nothing is truly original, there are so many songs in the world''.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/music/lawyers-sue-men-plunder/2009/11/01/1257010103921.html?page=4

Down Under musician says he's dinkum; Sydney Morning Herald, 10/30/09

Joel Gibson, Sydney Morning Herald; Down Under musician says he's dinkum:

"Larrikin Music Publishing, which owns the rights to Kookaburra, is suing Hay and Strykert and their publishing company, EMI, claiming they reproduced more than half of Kookaburra and made a small fortune from it in royalties, licences and sheet music sales.

Larrikin wants 40 to 60 per cent of income earned from Down Under in future and in the past six years, which is as far back as the law allows. But the authors and EMI say the use of the Kookaburra melody was unconscious, and is a fair adaptation under the Copyright Act.

Even if it was an infringement, they argue Larrikin is ''over-reaching'', saying many of the 20-plus versions of the song do not contain the flute riff."

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/people/down-under-musician-says-hes-dinkum-20091029-hnr1.html

Down Under riff based on folk song, court hears; Sydney Morning Herald, 10/27/09

Joel Gibson, Sydney Morning Herald; Down Under riff based on folk song, court hears:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/music/down-under-riff-based-on-folk-song-court-hears/2009/10/27/1256405382225.html

Men at Work loses first stage of copyright lawsuit; Boston Globe, 7/30/09

Kristen Gelineau via Boston Globe; Men at Work loses first stage of copyright lawsuit:

"A music publisher that has accused Australian band Men at Work of stealing the melody to their 1980s smash hit "Down Under" from a campfire song won the first stage of its lawsuit on Thursday seeking royalties from the Aussie anthem.

A federal judge ruled that publisher Larrikin Music owns the copyright to the tune of "Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree" -- a Girl Guide favorite from New Zealand to Canada. The judge's ruling clears the way for a further hearing about whether Men at Work is guilty of copyright infringement.

Larrikin claims the distinctive flute riff in "Down Under" was copied from the refrain of "Kookaburra," a song about the native Australian bird written in 1934 by a teacher named Marion Sinclair for a Girl Guides competition. Sinclair died in 1988.

Lawyers for Men at Work's recording companies -- Sony BMG Music Entertainment and EMI Songs Australia -- reject that claim."

http://www.boston.com/ae/music/articles/2009/07/30/men_at_work_loses_first_stage_of_copyright_lawsuit/