Mainly intellectual property (IP) issues Down Under

$150,001 damages for infringing compatibility chart

Tonnex was found to have infringed Dynamic’s copyright in its printer cartridge compatability chart. That finding was upheld on appeal. Now, Yates J has ordered Tonnex to pay Dynamic $150,001.00 in damages. The damages are comprised of compensatory damages under s115(2) of $1.00 and $150,000 by way of additional damages under s115(4).

Copyright, ISPs and authorisation 2

The online copyright infringement discussion paper has been released officially.

Is there a case for fair use? Lessons from the US – Seminar

Monash is holding a seminar on fair use: ‘Is there a case for fair use? Lessons from the US’, with the lead presenter being Prof. Geoffrey Scott from Penn State’s School of Law. Date: 2 July 25 June at 5:15pm. (Lid dip: Gerard Dalton) Venue: Monash University Law Chambers, Melbourne. Details and registration via here.

Copyright in bikini designs

Dodds-Streeton J has ordered that City Beach[1] pay Seafolly $250,333.06 by way of damages for infringing copyright in 3 Seafolly designs, including consideration of the copyright/design overlap

Attorney-General on copyright reform DownUnder

The Attorney-General has given a speech outlining what looks like a major effort to reform copyright law

Copyright and the ALRC

Then ALRC has submitted its final report on Copyright and the Digital Economy amongst other things recommending a fair use defence.

Assigning rights in future copyright – Bollywood style

Is an assignment of future copyright effective over copyright which the author subsequently creates but never owns?

Turns out, damages were payable after all

The Full Court has upheld Insight SRC’s appeal that it was entitled to compensatory damages under s 115(2) of the Copyright Act. When ACER committed the infringements by reproducing the SOHQ, Dr Hart, the owner of the copyright, exploited it through his Insight company as an informal licensee or licensee at will.[1] As is probably not uncommon with “family” companies, the terms of the licence were so unclear Besanko J.. Read More

Another copyright in project homes case

Some 5 years after it went hunting, Tamawood[1] has successfully sued Habitare (now with administrators and receivers and managers appointed) for infringing copyright in house plans. Copyright in some plans was infringed (Torrington v Duplex 1 & Duplex B); but not in others (Conondale / Dunkeld v Duplex 2 & Duplex A). One point of interest: Habitare commissioned Tamawood to develop plans for 2 new houses for it. These plans.. Read More

The Canadian copyright ‘pentalogy’

Last year, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down 5 decisions on the same day relating to fair dealing and other issues arising from digital transmission of copyright material. In a number of respects, its decisions are directly opposite to conclusions that have been reached by our High Court (one example – but it appeared to turn on different statutory language). In others, such as the ‘digital taxi’ theory, the.. Read More