News media “use” right

The Government has introduced into Parliament the Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2020.

This is the Bill to enact legislation to make Google and Facebook pay the news media owners for “use” of their news.

For some commentary on the earlier exposure draft, see here.

There have been some notable changes. These include:

  • When setting the amount of the payment, there will now be a requirement that the value the media organisation receives from having its material “used” by Facebook or Google, as the case may be, is taken into account: see proposed section 52ZZ;
  • The public broadcasters, the ABC and the SBS, reportedly will be able to negotiate for payment whereas previously they were excluded;
  • Opinion pieces, not just “news”, may qualify as material the “use” of which must be paid for, not just “news” written by journalists: s 52A

The Channel 9 newspaper reports that the retiring MD of Channel 9 is spitting chips over the inclusion in the value calculus of the benefit the news organisation receives from Facebook’s, or Google’s, “use”.

It still remains far from clear what, if any, rights of the news publishers are actually being “used” and for which payment will be required. What impact, if any, will the definition of “making content available” as including “a link to the content is provided on the service” have on the scope of the communication right conferred by copyright? Similarly, will the inclusion within that definition of “an extract of the content is provided on the service” affect the interpretation of what is, or is not, a fair dealing?

There is a little peep behind the curtain into the sausage making process here.

Meanwhile, media reports indicate the bill will be referred to a Senate committee for inquiry.

Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2020

A case about works of artistic craftsmanship

Spoiler alert: it wasn’t!

State of Escape (SOE) sells the Escape bag:

2 images of a soft carry-all tote bag in blue perforated neoprene with sailing rope handles; one image with the sides expanded; the other closed.

SOE claimed Ms Schwartz and her company, Chuchka, were infringing copyright in the Escape bag as a work of artistic craftsmanship by importing and selling the Chuchka bags. SOE also alleged that the sale of the Chuchka bags was misleading or deceptive conduct and passing off.

Despite Ms Schwartz’ denials, Davies J found that the Chuchka bag was copied from the Escape bag and, if copyright subsisted in the Escape bag, numerous versions of the Chuckha bag would be infringements. SOE did not have a registered design and SOE was selling at least 50 or 60 Escape bags a day. So, subsistence of copyright came down to whether or not the Escape bag was a work of artistic craftsmanship.[1]

The Escape Bag

The Escape bag is a soft, oversized tote bag. It is made from perforated neoprene fabric with handles made from sailing rope which wrap around the body and base of the bag. It also has an internal, detachable pouch made from perforated neoprene and press studs at either end for expansion.

The bags are made by hand. They feature hand punched holes where the rope goes in, a heat seal tape finish along the top line of the bag and other contact points.

The Escape bag was designed over several months of trial and error in 2013 by Ms MacGowan who, with Ms Maidment, is a co-founder and director of SOE.

Ms MacGowan gave evidence that she designed the bag to be both beautiful and practical. She chose perforated neoprene as it was aesthetically pleasing and light:

The bag did not have any lining. I did not want it to have any embellishments. I did not want anything disguising something that was not beautiful. I wanted the whole thing to be beautifully created. I hand cut all the patterns. I wanted the inside to be as beautiful as the outside. I wanted to challenge ingrained ideas that a bag had to be a certain way. My focus was, ‘This is what it is’. I did not want the bag to be like something else. Everything in the design had to be there for a reason. For instance, there was a risk that binding could ruin the curve of the bag. I ended up putting binding on the top edge because I was concerned it would fray. There were a lot of things that I felt strongly about.

Ms MacGowan said she did not want to use leather or webbing for the handles as she considered they did not fit with the design aesthetic. She spent many months with her sewing machine working out how to fix the rope to the bag so it retained its round profile and was not merely glued. Ms MacGowan explained:

It really complemented the neoprene beautifully. And also it was very important that I had to find rope that matched back with the fabric beautifully because it was really about creating an impression of the whole than the individual parts. So that was also very, very important.

Ms MacGowan’s evidence explained design issues she had to confront and resolve including:

  • how to sew the rope on to the bag rather than glue it;
  • how to stop the fabric from ripping at pressure points where the rope joined the bag;
  • stopping the raw cut neoprene edges at the top of the bag from fraying;
  • reinforcing the pressure points under the press studs and rope entry points;
  • using a glue lined heat shrink black tubing to fix the rope to the bottom of the bag;
  • attaching the rope to the four bottom corners which would otherwise be exposed to the risk of damage;
  • providing a pocket for valuables;
  • finishing the inside seams to look like the rest of the bag.

Burge v Swarbrick

At [77], Davies J and counsel for the parties managed to divine nine guiding principles from the High Court’s decision in Burge v Swarbrick to determine whether the Escape bag qualifed as a work of artistic craftsmanship:

(a) the phrase “a work of artistic craftsmanship” is a composite phrase to be construed as a whole: Burge at 357 56, 360 [66]. It is not permissible to inquire separately into whether a work is: (a) artistic; and (b) the manifestation of craftsmanship;

(b) in order to qualify as a work of artistic craftsmanship under the Copyright Act, the work must have a “real or substantial artistic element”: Burge at 356 52;

(c) “artistic craftsmanship” does not mean “artistic handicraft”: Burge at 358 59;

(d) a prototype may be a work of artistic craftsmanship “even though it was to serve the purpose of reproduction and then be discarded”: Burge at 359 60;

(e) the requirements for “craftsmanship” and “artistic” are not incompatible with machine production: Burge at 358–9 5960;

(f) whilst there is a distinction between fine arts and useful or applied arts, when dealing with artistic craftsmanship there is no antithesis between utility and beauty or between function and art: Burge at 359 61;

(g) a work of craftsmanship, even though it cannot be confined to handicraft, “at least presupposes special training, skill and knowledge for its production… ‘Craftsmanship’… implies a manifestation of pride and sound workmanship – a rejection of the shoddy, the meretricious, the facile”: Burge at 359 61, citing George Hensher Ltd v Restawile Upholstery (Lancs) Ltd [1976] AC 64 (Hensher) at 91 per Lord Simon;

(h) although the matter is to be determined objectively, evidence from the creator of the work of his or her aspirations or intentions when designing and constructing the work is admissible, but it is neither determinative nor necessary: Burge at 360 [63]–65. In determining whether the creator intended to, and did, create a work possessing the requisite aesthetic quality and requisite degree of craftsmanship, the Court should weigh the creator’s evidence together with any expert evidence: Burge at 360 64 and 65; and

(i) in considering whether a work is one of “artistic craftsmanship”, the beauty or aesthetic appeal of the work is not determinative. The Court must also weigh in the balance the extent to which functional considerations have dictated the artistic expression in the form of the work: Burge at 364 8384.

Having set out the High Court’s statement of principle at 83, Davies J emphasised at [79] the High Court’s factual conclusion at [73] in application of that principle:

Taken as a whole and considered objectively, the evidence, at best, shows that matters of visual and aesthetic appeal were but one of a range of considerations in the design of the Plug. Matters of visual and aesthetic appeal necessarily were subordinated to achievement of the purely functional aspects required for a successfully marketed “sports boat” and thus for the commercial objective in view.

The Escape bag was not a work of artistic craftsmanship

Ms MacGowan’s evidence at [84] was that “the overall appearance of the bag as an object was fundamentally the most important thing.” She explained that “simplicity, beauty and originality” were her guiding principles:

“something free of embellishments, that was so pure in its form, structure and makeup that it embodied beauty in simplicity.”

SOE’s expert, a Ms Beale, agreed; considering the Escape bag “unique”. In cross-examination, however, she accepted that the uniqueness arose from the “decision decision” to use perforated neoprene and sailing rope “rather than in any contribution to the creation of those underlying materials.”

Ms Schwarz’ expert, Mr Smith, considered the use of perforated neoprene and sailing rope to be “strong design features”, but neither of them in itself was “new”. Mr Smith considered that combining 2 or more features that had been in common use over many years “[was] an evolution in styling rather than a completely new design”.

While Davies J reported that the experts agreed the Escape bag was a quality product, at [105] her Honour reported the experts agreeing that:

the Escape Bag is constructed using a standard construction method of “stitched together and then turned out” and other elements conform to what is generally expected of this style of bag – significant skill, training or knowledge was not required beyond what was expected in the design or manufacturing process”.

Davies J accepted that Ms MacGowan aspired to produce something of beauty, but that was not determinative as, following Burge, whether something was a work of artistic craftsmanship had to be determined objectively. At [109], her Honour declared that assessment required looking at the bag as a whole and “not by disintegrating the design choices made by Ms MacGowan within the functional limitations of the bag she created.” (emphasis supplied) While Ms MacGowan set out to design a stylish bag, at [110] her Honour found that “the function and utility of the bag as a carry all bag governed the overall design of the bag.”

Davies J considered on the evidence that significant design features resulted from and served functional considerations.

In the result, Davies J considered that, in designing the Escape bag, Ms MacGowan was not an “artist-craftsperson”: she had no special training, skill and knowledge relating to the design of handbags. The central aesthetic choices were the decisions to use perforated neoprene and sailing rope. Those two choices alone were not sufficient to constitute the resulting bag as a work of artistic craftsmanship.

At [121] – [122], her Honour explained:

[121] I also accept the submission for the respondents that Ms MacGowan did not approach the design and manufacture of the Escape Bag as an artist-craftsperson. She had no special training, skill and knowledge relating to the design and manufacture of handbags and many of the issues she encountered were purely functional in nature – for example, preventing the raw edges of neoprene from fraying, reinforcing the point where the rope handle enters the bag, and how to sew the sailing rope onto the bag while retaining the roundness of the rope.

[122] Further, I do not regard the selection and use of perforated neoprene as the fabric for the Escape Bag or its use in combination with sailing rope as involving an act of artistic craftsmanship. Both materials were readily available commercial materials capable of being used to manufacture a carry all bag without some particular training, skill or knowledge. At its highest, the use of those materials to make an everyday bag was an evolution in styling. Whilst Ms Beale was of the view the combination of those materials made the Escape Bag “unique” she accepted in cross-examination that the uniqueness to which she referred related to “design decision” to use those materials, rather than in any contribution to the creation of those materials.

At one level, the decision can be seen as raising a high bar for designs applying the “form follows function” theory of design rather the embellishment of embellishment’s sake. That seems to follow, however, from Burge. The suggestion that “revolution” rather than “evolution” is required might also be thought concerning.

While Davies J emphasised at [121] the functional nature of issues to be resolved, one might question the ways they could be resolved and the aesthetic choices that might be involved.

There may also be troubling aspects of the level of skill required to be demonstrated. The experts agreed that the level of skill exhibited by Ms MacGowan was not “beyond what was expected in the design or manufacturing process”. Are then works of artistic craftsmanship limited only to those exhibiting rare levels of skill? It is important to remember that the point of protecting works of artistic craftsmanship is to encourage real artistic effort by silversmiths, potters, woodworkers, hand-embroiderers and many others whose work does not qualify as a sculpture, engraving, drawing, painting or any of the other categories named in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of artistic work.[2]

In that respect, it does not appear that Ms MacGowan could be characterised as an “artist-craftsperson”. Davies J appears to have considered that the innovation lay in the choice of materials – perforated neoprene and sailing rope – in an otherwise fairly standard bag design. In that case, the result should be uncontroversial especially as the objective was always large scale production.

Nonetheless, the decision highlights yet again the problematic decision to include what was intended to be an expansive, and expanding, category of subject matter as an exception to a defence.

On the “passing off” related allegations, Davies J (mercifully) found SOE did not a reputation in the features of the bag alone reputation. Her Honour also considered, where the competing bags sold for around, respectively, $300 and $100, the branding of the products brought into play the well-known principle from Parkdale v Puxu:

Speaking generally, the sale by one manufacturer of goods which closely resemble those of another manufacturer is not a breach of s 52 if the goods are properly labelled. There are hundreds of ordinary articles of consumption which, although made by different manufacturers and of different quality, closely resemble one another… the normal and reasonable way to distinguish one product from another is by marks, brands or labels. If an article is properly labelled so as to show the name of the manufacturer or the source of the article its close resemblance to another article will not mislead an ordinary reasonable member of the public.

State of Escape Accessories Pty Limited v Schwartz [2020] FCA 1606


  1. See Copyright Act 1968 s 77 and see paragraph (c) in the definition of artistic work in s 10(1). Copyright was claimed in the first, finished bag Ms MacGowan made or, alternatively, the first 8 bags supplied to the first customer. At [47], the first finished bag differed from the 8 bags supplied to the customer in that it did not include heat shrinkable tubing, the internal pouch was differently designed and there was no branding.  ?
  2. See paragraph 260 of the Gregory Committee report quoted by the High Court in Burge at para. 49  ?

The Aboriginal Flag

As you know, the Aboriginal Flag has been in the news a fair bit – the AFL even had to abandon plans to paint representations of it on footy grounds for the Indigenous Round: here, here and here.

Mr Thomas, the acknowledged author of the flag’s fantastic design,[^f2] has licensed it to various companies for different types of use including WAM Clothing. WAM Clothing has been making headlines aggressively enforcing its rights, including threatening the AFL for copyright infringement.

Now, the Senate has established a Select Committee to investigate what is to be done!

The terms of reference are (in full):

That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on the Aboriginal Flag, be established to inquire into and report on current and former copyright and licensing arrangements for the Aboriginal flag design, with particular reference to: 

a. who benefits from payments for the use of the Aboriginal Flag design and the impact on Aboriginal organisations, Aboriginal communities and the broader Australian community of the current copyright and licensing arrangements; 

b. options available to the Government to enable the Aboriginal Flag design to be freely used by the Australian community, including:

i. negotiated outcomes with licence and/or copyright holders:

ii. the compulsory acquisition of licences and/or copyright,

iii. ways to protect the rights and interests of the flag’s legally recognised creator Mr Harold Thomas; and

c. any other matters relevant to the enduring and fair use of the Aboriginal Flag design by the Aboriginal and Australian community.

Click the terms of reference here.

The fun part: if you are wanting to make a submission, you need to get it in by 18 September 2020 as the Committee is due to report by 13 October.

We thought we had come a long from the days when the Commonwealth Government (in the guise of the Reserve Bank) could appropriate David Malangi’s artwork for the wonderful design of the (now defunct) one dollar note; Johnny Bulun Bulun and a later group of artists including George Milpurrurru rightly successfully asserted their copyrights over blatant infringers.

Now, however, it seems many people think Mr Thomas shouldn’t have the same rights.

While Minister Wyatt ruled out buying the copyright last year, this year it seems that Mr Thomas might be refusing to sell or this Senate inquiry might be upsetting the negotiations.

Placitum (xxxi) of s 51 of the Constitution does give the Commonwealth power to compulsorily acquire property on just terms:

(xxxi) the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws;

and, of course, placitum (xviii) confers power to make laws with respect to, amongst other things, “copyright”. It seems difficult to argue that a law to acquire one person’s copyright would not be a law with respect to copyright.[^f1]

Of course, an assignee of copyright takes subject to any licences that had previously been granted (and are still on foot): Copyright Act 1968 s 196(4). So, the Commonwealth would also have to have some power under the licence to Wam Clothing to terminate it or, presumably, acquire its property on just terms too.

[[^f2]: According to Shephard J’s judgment in Thomas, the Governor-General proclaimed the artistic work to be the flag of the Aboriginal People under s 5 of the Flags Act, back in July 1995. It seems from Sheppard J’s judgment, Mr Thomas came up with the design for use at the Aboriginal Day rally in Adelaide in 1971 “off his own bat”.

[^f1]: There are also the murky possibilities of placitum (xxvi).

Press publishers’ (new) rights Down Under

On 31 July, the ACCC published an exposure draft of the Bill aimed at forcing Google and Facebook to pay news businesses for the use of their news in services like Google Search, Google News and Facebook News Feed and Tab.

Some background

News media businesses claim that Google and Facebook make anywhere from $600 million to $1 billion a year from “using” the news the news media businesses publish.[1]

When Spain introduced a law to redress this “value gap”, Google responded by not including Spanish news in its services. Germany introduced a similar law, but publishers had to opt into the scheme, not out. Apparently, none did.

Last year, the EU introduced a press publisher’s right as part of its Digital Single Market (DSM) Directive.[2] When France implemented this (adopting the Spanish model), Google once again withdrew. The French Competition authority, however, has intervened.

Meanwhile, in Australia, the ACCC published the Final Report for its Digital Platforms Inquiry in July 2019.

Amongst other things, it concluded that Google and Facebook had become unavoidable trading parties for news media businesses wishing to reach audiences online. This created a significant imbalance in bargaining power.

In December 2019, the Treasurer directed the ACCC to facilitate negotations between the news businesses and Google and Facebook to develop a voluntary bargaining code to address this imbalance.

Those negotiations apparently not leading to the desired outcome, on April 2020, the Treasurer directed the ACCC to develop a mandatory bargaining code:

The Government has decided that the original timeframe set out in its response requires acceleration. The Australian media sector was already under significant pressure; that has now been exacerbated by a sharp decline in advertising revenue driven by coronavirus. At the same time, while discussions between the parties have been taking place, progress on a voluntary code has been limited according to recent advice provided by the ACCC following a request by the Government for an update. The ACCC considers it is unlikely that any voluntary agreement would be reached with respect to the key issue of payment for content.

The exposure draft bill and accompanying explanatory memorandum are the results of that process. I shall try only to describe what is being proposed.

What the bill will do[3]

The Bill will introduce a new Part IVB into the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

Qualifying news business corporations may apply to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to register under the code: ss 52D and 52E.

Upon registration, designated digital platform corporations:

  1. must comply with minimum standards of conduct with respect to the registered news business’ “covered news content”;
  2. must participate in an arbitration to determine the remuneration payable to the registered news business for the use of its “covered news content”; and
  3. must not discriminate against the registered news business.

Designated digital platform corporations

The Bill will give the Treasurer power to designate by legislative instrument digital platform corporations and digital platform services that will be subject to the mandatory bargaining code: s 52C.

According to the explanatory memorandum, the designated digital platform corporations will be initially Google and Facebook, although other businesses may also be designated: [1.30]

The explanatory memorandum at [1.34] also “expects” that the services which will be designated are:

  • Facebook News Feed (including Facebook Groups and Facebook Pages);
  • Facebook News Tab (if and when released in Australia);
  • Instagram;
  • Google Discover;
  • Google News; and
  • Google Search.

News business corporations and news sources

A news business corporation may apply for registration of its news business(es) under the scheme if:

  1. the news corporation’s annual revenue exceeds $150,000 or exceeded $150,000 in three of the last five financial years: s 52G;[4]
  2. the news source(s) its seeks to register create and publish online content that is predominantly “core news content”: s 52H;
  3. the news source(s) operate predominantly in Australia for the dominant purpose of serving Australian audiences: s 52J; and
  4. the news source(s) adhere to professional quality standards: s 52K.

Once registered, the rights of the news business corporation extend to “covered news content”, not just its “core news content”.

Core news content and covered news content

The definition in s 52A of “core news content” is content that:

(a) is created by a journalist; and

(b) that records, investigates or explains issues that:

(i) are of public significance for Australians; or

(ii) are relevant in engaging Australians in public debate and in informing democratic decision-making; or

(iii) relate to community and local events.

The explanatory memorandum explains at [1.51] – [1.53] that “core” news content can relate directly to matters of public policy and decision making at any level of government such as political, court and crime reporting. The activities of private sector entities may also be included if of sufficient public importance.

Core news content is a subset of “covered news content” which, in addition to “core news content”, also includes:

content that is created by a journalist and is relevant in recording, investigating or explaining issues of interest to Australians.

According to the explanatory memorandum at [1.66] – [1.67] covered news content is intended to extend to:

sports and entertainment related news such as interviews with coaches and players, reporting about the entertainment industry and coverage of reality television.

(This is not intended to be an exhaustive description of what is included.) However, it does not include sports broadcasts or the results or scores of sports, “entertainment content such as drama or reality TV programming” or:

specialty or industry reporting, product reviews, talk-back radio discussions, content produced by academics and documentaries.

Professional quality standards

The Bill proposes two requirements for quality standards: s 52K. The news source:

  1. must be subject to the rules of the Australian Press Council, the Independent Media Council, the Code of Practice of the Commercial Television Industry or the Commercial Radio industry or the Subscription Broadcast industry, or rules substantially equivalent to these; and
  2. the news source must have editorial independence from the subjects covered.

The explanatory memorandum explains at [1.58] that the second requirement of editorial independence means the news source must not be controlled by a political advocacy group such as a political party, trade union or lobby group. It also means that the news source cannot be controlled by someone with a commercial interest in the coverage and gives the example of sports coverage owned or controlled by the sport’s governing body.

The minimum standards

Once a news business is registered, the digital platform corporation must comply with the minimum standards: s 52L.

These include, for each digital platform service:

  • listing and explaining what data is collected about users of the news business (s 52M);
  • explaining how the data about such users made available to the news business differs from the data the digital platform corporation collects about users of its service; and
  • explaining how the news business can access that additional data;
  • giving the news business notice of any changes to algorithms used by the digital platform service likely to have a significant effect on the ranking of the news content on the platform or specifically directed at the ranking of paywalled content: s 52N, 52O;
  • giving notice of other changes to policies or practices likely to have a significant effect on the display and presentation of the news business’ covered news content or advertising directly associated with that content: ss 52P and 52Q;
  • if requested, provide the news business with flexible content moderation tools so that the news business can remove or filter comments on the digital platform service about the news content: s 52S; and
  • develop a proposal, in consultation with all registered news businesses, to recognise original covered news content when ranking and displaying news content: s 52T; and
  • must discriminate between registered news businesses or registered news businesses and news business which are not registered: s 52W.

The arbitration scheme

In addition to the rights afforded it throught the minimum standards, a registered news business may also initiate a bargaining and arbitration process with the digital platform for the use of news content.

The registered news business (or its representative) inititates the bargaining process by giving notice “it wishes to bargain over one or more specified issues relating to its covered news content”: s 52Y.

While the publicly funded ABC and SBS may initiate bargaining, they cannot bargain about remuneration: s 52Y(6).

The parties must negotiate in good faith (s 52ZB) and can demand the provision of information and data relevant to the issues the subject of bargaining, a kind of discovery process: s 52ZC. This includes discovery about the benefits the digital platform derives from use of the news content.

Either party may refer the dispute to compulsory arbitration if:

  1. there has been at least one day of mediation; and
  2. the parties have not reached agreement within three months of bargaining starting: s 52FZ

Provided there has been at least a one day mediation, the parties can also agree to refer the dispute to compulsory arbitration after 10 days.

The arbitration itself is particularly interesting. It is “final offer” arbitration.

Although the news businesses can initiate bargaining over “issues”, the arbitral panel must make a determination about the remuneration payable by the digital platform corporation to the news business(es).

Ten days after the arbitration is established, both parties must submit their final offers about the amount of the remuneration. Once submitted, the parties cannot amend or withdraw their respective “final offers”. They may, however, submit a response to the other party’s final offer. The arbitral panel must accept one or other of the final offers: s 52ZO.

The only exception to this requirement is where the arbitral panel considers both final offers are “not in the public interest because they are highly likely to result in serious detriment to the provision of covered news content in Australia or Australian consumers.” In that case, the arbitral panel must adjust one or other of the final offers as required by the public interest.

The final offers must also be provided to the ACCC, which is authorised to provide its comments about the final offers to the arbitral panel before the panel hands down its decision: s 52ZS.

The “final offer” process has the considerable advantage that it avoids the expense and delay usually associated with rate setting proceedings for access to essential facilities or under the licensing schemes overseen by the Copyright Tribunal.

In deciding which final offer to accept, the arbitral panel must have regard to (s 52ZP):

  • the direct benefit (whether monetary or otherwise) of the registered news business’ covered news content to the digital platform service;
  • the indirect benefit (whether monetary or otherwise) of the registered news business’ covered news content to the digital platform service;
  • the cost to the registered news business of producing covered news content;
  • whether a particular remuneration amount would place an undue burden on the commercial interests of the digital platform service.

It is striking that the matters which must be taken into account do not include the benefits (direct or indirect) that the news business derives from being carried in the digital platform service.

Once the arbitral determination has been handed down, the parties must enter into a written agreement to ensure the digital platform corporation will pay the news business the remuneration determined in the arbitration: s 52ZT.

Sanctions

The ACCC may issue an infringement notice to a person who contravenes that person’s obligations under this scheme. The penalty for a corporation found to be in contravention is up to 600 penalty units: s 51ACF – i.e., up to $132,000.

In addition, s 76 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 will apply so that civil penalties may be imposed up to the greater of:

  • $10 million;
  • 3 times the total value of the benefits reasonably attributable to the non-compliance; or
  • 10% of the contravenor’s annual turnover in the previous 12 months.

EU’s DSM Directive

The EU’s press publisher’s right under the DSM Directive is an obvious inspiration for this new right for news businesses. There are a number of significant differences, in addition to the far greater detail elaborated into the Bill.

For example, unlike the DSM Directive, the Code to be imposed by the Bill is not tied to use of copyright or other (at this stage) recognised property right. Instead, the Bill creates a right to payment for some “intangible value”.

The DSM Directive expressly excludes from the obligation for payment:

  • hyperlinking; or
  • “the use of individual words or very short extracts of a press publication” – which seems a lot like the snippets returned in a Google Search for example.

At least since the Victoria Park Racing case, the High Court has declared that Australian law does not protect all intangible value, only those sources of value falling within recognised legal rights. Later, in the Blank Tapes case, the High Court struck down a “royalty” imposed on the sale of blank cassette tapes on the grounds it was not a payment for use of copyright and so was invalid as a tax or, possibly, an acquisition of property on other than just terms. It will be interesting to see whether the resort to an access regime – one in which the facility provider pays, not the user – changes the calculus.

Under the DSM Directive, the obligation to pay does not apply to articles or materials published before 6 June 2019.[5] Further, it applies to articles and materials only for two years following publication.[6]

Another difference is that art. 15.5 of the DSM Directive imposes an obligation to ensure that the authors of the press publication receive “an appropriate share” of the remuneration the press publisher receives from the digital platforms.

Google’s reaction has been swift. It has cancelled, or suspended, a licensing deal it had reached with a number of independent publishers. It has come out strongly against the scheme.[7] Now, when one initiates a search on Google or seeks to watch something on YouTube, one is met with the following banner:

Comments should be submitted to the ACCC by 28 August 2020

Exposure Draft Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2020


  1. For example, Mason and Kehoe, [‘Tech giants should pay media $600m: Costello’][600m]. Google disputes this and claims that the news media business gain much more value from its services than it receives.  ?
  2. Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC, art. 15. For Communia’s outline and guidelines see here and here.  ?
  3. Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2020.  ?
  4. The $ may change as they are included in “curly” brackets.  ?
  5. It presumably being a coincidence that date was the 75th anniversary of the D-Day landings.  ?
  6. Strictly speaking, it is 2 calendar years commencing on 1 January following the year in which the article was published: art. 15.4.  ?
  7. For exmple, here and here. The ACCC has denounced Google’s position as misleading.  ?

More copyright reforms

Yesterday, the Government announced its plans for reforms to the Copyright Act 1968 to improve “access”.

No fair use – so much for all those expert reports!

Instead, according to the Press Release, the amendments will involve:

  • a new fair dealing exception for non-commercial quotation;
  • a limited liability scheme for use of orphan works;
  • amendments to the library and archive exceptions;
  • amendments to the educational use exceptions;
  • streamlining of the government use provisions.

There is a press release here. Apparently, the Government is planning to release an exposure draft of the proposed legislation later this year.

Lid dip, Carolyn Hough

Love was not in the air – Part 2

In a previous post, we looked at why Perram J held that Glass Candy’s “Warm in the Winter” and Air France’s “France is in the Air” reproduced a substantial part of the musical work in Love is in the Air, but not the literary work comprising the lyrics.

A further set of issues his Honour had to untangle was which acts involving the streaming and downloading of Warm or France infringed and who owned those rights.

You will recall that Glass Candy are an American electronic duo based in America who, in 2011, released “Warm in the Winter”. Glass Candy wrote and recorded “Warm in the Winter” in the USA. They made it available for streaming and download on, first, the Big Cartel website and then the IDIB website.[1] They or their rights management agent, Kobalt, also made the recording available through iTunes / Apple Music, Google Play, Youtube, Spotify etc.

Subsequently, Glass Candy provided a version of “Warm in the Winter” to Air France for use by the latter in its Air France: France is in the Air promotional campaign. Until this litigation started, Air France used “France is in the Air” in TVCs and radio advertisements in 114 countries (but not Australia), posted the advertisments on its Youtube channel (which could be downloaded from Australia) and, if you rang up its office from Australia and all its customer service operators were tied up, for its “music on hold” service.

Infringement, or not

Having found that Warm and France reproduced a substantial part of Love, Perram J turned to determing which conduct engaged in by Glass Candy, Kobalt and Air France actually infringed any copyright in Australia and who owned those rights.

In summary, Perram J held that:

(1) the streaming and downloading of Warm from the Big Cartel and IDIB websites infringed the copyright in Love;

(2) the streaming and downloading of Warm from the streaming services iTunes/Apple Music, Google, Play, Spotify and Youtube did not infringe copyright as it was licensed; and

(3) the playing of France to Australians via Air France’s music on hold service did infringe, but the streaming and downloading via Youtube did not.

The infringing acts

The streaming of Warm to Australia and its downloading by subscribers in Australia entailed a number of acts:[2]

(1) the making and recording of Warm;

(2) the uploading of a copy of Warm on to the servers of each streaming service;

(3) the making available of that copy to be accessed by end-users in Australia;

(4) the streaming of the recording to someone located in Australia; and

(5) in the case of downloads, the downloading of a copy of Warm on to the end user’s computer (or smart device) in Australia.

Making and recording – the reproduction right

The making and recording of Warm and France did reproduce a substantial part of Love but, having taken place in the USA (or the USA and France), were not infringements of the copyright in Australia.[3]

There does not appear to have been evidence about where the servers of the streaming services such as iTunes / Apple Music, Google Play, Spotify or Youtube were located, but Perram J was not prepared to assume they were in Australia. So loading the copy on to the streaming service’s server was not an infringing activity either.

Making the recording available to be accessed – the communication right[4]

Although storing the copies on the streaming services’ servers was not a reproduction implicating Australian copyright, Perram J considered that Glass Candy’s acts of communicating the copies of Warm to the streaming services (uploading them) could infringe copyright in Australia and the acts of streaming and downloading in Australia would be damage suffered by the copyright owner in Australia. At [376], his Honour said:

…. That act of infringement seems to me to occur by communicating Warm to iTunes (and if it had been proven the other online music services). That was the infringement. Each time thereafter that the streaming service raised revenue by streaming or downloading Warm that was evidence of the damage suffered by the Applicants or the profits made by Glass Candy. Viewed that way, whether the streaming and downloading of Warm from the online music services is a contravention is irrelevant.

From the context, however, it appears that that act of communicating the copy to the streaming service(s) was not an infringement alleged against Glass Candy. I am not sure how that “infringement” would work, however, given his Honour’s further findings.

The alleged infringements the subject of the proceeding

That left as infringing acts being pursued by the Applicants:

(1) the streaming of Warm to Australians from the Big Cartel and IDIB websites – an exercise of the communication right;

(2) the making of the copies of Warm by users in Australia from the Big Cartel and IDIB websites – an exercise of the reproduction right; and

(3) the streaming of Warm to Australians from the streaming services – also an exercise of the communication right;

(4) the making of the copies of Warm by users in Australia from the streaming services – (at [276]) an exercise of both the communication right (by the streamng service) and the reproduction right (by the end-user); and

(5) in the case of France, the playing of “music on hold” to callers from Australia.

These allegations gave rise two problems: (a) who was the owner of the relevant right and (b) what licences of these copyrights had been granted. The issues that arose are a good illustration of the kind of tracing the chain of title fun the long term of copyright requires you to engage in to make sure you have identified the right person as the copyright owner.

In summary, Perram J found that Boomerang had no standing to sue anyone for infringing the communication right as it was not the owner of the relevant copyright; APRA was. Boomerang was the owner of the copyright in respect of the reproduction right, but its interest was partial or concurrent with AMCOS’ interest as the exclusive licensee of that right.

However, the streaming and downloading from the streaming services, iTunes / Apple Music, Youtube, Google Play and Spotify did not not infringe as those services held licences from APRA and AMCOS for those acts.

The copyright and ownership – a chain of title history

Harry Vanda and the late George Young – the Easybeats, Flash in the Pan – composed Love is in the Air in 1977.

In 1978, they assigned all their copyright in the literary and musical works comprised in Love to Alberts.

Subsequently, in 2016, when Alberts sold its business to BMG, it excluded from the sale the back catalogue of songs written by Vanda, Young and a third member of the Easybeats, Stevie Wright. Alberts instead assigned these rights to Boomerang – a new company owned by members of the Albert family.

However, in 1972 Vanda and Young had become members of the Australasian Performing Right Society (APRA), the collecting society for public performance rights and, as it was before the introduction of the broadly based communication right[5] by the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000, the cable diffusion right.

When Vanda and George Young became members of APRA, like everyone else who becomes a member, they assigned to APRA the exclusive rights:

(a) to perform in public; and

(b) to transmit via a diffusion service,

in all of their existing copyrights and any copyright works made in the future while still a member of APRA.[6]

So, the rights in Love is in the Air assigned by Vanda and Young to Alberts did not include the public performance or diffusion rights, as they had already been assigned to APRA.

An interesting point to note here is that the assignment to APRA in 1972 was not an assignment of the broad communication right, as there was no such right under Australian law at that time. Further, the repeal of the diffusion right and its replacement with the broad communication right did not affect that earlier assignment. The earlier assignment did not catch, however, the broader rights encompassed in the communication right, apart from the diffusion service, when the broader right came into force as the terms of the assignment were limited just to the diffusion right.

After the assignments from Vanda and Young, Alberts had also entered into agreements which affected the rights of reproduction and communication.

In 1986, Alberts had entered into a licence with AMCOS granting AMCOS the exclusive rights to authorise the making of records from the Alberts catalogue, including Love. Over time this was amended so as to include the making of digital records. The exclusive licence included the right to authorise the making of reproductions for the purposes of broadcasting in Australia. There were, however, three exclusions from these exclusive rights: they did not extend to making reproductions for inclusion in advertisements, or cinematographic films for the purpose of being broadcast in Australia. They also did not extend to licensing a number of named record companies.

In 1992 and again in 2005, Alberts had also entered into assignments with APRA. The 2005 assignment included an assignment of the right of communication to the public (introduced by the Digital Agenda Act in 2001).

Finally in 2016, after the assignment from Alberts of its copyright in Vanda, Young and Wright works, Boomerang also granted an exclusive licence over its copyright to AMCOS and assigned its public performance and communication rights to APRA.

At [299], Perram J found Boomerang and AMCOS had mutually abandoned the earlier licence granted by Alberts and replaced it with the 2016 licence.[7] The 2016 licence granted AMCOS exclusive rights to authorise reproduction of Love to make records, for digital downloading and communication to the public. AMCOS was not licensed to authorise use of Love in advertisements or synchronisation into a film.

A summary

So, at [326] and [342] Boomerang had no standing to sue Glass Candy or Air France in respect of any streaming or the playing of ‘music-on-hold’ as APRA was the owner of the relevant rights.

Boomerang was the owner of the reproduction right (at [334] – [335], [342]), but its interest was concurrent with AMCOS as the exclusive licensee under s 119 and s 120. AMCOS of course also had concurrent rights under those sections.

Which acts of streaming / downloading infringed?

The straightforward case on infringement was the streaming and downloading from the Big Cartel and IDIB websites. The position of iTunes / Apple Music, Google Play, Spotify, Youtube was complicated by licences those entities had from APRA and AMCOS.

iTunes / Apple Music, Spotify et al.

The evidence showed that sales of Warm through Apple’s services amount to $85.41 (although some of these were probably to the Applicants’ solicitors).

Perram J held that the streaming and downloading of Warm from these services did not infringe as they held licences from APRA and AMCOS which permitted these acts.

In January 2010, Apple Pty Ltd had entered into a licence agreement with APRA and AMCOS. By cl. 9.1, the licence was a non-exclusive licence to:

(a) reproduce AMCOS Works;

(b) authorise the reproduction of AMCOS Works;

(c) communicate in the Territory the APRA Works (including authorising their electronic transmission from Your Digital Music Service to Your customers);

(d) authorise Your Affiliates to communicate the APRA Works to customers in the Territory as necessary in the course of providing the Digital Music Service,

in the form of Downloads (whether by You, or Your customers in the Territory, onto storage devices) for the purpose of Sale or to complete a Sale, including in the form of Clips provided at no charge for the sole purpose of demonstrating the Clip to customers and potential customers of Your Digital Music Service …

Love was included in the APRA and AMCOS Works.

Perram J held that the rights to reproduce and communicate to the public included the rights, not just to reproduce or communicate the whole of Love, but also a substantial part of it through the operation of Copyright Act 1968 s 14. As Warm and France reproduced a substantial part of Love, they were covered by the licences. At [352], his Honour explained:

Because Love is in the AMCOS and APRA catalogues it follows that since 2010 Apple has been fully licensed to provide digital streaming and downloading of Love. And because the doing of an act in relation to a work is taken by s 14 of the Copyright Act to include a reference to the doing of that act in relation to a substantial part of the work, it also follows that Apple has at all material times been licensed by APRA and AMCOS to make available for streaming or digital download a substantial part of Love. Of course, the Applicants’ principal contention in this case is that making Warm available for streaming or digital downloading involves the communication or reproduction of a substantial part of Love. However, it would appear that iTunes is lawfully entitled to make Warm available for streaming or downloading even if it does involve a communication or reproduction of a substantial part of Love. Consequently, the Applicants can have no possible case against Apple for making available Warm for streaming or downloading from iTunes.

Similar conclusions followed in respect of the other streaming services which also had licences with APRA and AMCOS.

As Apple did not infringe by streaming or authorising the downloading of Warm, so also Glass Candy could not be liable for authorising the (non-)infringement.

There was an additional wrinkle on this part of the case. Kobalt admitted there had been streaming from Google Play, Spotify and Youtube, but Glass Candy did not. Perram J considered the evidence did not actually establish there had been streaming or downloading from these services so, if the licences did not cover these activities, Kobalt alone would have been liable by reason of its admissions.

The Big Cartel and IDIB websites

The evidence showed that Warm had been downloaded 12 times for $11.50 in revenue from Big Cartel and only once from IDIB. There were also payments to Kobalt Australia of $266.60 from AMCOS and $366.43 from APRA. Warm was still being advertised for sale for $1 from the IDIB website.

The position of downloads from the websites Big Cartel and IDIB was straightforward. The evidence showed Padgett uploaded Warm or caused it to be uploaded and Ida No received payments from time to time from the sites. Therefore, at [348] they were liable for authorising the communications to the public and downloading from those websites.

The position of streaming was more complicated. Padgett and Ida No had licensed their distribution / streaming rights to BMI in 2010. APRA’s own records recorded BMI as the owner of copyright in Warm for the public performance and communication rights. IDIB had also licensed streaming rights in relation to its website to Kobalt US. At [390], this meant that the person liable for authorising the streaming from the idib website was either BMI or Kobalt US, neither of which was a party. The receipt of royalties by Kobalt Australia from APRA was not sufficient to find it liable for authorising the streaming.

I am not sure why, if Padgett and Ida No had licensed their rights to BMI or Kobalt USA, they were nonetheless not liable for authorising infringing conduct by those entities or authorised by them.

Air France

The case against Air France for streaming promotional videos from Youtube failed because of Youtube’s licence from APRA for the reasons Apple’s licences protected streaming and downloading. There was still liability for the music-on-hold, however, as Air France did not hold a licence from APRA.

Remedies

Glass Candy contended that any damages would be de minimis and so relief should be withheld.

At [432] Perram J rejected this argument. First, his Honour found that the copying of Love had been deliberate so the infringements were flagrant. That meant additional damages may well be awarded. In addition, his Honour anticipated that the compensatory damages award might not be so modest:

Further, whilst it is tempting to think that the damages might be limited by the apparently modest infringements I have found, the Respondents (other than Kobalt) will no doubt have to deal with a contention by the Applicants that their damages should be assessed on a foregone licence basis. Without wishing to lend colour to that contention, damages on that basis may not be so modest.

[Boomerang Investments Pty Ltd v Padgett (Liability)][2020] FCA 535[8]


  1. Italians Do It Better – a record label jointly owned by Padgett (aka Johhny Jewel) and a DJ, Mike Simonetti.  ?
  2. Similar analysis applies to the uses of France by Air France which, additionally involved the transmission of France via a diffusion service to callers on hold.  ?
  3. As noted in my previous post, Perram J may have been interested in exploring whether or not an Australian court could hear and determine questions of infringement under US law.  ?
  4. Copyright Act 1968 s 31(1)(a)(iv): the exclusive right to communicate the work to the public.  ?
  5. Copyright Act 1968 s 31(1)(a)(iv): the exclusive right to communicate the work to the public.  ?
  6. Of course, that would not apply to copyright which had been assigned to someone else before becoming a member of APRA.  ?
  7. As Alberts successor in title, Boomerang was bound by the terms of the 1986 licence granted to AMCOS: Copyright Act 1968 s 196(4).  ?
  8. The applicants’ subsequent attempt to have the Reasons revised or to re-open their case was given short shrift.  ?

Love was not in the air

but don’t go humming (or whistling or singing) that refrain in public!

There are probably not that many Australians who aren’t familiar with John Paul Young’s Love is in the Air[1] either as a popular song from the 70s or featuring prominently in the movie, Strictly Ballroom.

Glass Candy are an American electronic duo based in America who, in 2011, released “Warm in the Winter”. Glass Candy wrote and recorded “Warm in the Winter” in the USA. They made it available for streaming and download on, first, the Big Cartel website and then the IDIB website.[2] They or their rights management agent, Kobalt, also made the recording available through iTunes / Apple Music, Google Play, Youtube, Spotify etc.

Subsequently, Glass Candy provided a version of “Warm in the Winter” to Air France for use by the latter in its Air France: France is in the Air promotional campaign. Until this litigation started, Air France used “France is in the Air” in TVCs and radio advertisements in 114 countries (but not Australia), posted the advertisments on its Youtube channel and, if you rang up its office and all its customer service operators were tied up, for its “music on hold” service.

Boomerang, APRA and AMCOS sued Glass Candy, Air France and Kobalt for infringing the copyright in the musical work and the literary work comprised of the lyrics of Love is in the Air in respect of only the streaming to Australia, downloading by customers in Australia and playing the music on hold to customers in Australia.

The making of the recordings in the USA, the streaming and downloading outside Australia and the running of Air France’s advertisements in those 114 other countries were not part of the case.[3]

Perram J has found that Glass Candy and Air France have infringed the copyright in the musical work comprising Love is in the Air, but the streaming and downloading through iTunes, Youtube, Spotify, Google Play and others did not.

Following the Kookaburra case, Perram J recognised that infringement required a three step analysis:

  • first, identifying the copyright work in which the copyright in Australia subsists;
  • secondly, identifying the part (or parts) of the allegedly infringing work which is said to have been reproduced from the copyright work – involving identifying some sufficiently similar matter which has been copied from the copyright work; and
  • thirdly, determining that the taken part (or parts) were the whole or a substantial part of the copyright work.

To these steps, one should also add two further requirements:

  • identifying the act or acts said to infringe and which right or rights comprised in the copyright that act (or those acts) implicated (e.g. reproduction or communication to the public); and
  • identifying who owned the relevant copyright acts

It’s a long story. Perram J devoted 434 paragraphs to get there. Given that, this post will look at why Perram J found Warm and France did, or did not, infringe Love. A later post may look at the untangling of the ownership.

Infringement, or not

The central question was whether “Warm” and “France”[4] reproduced a substantial part of either the musical work or the literary work comprised in “Love”.

Boomerang et al. contended that the substantial parts of “Love” reproduced in “Warm” (and “France”) were the music and lyrics (1) for the phrase “love is in the air” in (a) the first two lines of the verses and (b) the chorus and (2) the couplet comprising the first two lines of each verse.

In case you are one of those Australians who can’t recite it from memory, you will recall the first verse is:

Love is in the air, everywhere I look around

Love is in the air, every sight and every sound

And I don’t know if I’m bein’ foolish

Don’t know if I’m bein’ wise

But it’s something that I must believe in

And it’s there when I look in your eyes

At [83]: Perram J linked to an audio file of the first two lines.

The chorus is:

Love is in the air

Love is in the air

Whoa, oh, oh, oh

At [87]: Perram J linked to an audio file of the chorus.

Love in the single version released by John Paul Young runs for about 3:28. The phrase “Love is in the air” in the verses runs for about 2.2 seconds, appearing eight times for a total of 20 seconds.

By way of comparison, the relevant parts of “Warm” were the first two lines in two blocks:

Block 1

Love’s in the air, whoa-oh

Love’s in the air, yeah

We’re warm in the winter

Sunny on the inside

We’re warm in the winter

Sunny on the inside.

Woo!

Block 2

Love’s in the air, whoa-oh

Love’s in the air, yeah

I’m crazy like a monkey, ee, ee, oo, oo!

Happy like a new year, ee yeah yeah, woo hoo!

I’m crazy like a monkey, ee, ee, oo, oo!

Happy like a new year, yeah, yeah, woo hoo!

As published in 2011, Warm had a running time of about 6 minutes 45 seconds. The sung line “love is in the air” appeared in Warm at about 1:00–1:02, 1:07–1:09, 2:00–2:02 and 2:08–2:10 of the recording. His Honour linked at [95] to the audio files for the phrase “love is in the air” by way of comparison.

The musical work

A first point of interest is that Perram J accepted at [66] – [77] the musical work included the “instructions to the singer on what sounds to make with the mouth”. This included the sounds comprising the sung lyric including “the non-literary phonetic instructions”:

l?v ?z ?n ði e?, ??vri we?r a? l?k ??ra?nd

l?v ?z ði e?, ??vri sa?t ænd ??vri sa?nd.

However, it did not include the quality of John Paul Young’s actual performance (which was part of the copyright in the sound recording and the performer’s right).

Perram J accepted that the comparison between Love and Warm depended on aural perception and not a ‘note-for-note comparison’.

Applying the ‘ordinary, reasonbly experienced listener’ test, Perram J held at [99] – [104] that the passages in the musical work accompanying the phrase “Love’s in the air” in the Warm blocks was objectively similar to the musical work accompanying that phrase in lines 1 and 2 of Love’s verses, but not in the chorus. At [109], lines 1 and 2 as a couplet were not.

Perram J accepted that there were differences between the relevant parts of Love and Warm. The transcription of the respective scores were different, the difference in styles – disco vs death disco, the presence of a moving bass line in Love, but not Warm were, on the aural test, not significant. It was:

common ground that the vocal lines of both … comprise five notes, the first two or three notes … being in same pitch, the next note dropping down in pitch by a minor third, and the next note returning up in pitch by a minor third.

and according to the experts ‘the pitch and rhythmic content of the opening vocal phrase is notably similar’ between Love and Warm and that ‘there is a basic aural connection between this phrase and the corresponding phrases in Warm’.

At [110] – [202], Perram J considered and rejected Glass Candy’s claim that they were not aware of John Paul Young’s recording of Love before Warm was composed and had not copied it. Rather, his Honour found that they had deliberately copied Love in making Warm.

Perram J then held that the objectively similar part of Love copied into Warm was a substantial part of the copyright in the Love musical work.

Glass Candy argued that the musical phrase for “love is in the air” was ‘too slight and too mundane’ to be a substantial part of Love. It was only five notes in length, did not contain much musical information and, as Vanda conceded, it was a ‘fragment of a melody’. Further, it was too slight to be a copyright work in its own right.

Perram J held, at [205] – [208], however, that the phrase as a sung lyric was original and an essential part of Love, even if it was not a copyright work in its own right. The issue was whether it was a substantial part of Love is in the Air. Assessed qualitatively, therefore, it was a substantial part of Love.

Perram J accepted that the phrase ‘love is in the air’ is a common English idiom and that ‘by industrial combing of the archives’ examples of the melody could be found, but for the purposes of the musical work the literary meaning of the phrase was not relevant. The issue was:

whether the line ‘love is in the air’, as a set of instructions, sung by a human to that melody and with its accompanying orchestration is original. In my view, that question answers itself.

In undertaking the comparison, his Honour discounted parts of the musical work in Love not included in Warm, such as the tambourine track.

His Honour also considered that a cumulative total of the phrase occurring in Love of 20 seconds was not insignificant quantitatively.

The literary work

In contrast to his finding on musical work, Perram J at [216] – [219] rejected the case on infringement of Love as a literary work. The phrase ‘love is in the air’ as a commonplace was a famous idiom which nobody owns. It was not sufficiently original to be a substantial part of the literary work on its own.

Boomerang Investments Pty Ltd v Padgett (Liability) [2020] FCA 535


  1. Which of course is really Vanda and George Young’s Love is in the Air performed by John Paul Young.  ?
  2. Italians Do It Better – a record label jointly owned by Padgett (aka Johhny Jewel) and a DJ, Mike Simonetti.  ?
  3. At [16], Perram J speculated this might have been because the action would “probably” have needed to brought in the USA and the potential for a jury trial might have been unattractive. There is a suggestion in his Honour’s reasons that he would have liked to explore an Australian court hearing claims for infringement under US law, presumably based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lucas Films v Ainsworth.  ?
  4. For present purposes, the main difference between “Warm” and “France” is that the latter substituted the word “France” for “warm” in the phrase “Love is in the air”.  ?

Trumpet blowing

It’s that time of the year again when IPSANZ’ annual copyright and designs update comes up.

This year it takes place on 30 July, online – for those of you on the eastern seaboard starting at 1:00pm.

Registration is free for IPSANZ members, A$50 for non-members in Australia and A$46.50 for NZ and international non-members..

For registration and other details, including times for NZ and the other states and territories, go here.

Ordinarily, I would say “hope to see you there!”, but ….

Still, I do hope you can join in.

US DMCA Safe Harbors Review

The US Copyright Office has published a report about its review of §512 of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act – the service provider safe harbors. (Australia has its own safe harbour provisions in section 116AA and following of the Copyright Act 1968 but, as their availability is limited to a much narrower classe of “service providers”, they have not proved of much interest.)

According to the US Copyright Office’s report, this is the first comprehensive review of the operation of the safe harbors in the 20 years since their enactment.

The Copyright Office says its report does not recommend any wholesale changes to the scheme. However, there are “certain areas where Congress may wish to fine-tune” the section to better balance its operation. There are 12 recommendations about:

  • the definition of service provider who may qualify for the safe harbors;
  • the requirements for a repeat infringer policy
  • what level of knowledge of an infringing activity should a service provider have before the safe harbor no longer applies
  • appropriate identification of the allegedly infringing content and its location
  • the penalties for misrepresenting infringement claims or counter-notices
  • the extent to which a rights holder must take into account fair use before issuing a take-down notice
  • the extent to which notification standards reflect current technological developments
  • the time frames for response to counter-notices disputing a take-down notice
  • the mechanisms for subpoena-ing service providers for information about alleged infringers
  • the scope of injunctions
  • possible non-statutory approaches
  • alternative stakeholder proposals including web-site blocking and notice and staydown proposals which the Copyright Office considers require further study.

In addition to the review of the operation of the safe harbors and recommendations, there are also chapters on how the “online ecosystem” has developed since the enactment of the DMCA and legal approaches in other countries including our very own “site blocking” laws.

US Copyright Office summary

Full Report: Section 512 of title 17, May 2020

The Commonwealth gets nothing on Sanofi’s undertaking as to damages

Nicholas J has dismissed the Commonwealth’s application for Sanofi to pay it compensation under the undertaking as to damages when Sanofi obtained an interlocutory injunction against Apotex’ plans to launch clopidogrel in Australia, but the patent was ultimately ruled invalid.

The decision is some 698 paragraphs long, so this going to be the briefest overview of some highlights only.

Some litigious background

Clopidogrel is a medication which can be used to inhibit blood clotting. Sanofi (then called Sanofi-Aventis) had patents protecting it around the world and had generated over US$1 billion in revenues. Sales in Australia being under Sanofi’s Plavix trade mark and BMS’ Iscover trade mark.

In August 2007, Apotex commenced proceedings for the revocation of Sanofi’s Australian patent.[1] Shortly after, Apotex also obtained registration of its generic version of clopidogrel on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. In September 2007, it then applied for listing of its generic clopidogrel in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), through which the Commonwealth government subsidises the price of drugs in Australia.

As it missed the cut off date for the next round of listings in the PBS, it withdrew that application with the intention of making a further application before the next round closed on 1 December 2007. An application made in the December round would be for listing on the PBS from 1 April 2008.

In September 2007, however, Sanofi obtained an interlocutory injunction restraining Apotex from importing or selling in Australia pharmaceuticals which included clopidogrel as their active ingredient. Sanofi gave the usual undertaking as to damages as the price for that interlocutory injunction.

At the hearing for the interlocutory injunction, Apotex also gave an undertaking not to make an application for listing in the PBS pending the outcome of the trial. Apotex did not obtain from Sanofi an undertaking as to damages for that undertaking.

At the substantive trial, Gyles J dismissed Apotex’ application for revocation and instead found that it had infringed Sanofi’s patent. In September 2009, however, the Full Court upheld Apotex’ appeal and ordered the patent be revoked.[2] Sanofi’s application for special leave was dismissed by the High Court on 12 March 2010.[3]

Sandoz obtained PBS listing for its generic clopidogrel on 1 April 2010. Apotex did not obtain listing of its product until 1 May 2010. So, in addition to whatever sales it lost between 1 April 2008 and the lifting of the injunction in 2010, Apotex also lost whatever advantages may have flowed from being the first generic mover.

Sanofi and Apotex settled Apotex’ claims for compensation on the undertaking as to damages out of court.

The Commonwealth’s claims

The Commonwealth also claimed compensation under the undertaking as to damages.

Its case was that Apotex would have been listed on the PBS from 1 April 2008 if Sanofi had not been granted the interlocutory injunctions and so, as a result of the interlocutory injunction, the price payable for clopidogrel:

(a) was not reduced by the statutory reduction to the Approved Price to Pharmacists of 12.5%[4] (i.e. in very loose terms, the Commonwealth paid a price 12.5% higher than it should have been on all sales of clopidogrel between 1 April 2008 and 1 May 2010);

(b) further statutory reductions of 2% each were not triggered on, respectively, 1 August 2009 and 1 August 2010; and

(c) additional price reductions consequent upon the triggering of a statutory price disclosure regime which should have occurred on 1 April 2008.

(From [653] in his Reasons, Nicholas J discusses various scenarios for the calculation of how much the grant of the interlocutory injunction cost the Commonwealth. The lowest amount his Honour would have found in terms of compensation was in the order of $15 million.)

To succeed in its claim, Nicholas J held (at [196]) that the Commonwealth had to show:

· Would the relevant loss have been sustained but for the grant of interlocutory injunction?

· Did such loss flow directly from the interlocutory injunction?

· Could loss of the kind sustained have been foreseen at the time the interlocutory injunction was granted?

Why the Commonwealth lost

The Commonwealth was able to secure a number of witnesses from Apotex. These included the managing director of Apotex Australia, a Mr Millichamp, whose affidavit evidence was to the effect that Apotex was committed to launch its generic clopidogrel in Australia if, having been notified of Apotex’ plans to launch, Sanofi did not obtain an interlocutory injunction.[5]

The problem for the Commonwealth was that Apotex Australia is part of a corporate group controlled by Apotex Canada and the decision on whether or not to launch the product in Australia was to be made by Apotex Canada – specifically its founder and managing director, Dr Barry Sherman.

The evidence did show that in February 2007, Dr Sherman did plan for Apotex to launch its generic clopidogrel in Australia if Sanofi did not get an interlocutory injunction against it. Over time, however, the situation developed further. For example, the evidence included an email Mr Millichamp sent to one of his offsiders on 27 June 2007 when it appeared that the TGA listing was imminent (emphasis supplied) which stated:

[redacted]

[redacted] If we are successful in avoiding an injunction we will plan to launch subject to Barry’s further advice / approval.

If anything changes I’ll let you know.

“Barry” being Dr Sherman. At [251], Nicholas J considered this email indicated that Apotex had not yet decided whether it would launch its clopidogrel product in Australia if Sanofi did not succeed in getting an interlocutory injunction to restrain it.

Secondly, Apotex appears to have been planning to supply Australia from US stocks, but the shelf life of those products would not extend beyond August 2008 which was not very practical – especially when the earliest launch date would be April 2008.

Thirdly, Apotex’ challenge to Sanofi’s patent in the USA had been rejected by the trial judge.

Fourthly, Apotex’ communications to pharmacies did not definitely commit to a launch of the product.

Fifthly, Apotex had not exposed its legal advice on its prospects so Mr Millichamp’s evidence that “we always believed that all of the claims of the patent were invalid”

are not persuasive in circumstances where any legal advice upon which such a belief was based is not in evidence particularly in circumstances where the validity of the US Patent had already been upheld by the US District Court in a decision that was later affirmed on appeal.

Sixthly, at the time of the hearing for the interlocutory injunction in September 2007, the judge had indicated the final trial of substantive issues would be heard in April 2008 and he would give judgment by August 2008.[6] That is, the trial would take place in the same month as the earliest date that Apotex could be in the market if it re-submitted its PBS application before 1 December 2007.

In these circumstances, Nicholas J considered at [286]:

In the absence of evidence from Dr Sherman, I am not persuaded that he would have authorised a launch at risk in circumstances where an interlocutory injunction had been refused, but a final hearing was fixed to commence on 28 April 2008. ….

Rather, Nicholas J considered there was every reason for Dr Sherman to have deferred Apotex’ decision whether to launch or not until the last possible moment.

At this point, the failure (or inability) of the Commonwealth to call Dr Sherman as a witness became decisive all the more so as the Commonwealth was able to produce for cross-examination other Apotex witnesses who did travel from Canada and India. Nicholas J concluded at [347] – [349]:

I conclude that Dr Sherman was a witness who I would have expected to have been available to the Commonwealth and who would have had a close knowledge of relevant facts. In circumstances where the Commonwealth’s decision not to call Dr Sherman was wholly unexplained, I infer that the Commonwealth chose not to call him because it considered that his evidence would not have assisted its case.

I am not prepared to infer, based on the 20 February 2007 email, or any of the subsequent correspondence in evidence which was said to justify the drawing of such an inference, that Dr Sherman was likely to have instructed Mr Millichamp to procure the listing of Apotex’s clopidogrel products with effect from 1 April 2008.

In my opinion, the Commonwealth’s case suffers from an evidentiary deficiency which cannot be made good by drawing inferences from correspondence written by Dr Sherman in the lead up to the hearing of the interlocutory application. In particular, I do not think it can be inferred that if Dr Sherman had known that the trial of the patent proceeding would commence in the same month that Apotex Australia obtained a PBS listing of its clopidogrel products (triggering a 12.5% statutory price reduction), that he would have, in those circumstances, authorised Apotex Australia to obtain such a listing before judgment was delivered or, at least, until the trial had concluded (by which time he and his colleagues and his legal advisers may have had a clearer view of the strength of Sanofi’s case).

In the result, at [351], Nicholas J held that the Commonwealth’s claim must be dismissed.

Some other matters

Having dismissed the claim, Nicholas J went on to consider a number of other matters, albeit by way of obiter dicta.

Apotex’ undertaking not to seek PBS listing was not direct loss

The fact that Sanofi did not give an undertaking as to damages in return for Apotex’ undertaking not to seek PBS listing if an interlocutory injunction restraining sale was made would have provided a second basis for dismissing the Commonwealth’s claim.

Nicholas J accepted that the losses claimed by the Commonwealth were a foreseeable consequence of the interlocutory injunction, however, they were not a sufficiently direct consequence of it.

Apotex had recognised that, if an interlocutory injunction restraining sale was granted, there was no point seeking PBS listing. It would not be able to give the guarantee of supply required to obtain PBS listing and so any listing would fail or be revoked. In addition, it might expose it to increased damages having to compensate Sanofi for the profits lost on the automatic 12.5% reduction in price.

While Nicholas J accepted the Commonwealth’s loss was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the interlocutory injunction, his Honour held it did not result directly from the injunction in the relevant sense. At [445], his Honour explained:

Even if it is accepted, as I have found, that the first Apotex undertaking would never have been given if the interlocutory injunction had not been granted, it does not follow that the Commonwealth’s loss flowed directly from the interlocutory injunction. The terms of the interlocutory injunction did not prevent Apotex Australia from applying for a PBS listing of its clopidogrel products or from taking any other steps to obtain such a listing. Doing so would not have involved a breach of the interlocutory injunction. The Commonwealth’s loss was a natural and direct consequence of Apotex Australia not being able to apply to list its clopidogrel products on the PBS with effect from 1 April 2008, which was the precise conduct to which the first Apotex undertaking was directed, but not something the interlocutory injunction expressly or implicitly prohibited. This strongly suggests, in my view, that the loss alleged by the Commonwealth in this case was an indirect consequence of the interlocutory injunction.

It is worth considering the ramifications of that conclusion. First, it has been held that it is not an infringement of the patent for someone to apply for PBS listing of a drug containing the protected invention.[7] Further, the Commonwealth is not in a position to require a generic company to refrain from giving an undertaking not to seek PBS listing unless there is an undertaking as to damages. Thirdly, His Honour’s reasoning would apply equally to the losses claimed by Apotex under the undertaking as to damages, not just the Commonwealth’s. If you are acting for a ‘generic’ in this situation, therefore, make sure any undertaking as to damages extends to any undertaking not to seek PBS listing.

Sanofi argued that, even if it did not get an interlocutory injunction, the Minister (or delegate) would refuse listing of Apotex’ product in the PBS on the grounds of patent infringement until the outcome of the proceeding was known. Sanofi’s own witnesses, however, admitted such an outcome was unlikely. Instead, Nicholas J considered an application for listing would most likely have been approved if Apotex had given the necessary guarantee of supply. At [419], Nicholas J said:

I do not think it likely that the Delegate would have refused the application on the basis that a trial of the patent proceedings would shortly take place or that a judgment might be expected to be given some time between May 2008 and August 2008. In my view the Delegate is likely to have been most influenced by two matters: first, the willingness of Apotex Australia to provide an assurance of supply and, second, the absence of any interlocutory injunction restraining any such supply. I think it unlikely that a Delegate would have questioned the ability of Apotex Australia to either comply with its assurance of supply or comply with its obligations under the guarantee of supply. So far as the latter was concerned, I consider it most likely that the Delegate would have proceeded on the basis that, in the event that there was some failure on the part of Apotex to supply during the guaranteed period, then it would be open to the Minister in that situation to exercise one or more of the powers available under the relevant provisions of the NHA including the power to delist the Apotex Australia clopidogrel products and the power to reverse the 12.5% statutory price reduction.

Another area of dispute between the parties was what would have happened if the interlocutory injunction had not been granted but, as in fact happened, the trial judge found Apotex infringed. Mr Millichamp from Apotex gave evidence Apotex would have applied to have the Apotex product delisted. Sanofi argued that, in that situation, it would have been able to get the 12.5% automatic price reduction reversed. The Commonwealth contended that reversal was unlikely. There was a at least one prior case where the price reduction had been reversed before the price reduction became automatic. In the unexplained absence of the person who was the relevant decisionmaker within the Government at the time,[8] Nicholas J considered at [529] the chance the Commonwealth would not have reversed the price reduction to be less than 10%.

Sanofi disputed that interest was payable on compensation ordered under the undertaking as to damages. While his Honour did not finally decide the point, Nicholas J indicated at [697] that he would have ordered Sanofi to pay simple interest on the sum awarded on the basis that it would have been just and equitable to do so.

In light of the evidence that it would take only 2 to 3 weeks for Apotex to have written its own Product Information, Nicholas J would not have denied the Commonwealth recovery because the Product Information (and other stipulated regulatory disclosures) infringed Sanofi’s copyright.[9] His Honour considered at [643] there was “good reason to believe” that no interlocutory injunction would have been granted to restrain copyright infringement in that time frame.

Commonwealth of Australia v Sanofi (formerly Sanofi-Aventis) (No 5) [2020] FCA 543


  1. Australian Patent No 597784 for the dextro-rotatory enantiomer of methyl alpha–5 (4,5,6,7-tetrahydro (3,2-c) thieno pyridyl) (2-chlorophenyl)-acetate, a process for its preparation, and pharmaceutical compositions containing it.  ?
  2. One curiosity of this outcome is that Sanofi’s corresponding patents in Canada and the USA were both upheld as valid and infringed.  ?
  3. Further interlocutory injunctions were put in place pending the outcomes of the appeals.  ?
  4. In essence, while there was only one source of clopidogrel – Sanofi (and BMS as a licensee) – clopidogrel was listed in the PBS in formulary F1. As soon as a second, competing source obtained listing, Sanofi’s listing would be moved into formulary F2 with an automatic price reduction of 12.5% imposed by statute. See [144] – [145]. Paragraphs [36] – [77] contain a useful explanation of how the pricing of products listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme works and, in particular, the automatic reductions on pricing that apply when a second (usually generic) drug is listed.  ?
  5. The evidence disclosed that Apotex’ strategy, having successfully developed its generic clopidogrel (and having at least a further 18 months to complete development of a product based on a different salt), was (1) to secure ARTG listing then in short order (2) to apply for PBS listing, (3) to launch to the trade on an “at risk” basis – i.e. ensure the trade knew Apotex might have to withdraw the product if Sanofi’s patent was valid and (4) then to put Sanofi on notice of its plans to launch by bringing the revocation proceeding. An explicit part of the strategy was to secure the benefit of the undertaking as to damages if Sanofi did block sales through an interlocutory injunction.  ?
  6. The trial judge reached the statutory age for retirement in that month.  ?
  7. Warner-Lambert Company LLC v Apotex Pty Ltd (2017) 249 FCR 17  ?
  8. The fact that the person was no longer working for the Commonwealth was not a sufficient justification for the failure to call her.  ?
  9. The Copyright Act 1968 was subsequently amended to preclude the use of copyright against such materials. See now s 44BA.  ?