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.  ?

AIPPI Sydney 2 – music and the digital revolution

i was lucky enough to attend a panel on the impact of the digital revolution on the music industry featuring discussants with real world experience.

You can see my report over on the IPKat.

My barristerial colleague, Clare Cunliffe, also has a report on inventor remuneration.

i understand more reports of other sessions are in the pipeline.

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 issue may well be regarded as still highly controversial here.

Anyway, a number of Canadian experts have published  a book looking at the ramifications of these wide ranging decisions.

In an interesting experiment, you can buy it in the traditional way through the publisher or you may also download an ebook version for free. For more details, see the 1709 blog post.

Optus TV Now … 2

Follow last Friday’s post, in the twittersphere @wenhu points out that s 22(6) defines who the maker of a communication is:

(6)  For the purposes of this Act, a communication other than a broadcast is taken to have been made by the person responsible for determining the content of the communication.

(6A)  To avoid doubt, for the purposes of subsection (6), a person is not responsible for determining the content of a communication merely because the person takes one or more steps for the purpose of:

                     (a)  gaining access to what is made available online by someone else in the communication; or

(b)  receiving the electronic transmission of which the communication consists.

Example:    A person is not responsible for determining the content of the communication to the person of a web page merely because the person clicks on a link to gain access to the page.

It’s a good point, but I’m not sure at first impression why that doesn’t make the subscriber the maker.

Section 22(6) was introduced as part of the legislative clean-up of the mess made in the Music on Hold case –  to make it clear the telephone company was not communicating the music played by the subscriber to a caller when they were placed on hold. For example, para. 40 of the EM explains:

40.    The new s.22(6) provides that a communication other than a broadcast is taken to have been made by the person responsible for the content of the communication.  This provision relies on the extended definition of communicate in Item 6.  The provision has the effect that communications carriers and Internet Service Providers will not be directly liable for communicating material to the public via their networks if they are not responsible for determining the content of that material.

Meanwhile in the comments “Copyright Fanatic” asks why Optus TV Now is any different to using your TIVO at home? That (if the media reports are to be believed) is the $153 million question: is using someone else’s servers in some other point in cadastral space different to using your own equipment in the privacy of your own home?

Optus TV Now and the threat to sports’ millions

The media yesterday was splashed with stories about how Optus is threatening the flow of revenues to sports such as the NRL and the AFL through its TV Now service (for example, here and here and here). Hundreds of millions of dollars are apparently at stake.

Basically, it looks like you download an “app” to your phone or computer and you can then record (or perhaps more strictly, instruct Optus to record) a television program being broadcast on free to air television on Optus’ servers and then have the recording streamed to your mobile or computer at a time and place of your choosing – Optus’ promotional video suggests as your sitting on the bus. The media reports suggest you might be able to start watching as soon as 2 minutes after the game program starts broadcasting. There are a few constraints: You have to watch within 30 days of the recording. You can only nominate programs broadcast in the area where your account address is located. It looks like, if you’re an Optus (mobile) subscriber you get 45 minutes storage “free”, but you can “buy” more if you want.

Optus’ version of how it works here and here.

It is billed as just like home taping or recording only for the 21st century.

Optus is reported to be seeking an injunction against the AFL and the NRL to stop them suing it for copyright infringement. In fact, Optus has brought proceedings against both the NRL and the AFL and the first directions hearing was heard by Rares J today: NSD1430/2011. Rares J made timetabling orders for defences (and cross-claims) and evidence with the trial fixed for 19 December 2011.

The injunction part is easy: someone who is on the receiving end of threats of copyright infringement can bring an action for groundless threats of infringement and, if successful, the remedies include an injunction against continuation of the threats and possibly damages for loss suffered.

Presumably, the AFL and/or the NRL sent Optus letters of demand telling it to stop or else. If so, there will be a threat and then it will be over to the AFL and/or the NRL to establish that what Optus is doing infringes their copyright.

In the case of a (largely unscripted) sporting spectacle like a footy final, the copyright is going to subsist only in the broadcast (hmmm, what about the jumpers and logos and ….)

I am guessing (but I don’t know) that the AFL’s and the NRL’s contracts with the broadcasters involve the broadcasters assigning their copyright in the broadcast to, respectively, the AFL and the NRL.

As I haven’t seen Optus’ claim or, more likely, defence to cross-claim, I am also guessing Optus will be relying on s 111 of the Copyright Act:

(1) This section applies if a person makes a cinematograph film or sound recording of a broadcast solely for private and domestic use by watching or listening to the material broadcast at a time more convenient than the time when the broadcast is made. Note: Subsection 10(1) defines broadcast as a communication to the public delivered by a broadcasting service within the meaning of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 . Making the film or recording does not infringe copyright

(2) The making of the film or recording does not infringe copyright in the broadcast or in any work or other subject-matter included in the broadcast.

Note: Even though the making of the film or recording does not infringe that copyright, that copyright may be infringed if a copy of the film or recording is made.

Dealing with embodiment of film or recording

(3) Subsection (2) is taken never to have applied if an article or thing embodying the film or recording is:

(a) sold; or

(b) let for hire; or

(c) by way of trade offered or exposed for sale or hire; or

(d) distributed for the purpose of trade or otherwise; or

(e) used for causing the film or recording to be seen or heard in public; or

(f) used for broadcasting the film or recording.

Note: If the article or thing embodying the film or recording is dealt with as described in subsection (3), then copyright may be infringed not only by the making of the article or thing but also by the dealing with the article or thing.

(4) To avoid doubt, paragraph (3)(d) does not apply to a loan of the article or thing by the lender to a member of the lender’s family or household for the member’s private and domestic use.

The first thing here will be who makes the recording. Will the Optus subscriber’s use of the technology to get a recording made on Optus’ servers (in the cloud) mean that the subscriber is the person who makes the recording or will it be Optus?

If Optus is the person who makes the recording (a) can the subscriber delegate the making to them as an agent or (b) does the recording need to be made for Optus’ private and domestic use or will the private and domestic use of its subscriber suffice?

As to who makes the recording, the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the rather different legislative setting of the US Copyright Act considered that the party in the position of Optus did not make the recording: Cartoon Network v Cablevision Inc. 536 F. 3d 121.

On the other hand, while recognising the possibility of a person making a fair dealing copy through an agent, in Australia Beaumont J found that a news monitoring service infringed copyright by making clippings of newspaper articles for its clients. While the clients may have had a relevant fair dealing purpose, the news monitoring service’s purpose was not a fair dealing purpose but a commercial purpose of making copies for its clients: De Garis v Nevill Jeffris Pidler Pty Limited [1990] FCA 218.

(You will have noticed that s 111(2) applies to not just to the copyright in the broadcast, but also any other copyright included in the broadcast. So that takes care of the logo, jumpers and all the other copyrights in scripted shows like, er, Home and Away etc.)

Section 111(2) only immunises the making of the recording. What happens when Optus streams the recording back to the subscriber? If it is set up so that the recording is streamed only to the individual subscriber, it will be difficult to call it a broadcast. But is it otherwise a communication to the public? This might turn on whether the communication is made by the subscriber (or his or her agent) to themselves or Optus. In the Music on Hold case (largely superseded now as a result of significant changes in the legislation), Dawson and Gaudron JJ emphasised that the public were people whom the copyright owner might fairly regard as its public and downplayed the number of persons involved. Will the commercial nature of Optus relationship with its subscribers colour the characterisation of this situation?

I guess we will have to wait and see.

Singtel Optus v National Rugby League and the Australian Football League NSD1430/2011.

Selected microblog posts w/e 30/8/09

Selected microblog posts from the past week:

  • Wyeth gets interloc. injunction in Australia against Alphapharm for alleged infringement of Efexor-XR patent:http://bit.ly/dvYwy
  • Kenny J also rejects a higher threshold for interlocutory injunctions in patent cases http://bit.ly/SQViX ; Beecham doesn’t rule.
  • Pros and Cons of Stand-Alone Non-Verbal Logos and Other Trademark Styles: A Legal Perspective : Duets Bloghttp://ff.im/-73bMH
  • RT @MegLG: Three Chocolate Companies Run Three Different Ways when it comes to TMs http://ow.ly/l2kyProperty, Intangible via @RonColeman