The valley of the dolls: Brand protection and artistic parody

In the case of Mattel Inc v Walking Mountain Productions, the toy doll manufacturer Mattel sought to prohibit a Utah photographer called Thomas Forsythe from producing and selling a series of 78 photographs entitled "Food Chain Barbie". The work had strong social and political overtones. The artist said that he chose to parody Barbie in his photographs because he wanted to challenge the beauty myth and the objectification of women. He observed: "Barbie is the most enduring of those products that feed on the insecurities of our beauty and perfection-obsessed consumer culture." The company Mattel argued that the photographs infringed its copyrights, trade marks, and trade dress. It was concerned that the artistic works would erode the brand of Barbie by wrongfully sexualising its blonde paragon of womanhood. However, Lew J of the Central District Court of California granted summary judgment for the photographer. The Court of Appeals upheld this verdict. Pregerson J held that the use of the manufacturer's copyrighted doll in parodic photographs constituted a fair use of copyright works. His Honour held that the use of manufacturer's "Barbie" mark and trade dress did not amount to trade mark infringement or dilution. This article provides a case commentary upon the Court of Appeals decision in Mattel Inc v Walking Mountain Productions, and its wider ramifications for the treatment of artistic parody under copyright law and trade mark law. It contends that the decision highlights the need for reform in Australian jurisprudence and legislation in respect of artistic parody.

Vanquishing the'Patent Trolls'

Patent law provides exclusive rights to exploit scientific inventions, which are novel, inventive, and useful. The regime is intended to promote innovation, investment in research and development, and access to scientific information. In recent times, there have been concerns that the patent system has been abused by opportunistic companies known by the phrase “patent trolls”. It has been alleged that such entities have stunted innovation and spurred unnecessary patent litigation. Adam Jaffe and Josh Lerner discuss such pathologies of patent law in their book, Innovation and Its Discontents: How our Broken Patent System is Endangering Innovation and Progress, and What To Do About It. James Bessen and Michael Meurer have addressed such concerns in their recent text, Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk. There have been particular fears about the rise of “patent trolls” in the field of information technology. Peter Dekin, an assistant general counsel at Intel, used the phrase “patent troll” to describe firms, which acquired patents only to extract settlements from companies on dubious infringement claims.

Reality bites: When copyright law and reality cooking meet, only the lawyers win

There’s nothing new about this recipe for success: toss in high-stress scenarios, flavour generously with competitive chefs, and garnish with a panel of celebrity judges. With all major broadcasters in the country now dishing up some form of reality cooking programme, Australians could be forgiven for having lost any expectation of original TV material. But that didn’t stop Channel Seven from taking Channel Nine to court last week, arguing its copyright in My Kitchen Rules had been infringed with Nine’s latest prime-time effort, The Hotplate. After the first few episodes went to air, Seven asked for an injunction to stop Nine from broadcasting any more episodes of the reality show. So let’s look at some common confusions about copyright law and how it relates to reality television. Because in this context, copyright infringement isn’t about shows sharing major similarities, or about protecting ideas, but rather the expression of these ideas in the final product. Still, stretching copyright law to protect the “vibe” of a work isn’t good for artists, TV producers or viewers: copyright was designed to nurture creativity, not stifle it.

What now after the Dallas Buyers Club pirate claim is rejected as ‘surreal’?

The makers of Dallas Buyers Club have been dealt a blow in their attempt to extract payment from people alleged to have downloaded illegal copies of the movie. Voltage Pictures, which owns Dallas Buyers Club, has been trying to identify over 4,700 iiNet subscribers who it alleges downloaded illicit copies of the movie. Earlier this year, the Federal Court agreed that iiNet should hand over subscriber details, but warned that any letter sent to account holders must first be approved by the court to protect consumers from abuse of the legal system. In a win for consumer protection, the Federal Court has now rejected Voltage’s draft letters, criticising Voltage’s attempts to avoid explaining what fee it would demand.

American lessons: Implementing fair use in Australia

This article discusses the recent Australian Law Reform Commission report proposing a fair use defense to copyright infringement in Australia. It examines the experience of fair use cases in the United States and draws three lessons from the jurisprudential history. First, it suggests that decisions in fair use can only really be understood within a theoretical framework, and that unless we import that framework into Australia any fair use defense will not work as expected. Secondly, the article argues that the area where fair use jurisprudence appears to be most helpful, in dealing with “transformative” works, is actually much more limited than outsiders to the US would expect. And finally, it suggests that any implementation of a factor related to market substitution should take account of the gaming of the system that has gone on in the US.

Australian Media Law [5th Edition]

Australian Media Law details and explains the complex case law, legislation and regulations governing media practice in areas as diverse as journalism, advertising, multimedia and broadcasting. It examines the issues affecting traditional forms of media such as television, radio, film and newspapers as well as for recent forms such as the internet, online forums and digital technology, in a clear and accessible format. New additions to the fifth edition include: - the implications of new anti-terrorism legislation for journalists; - developments in privacy law, including Law Reform recommendations for a statutory cause of action to protect personal privacy in Australia and the expanding privacy jurisprudence in the United Kingdom and New Zealand; - liability for defamation of internet search engines and service providers; - the High Court decision in Roadshow v iiNet and the position of internet service providers in relation to copyright infringement via their services; - new suppression order regimes; - statutory reforms providing journalists with a rebuttable presumption of non-disclosure when called upon to reveal their sources in a court of law; - recent developments regarding whether journalists can use electronic devices to collect and disseminate information about court proceedings; - contempt committed by jurors via social media; and an examination of recent decisions on defamation, confidentiality, vilification, copyright and contempt.

Copyright, fair use and the Australian Constitution

There has been much debate over recent years about whether Australian copyright law should adopt a fair use doctrine. In this chapter we argue by pointing to the historical record that the incorporation of the term 'copyrights' in the Australian Constitution embeds a notion of balance and fair use in Australian law and that this should be taken into account when interpreting the Australian Copyright Act 1968. English case law in the 18th and 19th centuries developed a principle that copyright infringement did not occur where a person had made a fair use of a work. Fair use was generally established where the defendant had made a productive use that did more than alter the original work for the purpose of evading liability, and where the defendant had made an original contribution to the resulting work. Additionally, fairness was shown by a use that did not supersede or prejudice the market for the original work. At the time of including the copyright power in the Constitution, the UK Parliament’s understanding of “copyrights” included the notion of fair use as it had been developed in U.K. precedent. In this chapter we argue that the work “copyrights” in the Australia Constitution takes its definition from copyright in 1900 and as it has evolved since. Importantly, the word “copyrights” is infused with a particular meaning that incorporates the principle of copyright balance. The constitutional notion of copyright, therefore, is not that of an unlimited power to prevent all copying. Rather, copyright distinguishes between infringing copying and non-infringing copying and grants to the copyright owner only the power to control the former. Non-infringing copying includes well-accepted limitations on the copyright owner’s rights, including the copying of ideas, the copying of public domain works and the copying of insubstantial parts of copyrighted works. In this chapter we argue that non-infringing copying also includes copying to make a fair use of a work. The sections that distinguish infringing copying from non-infringing copying in the Copyright Act 1968 are sections 36(1) and 101(1), which define infringement as the doing, without licence, of an “act comprised in the copyright”. An infringing copy is an act comprised the copyright, whereas a non-infringing copy is not. We argue that space for fair uses of copyrighted works is built into the Copyright Act 1968 through these sections, because a fair use will not produce an infringing copy and so is not an act comprised in the copyright.

Duty and Control in Intermediary Copyright Liability: An Australian Perspective

In the internet age, copyright owners are increasingly looking to online intermediaries to take steps to prevent copyright infringement. Sometimes these intermediaries are closely tied to the acts of infringement; sometimes – as in the case of ISPs – they are not. In 2012, the Australian High Court decided the Roadshow Films v iiNet case, in which it held that an Australian ISP was not liable under copyright’s authorization doctrine, which asks whether the intermediary has sanctioned, approved or countenanced the infringement. The Australian Copyright Act 1968 directs a court to consider, in these situations, whether the intermediary had the power to prevent the infringement and whether it took any reasonable steps to prevent or avoid the infringement. It is generally not difficult for a court to find the power to prevent infringement – power to prevent can include an unrefined technical ability to disconnect users from the copyright source, such as an ISP terminating users’ internet accounts. In the iiNet case, the High Court eschewed this broad approach in favor of focusing on a notion of control that was influenced by principles of tort law. In tort, when a plaintiff asserts that a defendant should be liable for failing to act to prevent harm caused to the plaintiff by a third party, there is a heavy burden on the plaintiff to show that the defendant had a duty to act. The duty must be clear and specific, and will often hinge on the degree of control that the defendant was able to exercise over the third party. Control in these circumstances relates directly to control over the third party’s actions in inflicting the harm. Thus, in iiNet’s case, the control would need to be directed to the third party’s infringing use of BitTorrent; control over a person’s ability to access the internet is too imprecise. Further, when considering omissions to act, tort law differentiates between the ability to control and the ability to hinder. The ability to control may establish a duty to act, and the court will then look to small measures taken to prevent the harm to determine whether these satisfy the duty. But the ability to hinder will not suffice to establish liability in the absence of control. This chapter argues that an inquiry grounded in control as defined in tort law would provide a more principled framework for assessing the liability of passive intermediaries in copyright. In particular, it would set a higher, more stable benchmark for determining the copyright liability of passive intermediaries, based on the degree of actual, direct control that the intermediary can exercise over the infringing actions of its users. This approach would provide greater clarity and consistency than has existed to date in this area of copyright law in Australia.

An engineering or behavioural approach? A study into employee’s perceptions regarding the effectiveness of occupational road safety initiatives

Background and Aims Considerable variation has been documented with fleet safety interventions’ abilities to create lasting behavioural change, and research has neglected to consider employees’ perceptions regarding the effectiveness of fleet interventions. This is a critical oversight as employees’ beliefs and acceptance levels (as well as the perceived organisational commitment to safety) can ultimately influence levels of effectiveness, and this study aimed to examine such perceptions in Australian fleet settings. Method 679 employees sourced from four Australian organisations completed a safety climate questionnaire as well as provided perspectives about the effectiveness of 35 different safety initiatives. Results Countermeasures that were perceived as most effective were a mix of human and engineering-based approaches: - (a) purchasing safer vehicles; - (b) investigating serious vehicle incidents, and; - (c) practical driver skills training. In contrast, least effective countermeasures were considered to be: - (a) signing a promise card; - (b) advertising a company’s phone number on the back of cars for complaints and compliments, and; - (c) communicating cost benefits of road safety to employees. No significant differences in employee perceptions were identified based on age, gender, employees’ self-reported crash involvement or employees’ self-reported traffic infringement history. Perceptions of safety climate were identified to be “moderate” but were not linked to self-reported crash or traffic infringement history. However, higher levels of safety climate were positively correlated with perceived effectiveness of some interventions. Conclusion Taken together, employees believed occupational road safety risks could best be managed by the employer by implementing a combination of engineering and human resource initiatives to enhance road safety. This paper will further outline the key findings in regards to practice as well as provide direction for future research.

Evaluation of the Queensland Minimum Passing Distance Road Rule

The two-year trial of the Queensland minimum passing distance (MPD) road rule began on 7 April 2014. The rule requires motor vehicles to provide cyclists a minimum lateral passing distance of one metre when overtaking cyclists in a speed zone of 60 km/h or less, and 1.5 metres when the speed limit is greater than 60 km/h. This document summarises the evaluation of the effectiveness of the new rule in terms of its: 1. practical implementation; 2. impact on road users’ attitudes and perceptions; and 3. road safety benefits. The Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety – Queensland (CARRS-Q) developed the evaluation framework (Haworth, Schramm, Kiata-Holland, Vallmuur, Watson & Debnath; 2014) for the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) and was later commissioned to undertake the evaluation. The evaluation included the following components: • Review of correspondence received by TMR; • Interviews and focus groups with Queensland Police Service (QPS) officers; • Road user survey; • Observational study; and • Crash, injury and infringement data analysis.