Fair use and the future of copyright

The Australian Law Reform Commission’s Final Report, Copyright and the Digital Economy, recommends the introduction of a flexible fair use provision. In doing so, it has sought to develop a technology-neutral approach to copyright that is adaptive to new technologies and which promotes innovation.

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.

The human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 : a multidisciplinary workshop

Event report following a multidisciplinary workshop at the Economic and Social Research Council's Genomics Policy and Research Forum, which took place at the University of Edinburgh on 20 January 2011.

Practice and Procedure: Worker's Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s275

In Australian Meat Holdings Pty Ltd v Sayers [2007] QSC 390 Daubney J considered the obligation imposed on a claimant under s 275 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) to provide the insurer with an authority to obtain information and documents. The decision leads to practical results.

Joint ventures and the Competition and Consumer Act

The purpose of this chapter is to analyse the way in which joint venture agreements can fall within the competition provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and the circumstances in which authorisation may be available for joint venture collaborations.

Practice and Procedure : Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ss 131 and 237(1)

In Jacobs v Woolworths Limited [2010] QSC 24 Jones J was required to determine whether a worker who had lodged an application for compensation for an injury outside the time prescribed under the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (“the Act”) was precluded from seeking common law damages for that injury. This determination depended upon the proper construction of s 131 of the Act, and what was to be understood by the words “worker who has not lodged an application for compensation for the injury” for the purpose of s 237(1)(d).

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 : restrictions on the creation of “saviour siblings” and the relevance of the harm principle

This paper provides an overview of the regulatory developments in the UK which impact on the use of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and embryo screening techniques for the creation of “saviour siblings.” Prior to the changes implemented under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, this specific use of IVF was not addressed by the legislative framework and regulated only by way of policy issued by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). Following the implementation of the statutory reforms, a number of restrictive conditions are now imposed on the face of the legislation. This paper considers whether there is any justification for restricting access to IVF and pre-implantation tissue typing for the creation of “saviour siblings.” The analysis is undertaken by examining the normative factors that have guided the development of the UK regulatory approach prior to the 2008 legislative reforms. The approach adopted in relation to the “saviour sibling” issue is compared to more general HFEA policy, which has prioritized the notion of reproductive choice and determined that restrictions on access are only justified on the basis of harm considerations.

Preventing the selection of “deaf embryos” under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 : problematizing disability?

Section 14(4) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 imposes – within the general licensing conditions listed in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 – a prohibition to prevent the selection and implantation of embryos for the purpose of creating a child who will be born with a “serious disability.” This article offers a perspective that demonstrates the problematic nature of the consultation, review, and legislative reform process surrounding s 14(4). The term “serious disability” is not defined within the legislation, but we highlight the fact that s 14(4) was passed with the case of selecting deaf children in mind. We consider some of the literature on the topic of disability and deafness, which, we think, casts some doubt on the view that deafness is a “serious disability.” The main position we advance is that the lack of serious engagement with alternative viewpoints during the legislative process was unsatisfactory. We argue that the contested nature of deafness necessitates a more robust consultation process and a clearer explanation and defence of the normative position that underpins s 14(4).

Editorial: The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008

This editorial first describes the workshop out of which the present special issue arose. The editors then identify the need for a multidisciplinary collection examining the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 from both legal and political perspectives, including the consultation process, campaigning and parliamentary debates leading to its passage, and the concluded legislation and its effects. The editorial provides an overview of the legislative reform process, key legislative changes, and the various contributions to the special issue. Cross-cutting themes include the value of a qualitative, discourse-based approach to research in this area; the need to understand the 2008 Act in historical context; unforeseen practical implications of the legislative provisions; and silences and missed opportunities in the legislation. Finally, a postscript covers the changing landscape of hybrid embryo research since the passage of the Act, and the uncertain future of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority at the time of writing.

Geminin and Brahma act antagonistically to regulate EGFR–Ras–MAPK signaling in Drosophila

Geminin was identified in Xenopus as a dual function protein involved in the regulation of DNA replication and neural differentiation. In Xenopus, Geminin acts to antagonize the Brahma (Brm) chromatin-remodeling protein, Brg1, during neural differentiation. Here, we investigate the interaction of Geminin with the Brm complex during Drosophila development. We demonstrate that Drosophila Geminin (Gem) interacts antagonistically with the Brm–BAP complex during wing development. Moreover, we show in vivo during wing development and biochemically that Brm acts to promote EGFR–Ras–MAPK signaling, as indicated by its effects on pERK levels, while Gem opposes this. Furthermore, gem and brm alleles modulate the wing phenotype of a Raf gain-of-function mutant and the eye phenotype of a EGFR gain-of-function mutant. Western analysis revealed that Gem over-expression in a background compromised for Brm function reduces Mek (MAPKK/Sor) protein levels, consistent with the decrease in ERK activation observed. Taken together, our results show that Gem and Brm act antagonistically to modulate the EGFR–Ras–MAPK signaling pathway, by affecting Mek levels during Drosophila development.

Clustering and labeling a web scale document collection using Wikipedia clusters

Clustering is an important technique in organising and categorising web scale documents. The main challenges faced in clustering the billions of documents available on the web are the processing power required and the sheer size of the datasets available. More importantly, it is nigh impossible to generate the labels for a general web document collection containing billions of documents and a vast taxonomy of topics. However, document clusters are most commonly evaluated by comparison to a ground truth set of labels for documents. This paper presents a clustering and labeling solution where the Wikipedia is clustered and hundreds of millions of web documents in ClueWeb12 are mapped on to those clusters. This solution is based on the assumption that the Wikipedia contains such a wide range of diverse topics that it represents a small scale web. We found that it was possible to perform the web scale document clustering and labeling process on one desktop computer under a couple of days for the Wikipedia clustering solution containing about 1000 clusters. It takes longer to execute a solution with finer granularity clusters such as 10,000 or 50,000. These results were evaluated using a set of external data.

Ireland, plain packaging, and the olive revolution

A world leader in public health, Australia introduced plain packaging of tobacco products. Julia Gillard – the Prime Minister of Australia at the time responsible for plain packaging – has observed: “Since 1 December 2012, cigarettes packets in Australia do not sparkle with gold or silver and do not have any other way to catch and please the eye. They’re a uniform drab colour, with most of the box taken up with the most graphic health warnings. Gruesome pictures of disease perhaps better described as real pictures of the ugly truth.”