Battling in a virtual world: a proposal for increased copyright protection of multimedia products in Australia

This article discusses the adequacy of copyright protection afforded to multimedia products pursuant to the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) and in response to international obligations. The paper critically evaluates the effect that the most recent amendments to the Copyright Act have had on the protection of copyright in multimedia products. An outline of some practical measures of protection available to copyright owners as alternatives or complements to the current statutory regime is provided, ultimately concluding that the current legislative protection is ineffective. The paper closes by considering possible future reform by way of statutory amendments to the Copyright Act aimed at increasing protection of copyright in multimedia products.

Copyright Protection of object-oriented software

language (such as C++ and Java). The model used allows to insert watermarks on three “orthogonal” levels. For the first level, watermarks are injected into objects. The second level watermarking is used to select proper variants of the source code. The third level uses transition function that can be used to generate copies with different functionalities. Generic watermarking schemes were presented and their security discussed.

Multimedia copyright protection

Internet and its widespread usage for multimedia document distribution put the copyright issue in a complete new setting. Multimedia documents, specifically those installed on a web page, are no longer passive as they typically include active applets. Copyright protection safeguards the intellectual property (IP) of multimedia documents, which are either sold or distributed free of charge. In this Chapter, the basic tools for copyright protection are discussed. First, general concepts and the vocabulary used in copyright protection of multimedia documents are discussed. Later, taxonomy of watermarking and fingerprinting techniques are studied. This part is concluded by a review of the literature dealing with IP security. The main part of the chapter discusses the generic watermarking scheme and illustrates it on three specific examples: collusion-free watermarking, spread spectrum watermarking, and software fingerprinting. Future trends and conclusions close the chapter.

Governing a copyright culture in post-WTO China : copyright in the film and music industries, 2001 - 2005

In 2001 China amended its copyright law in accordance with the requirements of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS). This thesis explores the impact of copyright reform on China’s domestic film and music industries. Through extensive interviews with film and music industry workers – directors, producers, executives, judges, lawyers and musicians – it investigates the role of copyright in film and music’s shift from state driven to commercially focussed. The construction and negotiation of a new ‘copyright culture’ in China is examined through the lens of Yurchak’s (1999) concept of ‘entrepreneurial governmentality.’ Administrative structures put in place prior to China’s economic reform are no longer capable of controlling film and music production and consumption and new approaches to managing it are becoming more important. High levels of unauthorised distribution are forcing these industries to adapt their business models so that they can function in a system with weak copyright protection. Legal, economic and political changes have resulted in the emergence of an ‘entrepreneurial governmentality’ among film and music industry professionals. This commercially focussed group is, in turn, increasing pressure on the state to expand the space in which it can function and support efforts to strengthen the copyright system that allows it to exist. It is suggested that the construction and negotiation of a new ‘copyright culture’ is now taking place. This thesis describes the current situation in the film and music industries. It examines the tension between the theoretical possibilities created by copyright law, and the practical challenges of operating in China. It observes innovative business models being applied by film and music businesses in China. It discusses the impact of traditional attitudes to copying and also examines the role that open licensing models might play in helping limit the negative effects of copyright protection on public access to content and in raising levels of education about copyright among key groups within the community.

The government as proprietor, preserver and user of copyright material under the Copyright Act 1968 (CTH)

This thesis examines the role of government as proprietor, preserver and user of copyright material under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) and the policy considerations which Australian law should take into account in that role. There are two recurring themes arising in this examination which are significant to the recommendations and conclusions. The first is whether the needs and status of government should be different from private sector institutions, which also obtain copyright protection under the law. This theme stems from the 2005 Report on Crown Copyright by the Copyright Law Review Committee and the earlier Ergas Committee Report which are discussed in Chapters 2 and 8 of this thesis. The second is to identify the relationship between government copyright law and policy, national cultural policy and fundamental governance values. This theme goes to the essence of the thesis. For example, does the law and practice of government copyright properly reflect technological change in the way we now access and use information and does it facilitate the modern information management principles of government? Is the law and practice of government copyright consistent with the greater openness and accountability of government? The thesis concludes that government copyright law and practice in each of the three governmental roles recognised under the Copyright Act 1968 has not responded adequately to the information age and to the desire and the ability of individuals to access information quickly and effectively. The solution offered in this thesis is reform of the law and of public policy that is in step with access to information policy, the promotion of better communication and interaction with the community, and the enhanced preservation of government and private copyright materials for reasons of government accountability, effective administration and national culture and heritage.

Closing the gap between copyright and designs : an age of enlightnement or state of confusion?

The arena of intellectual property encompasses streams that often interrelate and overlap in protecting different aspects of intellectual property. Australian commentators suggest that ‘one of the most troublesome areas in the entire field of intellectual property has been the relationship between copyright protection for artistic works under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) and protection for registered designs under the Designs Act 1906 (Cth).’ [McKeough, J., Stewart, A., & Griffith, P. (2004). Intellectual property in Australia (3rd ed.). Chatswood, NSW: Butterworths.] [Ricketson, S., Richardson, M., & Davison, M. (2009). Intellectual property: Cases, materials and commentary (4th ed.). Chatswood, NSW: LexisNexis Butterworths.] This overlap has caused much confusion for both creators of artistic works and industrial designs, as there is an uncertainty of whether protection against infringement is afforded under the Copyright Act 1988 (Cth) or whether the Designs Act 2003 (Cth) will apply. In Australia, there is limited precedent that examines the crossover between copyright and designs. Essentially, the cases that have tested this issue remain unclear as to whether a design applied industrially will invoke copyright protection. The cases demonstrate that there is an inconsistency in this area despite the aims of the new provisions of the Designs Act 2003 (Cth) to close the loopholes between copyright and designs. This paper will discuss and evaluate the relationship between copyright protection for artistic works and protection for registered designs with respect to the Designs Act 2003 (Cth).

Copyright and computer generated materials : is it time to reboot the discussion about authorship?

Computer generated materials are ubiquitous and we encounter them on a daily basis, even though most people are unaware that this is the case. Blockbuster movies, television weather reports and telephone directories all include material that is produced by utilising computer technologies. Copyright protection for materials generated by a programmed computer was considered by the Federal Court and Full Court of the Federal Court in Telstra Corporation Limited v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd. The court held that the White and Yellow pages telephone directories produced by Telstra and its subsidiary, Sensis, were not protected by copyright because they were computer-generated works which lacked the requisite human authorship. The Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) does not contain specific provisions on the subsistence of copyright in computer-generated materials. Although the issue of copyright protection for computer-generated materials has been examined in Australia on two separate occasions by independently-constituted Copyright Law Review Committees over a period of 10 years (1988 to 1998), the Committees’ recommendations for legislative clarification by the enactment of specific amendments to the Copyright Act have not yet been implemented and the legal position remains unclear. In the light of the decision of the Full Federal Court in Telstra v Phone Directories it is timely to consider whether specific provisions should be enacted to clarify the position of computer-generated works under copyright law and, in particular, whether the requirement of human authorship for original works protected under Part III of the Copyright Act should now be reconceptualised to align with the realities of how copyright materials are created in the digital era.

Creative Commons Australia and Organization for Transformative Works submission to the Australian Government’s online copyright infringement discussion paper

This submission focuses on the adverse effects that the Government’s proposals are likely to have on the legitimate use of copyright works. Copyright exists to support the production of new expression. Because new expression always builds on existing culture, any extension of copyright protection necessarily also increases the costs of creative expression. As a threshold matter, we do not believe that these further increases to the force of copyright law are justified. In recent years, the balance at the heart of copyright law has tipped too far in the direction of established producers and distributors, and now imposes unnecessary costs on ordinary creators. The available evidence does not support a further increase in the penalties and enforcement mechanisms available under copyright law.

Heretic: Copyright law and dramatic works

The production of the play Heretic in 1996 prompted a debate over copyright and the dramatic arts in Australia. The playwright David Williamson argued that the role of the writer was supreme. Although he was willing to acknowledge the contributions of other collaborators, the playwright did not believe that these interpreters deserved copyright protection. The director Wayne Harrison advocated a more collaborative vision of the performing arts. He believed that the role of the director and the position of the producer deserved greater legal recognition. Furthermore he was also willing to countenance limited rights for performers. This article argues that recognition should be accorded to all of the main collaborators in the performing arts. It contends that economic rights and moral rights should not be just limited to the writer, the director, and the producer, but they should extend to the performers and the designers.

Bloomsday: Copyright estates and cultural festivals

Copyright estates have been unduly empowered by the extension of the term of copyright protection in Europe, the United States, Australia and elsewhere. The Estate of the Irish novelist, James Joyce, has been particularly aggressive in policing his revived copyrights. The "keepers of the flame" have relied upon threats of legal action to discourage the production of derivative works based upon the canonical texts of the novelist. The Estate has also jealously guarded the reputation of the author by vetoing the use of his work in various scholarly productions. Most radically of all, the grandson Stephen Joyce threatened to take legal action to prevent the staging of "Rejoyce Dublin 2004", a festival celebrating the centenary of Bloomsday. In response, the Irish Parliament rushed through emergency legislation, entitled the Copyright and Related Rights (Amendment) Act 2004 (Ireland) to safeguard the celebrations. The legislation clarified that a person could place literary and artistic works on public exhibition, without breaching the copyright vested in such cultural texts. Arguably, though, the ad hoc legislation passed by the Irish Parliament is inadequate. The Estate of James Joyce remains free to exercise its suite of economic and moral rights to control the use and adaptation of works of the Irish novelist. It is contended that copyright law needs to be revised to promote the interests of libraries and other cultural institutions. Most notably, the defence of fair dealing should be expanded to allow for the transformative use of copyright works, particularly in respect of adaptations and derived works. There should be greater scope for compulsory licensing and crown acquisition of revived copyrights.

Albert Namatjira: copyright estates and traditional knowledge

Albert Namatjira was Australia's first Indigenous professional artist. He adapted Western-style painting to express his cultural knowledge of the Arrernte country, for which he was a traditional custodian. In his lifetime, Albert Namatjira achieved great acclaim for his exceptional ability as an artist. However, after his untimely death, he was ignored by the mainstream Australian art world, because of the aesthetic prejudices and social policies of the time. A recent exhibition entitled Seeing the Centre: The art of Albert Namatjira (1902-1959) curated by Alison French has sought to redress this neglect, and provide a retrospective of his work. The exhibition has brought to light that the copyright in the artistic works of Albert Namatjira has not been passed onto his family descendants. In June 1957, Namatjira entered into a copyright agreement with John Brackenreg, the owner of a publishing company by the name of Legend Press, and the associated Artarmon Galleries in Sydney. It was agreed that Legend Press would pay royalties to Namatjira for the sole right to reproduce all of his paintings. Following Namatjira's death in 1959, the administration of his estate passed to the Public Trustee for the Northern Territory Government. The Public Trustee of the Northern Territory Government authorised the sale of Namatjira's copyright to Legend Press in 1983, thereby ending the ability of the descendents of Namatjira to benefit from on-going income from the reproduction of his works. Senator Aden Ridgeway of the Democrats has called on the Federal Government to enter into discussions with the Northern Territory Government to buy back the copyright in Albert Namatjira's works. He argued that exclusive control of the use and reproduction of his works should be restored to his descendants, as well as the receipt of all financial benefits that result from the use and reproduction of his works under copyright protection. The Senator said: 'By doing this, we will all be rewarded, because finally, belatedly, we will be showing Albert Namatjira the reverence that he has always deserved. We will be protecting his legacy for future generations'.

Precious images: Copyright law and television broadcasts

Over the last several years, Australian media magnate Kerry Packer has sought to maximise the value of the intellectual property assets of the television station Channel Nine. He has made a concerted effort to expand the scope of copyright protection over television broadcasts screened. The television station Channel Nine has taken a number of legal actions against its rivals and competitors - including the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and Network Ten. It has alleged that the broadcasters have used substantial parts of copyrighted television broadcasts without their permission.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Copyright Law, the Creative Industries, and Internet Freedom

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a highly secretive trade agreement being negotiated between the US and eleven Pacific Rim countries, including Australia. Having obtained a fast-track authority from the United States Congress, US President Barack Obama is keen to finalise the deal. However, he was unable to achieve a resolution of the deal at recent talks in Hawaii on the TPP. A number of chapters of the TPP will affect the creative artists, cultural industries and internet freedom — including the intellectual property chapter, the investment chapter, and the electronic commerce chapter. Legacy copyright industries have pushed for longer and stronger copyright protection throughout the Pacific Rim. In the wake of the Hawaii talks, Knowledge Ecology International leaked the latest version of the intellectual property chapter of the TPP. Jamie Love of Knowledge Ecology International commented upon the leaked text about copyright law: ‘In many sections of the text, the TPP would change global norms, restrict access to knowledge, create significant financial risks for persons using and sharing information, and, in some cases, impose new costs on persons producing new knowledge goods.’ The recent leaked text reveals a philosophical debate about the nature of intellectual property law. There are mixed messages in respect of the treatment of the public domain under copyright law. In one part of the agreement on internet service providers, there is text that says that the parties recognise the need for ‘promoting innovation and creativity,’ ‘facilitating the diffusion of information, knowledge, technology, culture, and the arts’, and ‘foster competition and open and efficient markets.’ A number of countries suggested ‘acknowledging the importance of the public domain.’ The United States and Japan opposed the recognition of the public domain in this text.

Creative Commons and the creative industries

This paper explores the growing significance of legal questions to innovation and creative practice in what are now being termed the creative industries. Noting that the case for strong copyright protection as the cornerstone of innovation is highly contested, it explores the significance of Creative Commons licences as an alternative to Digital Rights Management and copyright law. It also introduces the case studies of music, online computer games, and ‘remix culture’ that are covered in this special issue of Media and Arts Law Review.

Country of Origin and Internet Publication : Applying the Berne Convention in the Digital Age

Historically, determining the country of origin of a published work presented few challenges, because works were generally published physically – whether in print or otherwise – in a distinct location or few locations. However, publishing opportunities presented by new technologies mean that we now live in a world of simultaneous publication – works that are first published online are published simultaneously to every country in world in which there is Internet connectivity. While this is certainly advantageous for the dissemination and impact of information and creative works, it creates potential complications under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (“Berne Convention”), an international intellectual property agreement to which most countries in the world now subscribe. Under the Berne Convention’s national treatment provisions, rights accorded to foreign copyright works may not be subject to any formality, such as registration requirements (although member countries are free to impose formalities in relation to domestic copyright works). In Kernel Records Oy v. Timothy Mosley p/k/a Timbaland, et al. however, the Florida Southern District Court of the United States ruled that first publication of a work on the Internet via an Australian website constituted “simultaneous publication all over the world,” and therefore rendered the work a “United States work” under the definition in section 101 of the U.S. Copyright Act, subjecting the work to registration formality under section 411. This ruling is in sharp contrast with an earlier decision delivered by the Delaware District Court in Håkan Moberg v. 33T LLC, et al. which arrived at an opposite conclusion. The conflicting rulings of the U.S. courts reveal the problems posed by new forms of publishing online and demonstrate a compelling need for further harmonization between the Berne Convention, domestic laws and the practical realities of digital publishing. In this article, we argue that even if a work first published online can be considered to be simultaneously published all over the world it does not follow that any country can assert itself as the “country of origin” of the work for the purpose of imposing domestic copyright formalities. More specifically, we argue that the meaning of “United States work” under the U.S. Copyright Act should be interpreted in line with the presumption against extraterritorial application of domestic law to limit its application to only those works with a real and substantial connection to the United States. There are gaps in the Berne Convention’s articulation of “country of origin” which provide scope for judicial interpretation, at a national level, of the most pragmatic way forward in reconciling the goals of the Berne Convention with the practical requirements of domestic law. We believe that the uncertainties arising under the Berne Convention created by new forms of online publishing can be resolved at a national level by the sensible application of principles of statutory interpretation by the courts. While at the international level we may need a clearer consensus on what amounts to “simultaneous publication” in the digital age, state practice may mean that we do not yet need to explore textual changes to the Berne Convention.