A fair use project for Australia: Copyright law and creative freedom

This essay provides a critical assessment of the Fair Use Project based at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society. In evaluating the efficacy of the Fair Use Project, it is worthwhile considering the litigation that the group has been involved in, and evaluating its performance. Part 1 outlines the history of the Stanford Center for Internet and Society, and the aims and objectives of the Fair Use Project. Part 2 considers the litigation in Shloss v. Sweeney over a biography concerning Lucia Joyce, the daughter of the avant-garde literary great, James Joyce. Part 3 examines the dispute over the Harry Potter Lexicon. Part 4 looks at the controversy over the Shepard Fairey poster of President Barack Obama, and the resulting debate with Associated Press. Part 5 of the essay considers the intervention of the Fair Use Project as an amicus curiae in the ‘Column case’. Part 6 explores the participation of the Fair Use Project as an amicus curiae in the litigation over 60 Years Later, an unauthorised literary sequel to J.D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye. Part 7 of the essay investigates the role of the Fair Use project in disputes over copyright law and musical works. Part 8 investigates the role of the Fair Use Project as an advocate in disputes over copyright law, fair use, documentary films, and internet videos. The conclusion has main three arguments. First, it contends that Australia should establish a Fair Use Project to support creative artists in litigation over copyright exceptions. Second, it maintains that Australia should adopt a flexible, open-ended defence of fair use, and draw upon the rich jurisprudence in the United States on the fair use doctrine. Finally, this paper argues that support should be given at an international level to the proposal for a Treaty on Access to Knowledge.

Gossip we can trust: Defamation law and non-fiction

Drawing on two case studies, this article considers the allegation of a disgruntled author: ’Defamation was framed to protect the reputations of 19th century gentlemen hypocrites'. The first case study considers the litigation over Bob Ellis' unreliable political memoir, ’Goodbye Jerusalem', published by Random House. The second case study focuses upon the litigation over the allegation by Media Watch that Richard Carleton had plagarised a documentary entitled ’Cry from the Grave'. The article considers the meaning of defamatory imputations, the range of defences, and the available remedies. It highlights the competing arguments over the protection of reputation and privacy, artistic expression, and the freedom of speech. This article concludes that defamation law should foster ’gossip we can trust'.

Damned to fame: The moral rights of the Beckett estate

The Company B production of Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot raises important questions about copyright law, moral rights, and dramatic works. The playwright's nephew and executor, Edward Beckett, threatened to bring a legal action against the Sydney company for breach of contract on the grounds that unauthorised music appeared in the production. The Company B production denied that the contract made any such express provisions. The director Neil Armfield complained: 'In coming here with its narrow prescriptions, its dead controlling hand, the Beckett estate seems to me to be the enemy of art'. In the biography Damned to fame, James Knowlson documents a number of other proceedings taken by Beckett and his agents to control the productions of his work: 'He was often represented as a tyrannical figure, an arch-controller of his work, ready to unleash fiery thunderbolts onto the head of any bold, innovative director, unwilling to follow his text and stage directions to the last counted dot and precisely timed pause.' However, Knowlson notes that Beckett was inconsistent in his willingness to use legal action: 'It made a tremendous difference if he liked and respected the persons involved or if he had been able to listen to their reasons for wanting to attempt something highly innovative or even slightly different'. Famously, in 1988, Beckett brought legal action against a Dutch theatre company, which wanted to stage a production of Waiting for Godot, with women acting all the roles. His lawyer argued that the integrity of the text was violated because actresses were substituted for the male actors asked for in the text. The judge in the Haarlem court ruled that the integrity of the play had not been violated, because the performance showed fidelity to the dialogue and the stage directions of the play. By contrast, in 1992, a French court held a stage director was liable for an infringement of Beckett's moral right of integrity because the director had staged Waiting for Godot with the two lead roles played by women. In 1998, a United States production of Waiting for Godot with a racially mixed cast attracted legal threats amid accusations it had 'injected race into the play'. In the 2000 New York Fringe Festival, a company made light of this ongoing conflict between the Beckett estate and artistic directors. The work was entitled: The complete lost works of Samuel Beckett as found in an envelope (partially burned) in a dustbin in Paris labelled 'Never to be performed. Never. Ever. EVER! Or I'll sue! I'LL SUE FROM THE GRAVE!'. The plot concerned a fight between three producers and the Beckett estate. In the wake of such disputes, Beckett and later his estate sought to tighten production contracts to state that no additions, omissions or alterations should be made to the text of the play or the stage directions and that no music, special effects or other supplements should be added without prior consent.