copyright

You are currently browsing articles tagged copyright.

In Aus­tralia, for pub­lished works where the author is iden­ti­fi­able, the dur­a­tion of copy­right is 70 years from the death of the author. This applies even if it is work per­formed under employ­ment for a com­pany; even if the com­pany ulti­mately owns the copy­right, the length of copy­right pro­tec­tion is meas­ured by ref­er­ence to the human author’s lifespan.

This can seem rather counter-​​intuitive for the unini­ti­ated, and for many “company-​​produced” works, like com­mer­cial soft­ware, it is quite dif­fi­cult to determ­ine the authors of that work, and hence when it will fall into the pub­lic domain.

On the other hand, United States copy­right law has a notion of cor­por­ate author­ship: copy­right expires 70 years after the death of the author (as in Aus­tralia), but for works of cor­por­ate author­ship, copy­right expires 120 years after cre­ation or 95 years after pub­lic­a­tion, whichever is earlier.

120 years does sound quite extreme, and the U.S. Act that exten­ded pro­tec­tion to this extent has been, per­haps right­fully, chided as the “Mickey Mouse Pro­tec­tion Act” — how­ever, the Aus­tralian Act isn’t really much bet­ter. If you assume that the aver­age author is 40 years old and dies at 75 years, and cor­por­ate works are pub­lished not long after they are cre­ated, that’s 105 years of copy­right pro­tec­tion on aver­age. And since the dur­a­tion of copy­right of works of joint author­ship (as would be many cor­por­ate works) extends to 70 years after the death of the last sur­viv­ing author, the U.S. Act could, in many cases, res­ult in a shorter copy­right term than under the Aus­tralian Act. How­ever, if the authors of the work can­not be ascer­tained by reas­on­able inquiry (i.e. for anonym­ous or pseud­onym­ous works, a cat­egory that some cor­por­ate works might fall into), then copy­right only extends to 70 years after pub­lic­a­tion in Australia.

Tags: ,

On 22 April 2009, the High Court of Aus­tralia handed down the decision of IceTV v Nine Net­work Aus­tralia [2009] HCA 14, in which IceTV was held not to have infringed Nine’s copy­right in its weekly sched­ule of pro­grammes, when it used data from them to pop­u­late its elec­tronic pro­gramme guides for use on digital tele­vi­sions. It was an eagerly awaited decision, as it was expec­ted to cla­rify the extent of the mono­poly that copy­right hold­ers have over their com­pil­a­tions of fac­tual data, an issue of import­ance in our data-​​driven economy.

Back­ground

Nine exec­ut­ives cre­ate a “Weekly Sched­ule” for each week, show­ing the order of pro­grammes on each day (amongst other things), and these sched­ules are sent to the “Aggreg­at­ors”, who pro­duce tele­vi­sion guides for use by the pub­lic. IceTV makes an elec­tronic pro­gramme guide called Ice­Guide, but unlike the Aggreg­at­ors, they have no licence from Nine to do so. Instead, to cre­ate their Ice­Guide, an IceTV employee watched lots of tele­vi­sion to cre­ate tem­plates for each sta­tion (pos­sible because tele­vi­sion pro­gram­ming tend to be reg­u­lar and pre­dict­able), and week by week vari­ations would then be cor­rec­ted by ref­er­ence to the pub­lic Aggreg­ated Guides. IceTV took time and title inform­a­tion from the Aggreg­ated Guides, as there would have been no other way that they could have found these out before the shows actu­ally screened.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , ,

IceTV won today in its appeal to the High Court over the use of Chan­nel Nine’s TV sched­ules in its elec­tronic pro­gram guide product.

Update @ 12:15 PM: See IceTV’s vic­tory blog post, and freshly released, the High Court judg­ment (only 49 pages!).

Update: See my case note and ana­lysis here.

22 Apr 2009 by Enoch Lau | 4 comments

Free Tet­ris iPhone App, Tris Will Be Removed Soon: so that’s what has happened to it. I hon­estly can’t see how a claim of copy­right would pre­vent the cre­ation of a Tet­ris clone, and it’s a poor reflec­tion on the law that the author felt com­pelled to with­draw it because he can­not afford to defend him­self in court.

16 Sep 2008 by Enoch Lau | No comments