Bannister, Judith --- "Public Access to Copyright Works Submitted to Government: Copyright Agency Ltd v New South Wales and the Implications for Information Access" [2008] FedLawRw 16; (2008) 36(3) Federal Law Review 381
[∗] Senior Lecturer, Flinders University Law School.
[1] [2008] HCA 35; (2008) 233 CLR 279 ('the surveyors' case').
[2] Copyright Agency Ltd v New South Wales [2007] FCAFC 80; (2007) 159 FCR 213.
[3] Ann Monotti, 'Nature and Basis of Crown Copyright in Official Publications' [1992] 14(9) European Intellectual Property Review 305, 306. See also: Olivia Mitchell, 'Crown Copyright in Legislation' (1991) 21 Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 351, 357.
[4] Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 8A.
[5] Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) ss 176–178.
[6] [1980] HCA 44; (1980) 147 CLR 39.
[7] Ibid 58.
[8] Known as the idea/expression dichotomy: see discussion in Staniforth Ricketson and Christopher Creswell, The Law of Intellectual Property: Copyright, Designs and Confidential Information (2nd revised ed, 2002) [1.95].
[9] There is a wealth of material that discusses potential conflict between copyright and freedom of expression. See, eg, Patricia Loughlan, 'The Marketplace of Ideas and the Idea-Expression Distinction of Copyright Law' [2002] AdelLawRw 2; (2002) 23 Adelaide Law Review 29; Jonathan Griffiths and Uma Suthersanen (eds), Copyright and Free Speech; Comparative and International Analyses (2005); Paul Torremans (ed), Copyright and Human Rights: Freedom of Expression – Intellectual Property – Privacy (2004). For a recent analysis from the United Kingdom see: Christina Angelopoulos, 'Freedom of Expression and Copyright: The Double Balancing Act' (2008) 3 Intellectual Property Quarterly 328.
[10] Ashdown v Telegraph Group [2002] Ch 149 ('Ashdown').
[11] Ibid 163.
[12] Ibid 165–166.
[13] Ibid 170.
[14] Ibid 175.
[15] Ibid 176. The defence of fair dealing for reporting current events failed.
[16] See Human Rights Act 1998 (UK) c 42.
[17] In Commonwealth v Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1980] HCA 44; (1980) 147 CLR 39, 57 Justice Mason suggested that a public interest defence might be available in copyright cases in Australia but he was not prepared to 'break new ground' and recognise it in that case. In the Federal Court case Collier Constructions Pty Ltd v Foskett Pty Ltd (1990) 19 IPR 44, 55 Justice Gummow stated that there is no public interest defence to copyright infringement in Australia. The Act includes a complex collection of exceptions to infringement and '[i]t would be an odd result if this complex of provisions, reflecting an accommodation by the legislature of a range of competing interests, were overlaid with some defence springing from the general law and defined with none of the precision apparent in the legislation'. The courts do have the discretion to determine the appropriate form of relief and in some cases may not grant an injunction. See Achos Pty Ltd v RA Bashford Consulting Pty Ltd (1997) 37 IPR 542, 569–70 involving information relating to public safety.
[18] [1980] HCA 44; (1980) 147 CLR 39.
[19] R Walsh and G Munster, State Secrets: a Detailed Assessment of the Book They Banned, Documents on Australian Defence and Foreign Policy 1968–1975 (1982), discussed in: Copyright Law Review Committee, Parliament of Australia, Crown Copyright (2005) 40.
[20] Copyright Law Review Committee, above n 19.
[21] Ibid 112.
[22] [2007] FCAFC 80; (2007) 159 FCR 213; (2008) 233 CLR 279.
[23] Ibid.
[24] In an earlier case before the Copyright Tribunal, an application by the Australian Spatial Copyright Collections Ltd to be declared a collecting society for government copying of survey plans was refused: Reference by Australian Spatial Copyright Collections Ltd [2004] ACopyT 1.
[25] Plans drafted by surveyors are categorised as 'artistic works' and protected by Australian copyright law: Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 10 definition of 'artistic works'. Maps and plans have long been protected by copyright: Sands & MacDougall Pty Ltd v Robinson [1917] HCA 14; (1917) 23 CLR 49. See discussion in Ricketson and Creswell, above n 8, [7.370]–[7.375].
[26] Copyright Agency Ltd v New South Wales [2007] FCAFC 80; (2007) 159 FCR 213.
[27] Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 35(2).
[28] Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 183, 183A.
[29] Copyright Agency Ltd v New South Wales [2007] FCAFC 80; (2007) 159 FCR 213, 217–8.
[30] Plans are held electronically in the Document and Integrated Imaging Management System ('DIIMS'). Information derived from the plans is entered in the Digital Cadastral Database ('DCDB'). The entire process is explained in great detail in the judgment of Emmett J: Copyright Agency Ltd v New South Wales [2007] FCAFC 80; (2007) 159 FCR 213, 227–37.
[31] Ibid 237.
[32] Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) ss 14, 36.
[33] Copyright Agency Ltd v New South Wales [2007] FCAFC 80; (2007) 159 FCR 213, 245.
[34] Copyright Agency Ltd v New South Wales [2007] HCA Trans 700.
[35] Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 35(2).
[36] Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 35(6).
[37] For instance, photographs commissioned for private or domestic purposes (Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 35(5)) and commissioned films and sound recordings (Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) ss 97(3), 98(3)).
[38] Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 176(2).
[39] Copyright Agency Ltd v New South Wales [2007] FCAFC 80; (2007) 159 FCR 213, 240.
[40] Ibid 241.
[41] With the other judges agreeing.
[42] Copyright Agency Ltd v New South Wales [2007] FCAFC 80; (2007) 159 FCR 213, 238.
[43] Ibid.
[44] Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 177.
[45] Copyright Law Review Committee, above n 19, 74.
[46] Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 179.
[47] Copyright Law Review Committee, above n 19, 128.
[48] Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 177.
[49] Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 29(6) – (7). An act done with the licence of the owner is one that has been authorised by the owner: Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 15.
[50] Monotti, above n 3, 314.
[51] Copyright Law Review Committee, above n 19, 77–78.
[52] Constitution s 51 (xxxi); Copyright Law Review Committee, above n 19, 78.
[53] Copyright Agency Ltd v New South Wales [2007] FCAFC 80; (2007) 159 FCR 213, 243.
[54] Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 183(8).
[55] With the other judges agreeing.
[56] Copyright Agency Ltd v New South Wales [2007] FCAFC 80; (2007) 159 FCR 213, 242.
[57] Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 29(1), (4).
[58] Copyright Agency Ltd v New South Wales [2007] FCAFC 80; (2007) 159 FCR 213, 242.
[59] Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 29.
[60] Francis, Day & Hunter v Feldman & Co [1914] 2 Ch 728, 733.
[61] Transcript of Proceedings, Copyright Agency Ltd v New South Wales (High Court of Australia, Mr D K Catterns, 16 November 2007); [2007] HCA Trans 700.
[62] See discussion in Part 5 'Consequences of Publication' in Judith Bannister 'Crossing the Public/Private Divide: Rethinking the Concept of "Publication" in an Electronic Environment' (2000) 18 Copyright Reporter 152, 164.
[63] See above, text accompanying n 50.
[64] Copyright Agency Ltd v New South Wales [2007] FCAFC 80; (2007) 159 FCR 213, 242.
[65] See: Jill McKeough, Andrew Stewart, and Philip Griffith, Intellectual Property in Australia (3rd ed, 2004) 197. The CLRC also considered the possibility that 'schools, municipal councils and land management councils' might be listed amongst State government entities included as part of the Crown: Copyright Law Review Committee, above n 19, 115.
[66] The Crown copyright provisions were reviewed by the CLRC in 2005. The CLRC would not have prevented governments from owning copyright per se, but argued that there is 'no justification for government to have a privileged position compared with other copyright owners'. The CLRC was particularly critical of Crown ownership arising from first publication. The CLRC recommended repeal of the special statutory ownership provisions: Copyright Law Review Committee, above n 19, 127-128, 129. The CLRC was subsequently disbanded and its recommendations about Crown copyright have not been implemented.
[67] Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) ss 182B–183E.
[68] Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 183.
[69] 'Unless it would be contrary to the public interest to do so': Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 183(4).
[70] Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 183(5). If agreement cannot be reached terms are fixed by the Copyright Tribunal.
[71] Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 183A.
[72] Copyright Agency Ltd v New South Wales [2007] FCAFC 80; (2007) 159 FCR 213, 243.
[73] Ibid 244.
[74] Ibid 243-4.
[75] Ibid 217–8.
[76] Copyright Agency Ltd v New South Wales [2008] HCA 35; (2008) 233 CLR 279.
[77] Ibid 301.
[78] Ibid 305 .
[79] Ibid 305.
[80] Ibid 296.
[81] Ibid 296.
[82] Transcript of Proceedings, Copyright Agency Ltd v New South Wales (High Court of Australia, Mr D K Catterns, 23 April 2008); [2008] HCA Trans 174 [760].
[83] Transcript of Proceedings, Copyright Agency Ltd v New South Wales (High Court of Australia, Mr D K Catterns, 16 November 2007); [2007] HCA Trans 700.
[84] This would then raise the problem for copyright owners of first publication by the Crown discussed above in part IV(B). A problem that is neatly avoided if no government uses are authorised by owners because the statutory licence governs everything.
[85] Copyright Agency Ltd v New South Wales [2008] HCA 35; (2008) 233 CLR 279, 301.
[86] Ibid 305.
[87] Ibid 305.
[88] Ibid 306.
[89] Ibid 305.
[90] Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 183(4) and (5).
[91] Copyright Agency Ltd v New South Wales [2008] HCA 35; (2008) 233 CLR 279, 305-306.
[92] Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth); Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic); Freedom of Information Act 1989 (NSW); Freedom of Information Act 1989 (ACT); Freedom of Information Act 1991 (SA); Freedom of Information Act 1991 (Tas); Freedom of Information Act 1992 (Qld); Freedom of Information 1992 (WA); Information Act 2002 (NT).
[93] 'Document' is defined broadly in the legislation and includes information stored electronically and in other media, and covers writing and other images, figures, and symbols that have meaning to persons qualified to interpret them. See Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) s 4; Freedom of Information Act 1989 (NSW) s 6; Freedom of Information Act 1992 (Qld) s 7; Freedom of Information Act 1991 (SA) s 4; Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic) s 5; Freedom of Information Act 1992 (WA) sch 2 cl 1: 'document' means 'record' which is then defined.
[94] Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) s 4; Freedom of Information Act 1989 (NSW) s 6; Freedom of Information Act 1992 (Qld) s 7; Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic) s 5; Freedom of Information Act 1992 (WA) sch 2 cl 4; Freedom of Information Act 1989 (ACT) s 4.
[95] Agencies, ministers and officers are not taken to have authorised or approved copyright infringements by the recipients of documents under FOI legislation: Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) s 91(2); Freedom of Information Act 1989 (ACT) s 77(2).
[96] Norrie Ross, 'Speed Cam Manual Taken Off Website', Herald Sun (Melbourne), 18 October 2007, 28.
[97] Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) s 91; Freedom of Information Act 1989 (ACT) s 77.
[98] See discussion of the issues for State government officials in Enid Campbell and Ann Monotti, 'Immunities of Agents of Government from Liability for Infringement of Copyright' (2002) 30 Federal Law Review 459, 469–71.
[99] Freedom of Information Act 1992 (Qld) s 30(3); Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic) s 23(3); Freedom of Information Act 1992 (WA) s 27(2). See discussion by Campbell and Monotti on whether this provision derogates from the right of the Crown to sue for infringement of copyright and their conclusion that it should be construed as a licence: Campbell and Monotti, above n 98, 471.
[100] Freedom of Information Act 1989 (NSW) s 27(3); Freedom of Information Act 1991 (SA) s 22(2).
[101] Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) s 20(3); see also Freedom of Information Act 1989 (ACT) s 19(3).
[102] Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) s 20(3); see also Freedom of Information Act 1989 (ACT) s 19(3).
[103] Constitution s 109. Discussed in Campbell and Monotti, above n 98, 471.
[104] See above, text accompanying n 83.
[105] FOI Independent Review Panel, The Right to Information: Reviewing Queensland's Freedom of Information Act (2008).
[106] Ibid 35.
[107] Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) s 41; Freedom of Information Act 1989 (NSW) sch 1 cl 6; Freedom of Information Act 1992 (Qld) s 44, 50A; Freedom of Information Act 1991 (SA) sch 1 cl 6; Freedom of Information Act 1991 (Tas) s 30; Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic) s 33; Freedom of Information Act 1992 (WA) sch 1 cl 3; Freedom of Information Act 1989 (ACT) s 41; Information Act (NT) s 56.
[108] Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) s 43; Freedom of Information Act 1989 (NSW) sch 1 cl 7; Freedom of Information Act 1992 (Qld) s 45; Freedom of Information Act 1991 (SA) sch 1 cl 7; Freedom of Information Act 1991 (Tas) s 31; Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic) s 34; Freedom of Information Act 1992 (WA) sch 1 cl 4; Freedom of Information Act 1989 (ACT) s 43; Information Act (NT) s 57.
[109] Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) s 45; Freedom of Information Act 1989 (NSW) sch 1 cl 13; Freedom of Information Act 1992 (Qld) s 46; Freedom of Information Act 1991 (SA) sch 1 cl 13; Freedom of Information Act 1991 (Tas) s 33; Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic) s 35; Freedom of Information Act 1992 (WA) sch 1 cl 8; Freedom of Information Act 1989 (ACT) s 45; Information Act (NT) s 55.
[110] Copyright Law Review Committee, above n 19, 51.
[111] Senator John Faulkner, 'Freedom of Information Reform' (Press Release, 22 July 2008).
[112] Incorporated into the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).
[113] Reproduction in digital and two dimensional form and electronic communication.
[114] See Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) s 12(1).