scholarly journals Moral Rights: Exploring the Myths, Meanings and Misunderstandings in Australian Copyright Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francina Cantatore ◽  
Jane Johnston

This article examines how moral rights are treated in Australian publishing contracts, and whether this approach is consistent with the expectations of authors, journalists and academics. Although, in theory, moral rights cannot be sold or assigned in Australia, the apparent wide scope for exceptions raises questions of whether there is any real protection afforded to creators under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), notably in circumstances that relate to pressure on creators to accept contractual terms in order to get published. Additionally, Australian case law reflects some uncertainty about the traditionally accepted non-economic nature of moral rights. The article examines recent case law in this field, found in Meskenas, Perez and Corby, and considers the literature associated with development of moral rights in Australia. It then presents the findings of a two-part study of moral rights in Australia; first through the results of interviews with 176 Australian authors, journalists and academics, followed by an analysis of 20 publishing contracts. It concludes that — in some, but not all, instances — a combination of the exceptions allowed under the Act and practical exigencies have diluted the unique character of authors’ moral rights and have created an environment of uncertainty.

Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  

This chapter deals firstly with the history and development of copyright law internationally and secondly with Australian copyright legislation and legislative objectives. The discussion considers the meaning of copyright and, thereafter, studies the development of the copyright framework in Australia. Recent and current copyright issues, such as the parallel importing debate, are discussed, with reference to recent USA case law. Lastly, the chapter reflects on current moral rights provisions in Australian law and concludes with reference to the 2011 Hargreaves Report and possible future implications for Australian copyright law.


2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 299-331
Author(s):  
Benjamin Hayward

International arbitration is an important area of federal jurisdiction and federal legislative competence, and has attracted significant policy attention in Australia. This paper undertakes a study of pro-arbitration judicial policy in recent arbitration-related Australian case law which touches upon the continuing applicability of the controversial 1999 Eisenwerk decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal. Against this pro-arbitration judicial policy context, this paper reviews five Eisenwerk-related cases handed down between 2010 and 2012. It concludes that despite pro-arbitration judicial policy being embedded as a requirement of reasoning in decisions under the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth), there is mixed evidence of such policy in the cases surveyed. This paper concludes that the extent to which this policy is evidenced largely corresponds with the degree to which contemporary decisions have departed from Eisenwerk.


Author(s):  
Adrian Kuenzler

This chapter analyzes existing U.S. Supreme Court case law with respect to, on the one hand, antitrust’s minimum resale price maintenance plans, bundling and tying practices, as well as refusals to deal, and, on the other hand, trademark law’s dilution, postsale, sponsorship, and initial interest confusion doctrines, including design patent and selected areas of copyright law. It demonstrates that courts, based on the free riding hypothesis, have come to protect increasing amounts of artificial shortage of everyday consumer goods and services and corresponding incentives to innovate. Through the preservation of such values, antitrust and intellectual property laws have evolved into “dilution laws” and have focused, almost exclusively, on the refurbishment of the technological supply side of our present-day digital economies rather than also on the human demand side of “creative consumption.”


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Alexander ◽  
Michael Edwards

Abstract The recent case of Geneva Trust Company SA v D and Ors [2020] JRC 104 has served to shed interesting new light on the duties of outgoing trustees regarding disclosure of documents and information (in other words, trust records) by a retiring trustee to a new trustee. The general principles of Jersey law in this area are relatively well-defined, as per the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 (the Trusts Law) and a not inconsiderable body of case law derived from the Royal Court in Jersey as well as of the courts of England and Wales. However, it is useful to both professional trustees and legal practitioners alike when the Court provides further elucidation. The Geneva Trust Company case centred around the transfer of trust records for the D Discretionary Trust (the DDT) from the former trustee, Geneva Trust Company SA (formerly known as Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees SA) (the Former Trustee) to the current joint trustees, Fort Trustees Limited and Balchan Management Limited (collectively, the Current Trustees).


Author(s):  
P. Bernt Hugenholtz ◽  
João Pedro Quintais

AbstractThis article queries whether and to what extent works produced with the aid of AI systems – AI-assisted output – are protected under EU copyright standards. We carry out a doctrinal legal analysis to scrutinise the concepts of “work”, “originality” and “creative freedom”, as well as the notion of authorship, as set forth in the EU copyright acquis and developed in the case-law of the Court of Justice. On this basis, we develop a four-step test to assess whether AI-assisted output qualifies as an original work of authorship under EU law, and how the existing rules on authorship may apply. Our conclusion is that current EU copyright rules are generally suitable and sufficiently flexible to deal with the challenges posed by AI-assisted output.


2011 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Knowler ◽  
Charles Rickett

Joint Ventures are often used by parties in commercial enterprises where parties seek to achieve a common goal. One issue which is increasingly contentious is the extent to which, if any, joint venture parties owe each other fiduciary obligations. This paper refutes, as a dangerous heresy, the idea that joint venture relationships are discrete legal relationships that are inherently fiduciary in nature. The majority of self-styled "joint ventures" are, invariably, nothing more in legal terms than contracts. If parties are going to be bound by fiduciary duties, over and above the contractual duties they owe each other, this will only be so by virtue of the particular arrangement they have entered into which, on a thorough examination of the facts, is found to require each party to give unstinting loyalty to the other. Recent Australian case law bears this out.


2001 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 662-669
Author(s):  
Bridget Dolan
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document