Talk:Australian copyright law
|
|
Someone who knows what they're doing (not me) needs to update this article with how the free trade agreement changes Australian copright legislation (eg is the change retroactive?)
The timeline is already large enough for its own article, even without the missing cases. Also missing: lack of doctrine of first sale, Australian meaning of public domain, the influence of overseas cases on the courts, mention of location of origin/author/copy/use, assignment of ownership, ...
- zig 23:00, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Added disputed tag. The Australia-US free trade agreement that came into effect on 1 January 2005 included copyright provisions that substantially outdated this page. Drew Devereux 05:01, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- <http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/okbooks.html> and various private communications via the Gutenberg lists say that it's not retroactive; Australian law is effectively authors living in 1955 or later. Note Gutenberg-Australia has not taken down a bunch of books they would have to. --Prosfilaes 15:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
- Absolutely right. Nonetheless the free trade agreement has rendered the article incorrect. For example, the text
- Australia uses a "plus 50" rule for determining when a work will enter the public domain
- is no longer correct. It is important that potential readers of the article are made aware that the article is not correct, hence the disputed tag. Drew Devereux 11:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
- Absolutely right. Nonetheless the free trade agreement has rendered the article incorrect. For example, the text
From what I have been told, recording television programs is NOT legal in Australia, for any purpose, despite the availability of devices used to record from the television, which are often sold by companies that own movie studios.
- That is too strong a statement. There is certainly no exception to copyright law that makes it legal to copy copyrighted television programs. However there is an exception that provides that you do not violate the broadcaster's copyright (i.e. in their broadcast signal) by taping for home use. The problem is, there are usually other copyrights involved: the movie itself, the soundtrack, the script on which it is based. Therefore it is generally not legal to tape for home use. If a TV station was to broadcast a movie in which all elements were in the public domain, then it would be legal to tape it for home use. It would still not be legal to tape it for other purposes, because of the copyright on the broadcast signal. IANAL. Drew Devereux 00:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm a volunteer for both PG, PGDP and PG of Australia, and have talked with Col Choat about the FTA in some detail. The FTA is not retroactive so we can get that out of the way. From what I can ascertain (I'm no lawyer either) there are basically two rules now:
- Rule 1: Any work that was published in the lifetime of the author who died in 1954 or earlier, is out of copyright.
- Rule 2: Any work that was published in the lifetime of the author who died after 1954, will be out of copyright seventy (70) years after the author's death.
Here's the holy grail though:
- 5.2 Term of Copyright Protection (Article 17.4.4)
- Australia has agreed that it will extend its term of copyright protection. In summary, the term of copyright protection for works (e.g. books, artwork and sheet music), films and sound recordings (phonograms) will need to be extended by an extra 20 years: so that the term of protection for works will move from the life of the author + 50 years, to life +70. The term of protection for sound recordings and films will need to be extended from the current 50 years, to 70 years after publication.
- The effect of the application of Article 18 of the Berne Convention, referenced in Article 17.4.5, is that there is no obligation on Australia to enact retrospective protection of copyright material that has already fallen into the public domain.
Taken from the FTA itself, which is viewable in dry form (http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/us.html) or as a plain english guide (http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/us_fta/guide/). That actual text above is from chapter 17 (http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/us_fta/guide/17.html) of the guide.
I haven't updated the article itself here yet because I want to get opinions first. --Chris Gray
Removed disputed tag, as the FTA is now represented in the article. --Chris Gray
- I added the disputed tag, and I agree with its removal. Drew Devereux 11:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)