(Federal Court of Australia) What makes up the copyright work is in any given case is not governed by what the claimant alleging copyright infringement chooses to say that it is. It is rather a matter for objective determination by the court.
Asutlii ‘COPYRIGHT – copyright subsists in an entire work, not in a part or element of a work – copyright in fabric as a ‘work of artistic craftsmanship’ found to exist in the appearance created by the combination of the stitch structure and selection of yarn colours – allegation of infringement of copyright by the taking of a substantial part of the stitch structure – allegation not proved because of copyright owner’s failure to identify the subject matter of its copyright and consequent failure to show that what was taken was a substantial part of that subject matter.
COPYRIGHT – ‘work of artistic craftsmanship’ – what constitutes such a work – copyright held to exist in the first item in a line of mass-produced items – Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), s 10.
COPYRIGHT – computer program – whether program used in a computerised knitting machine to knit fabric to a particular pattern a ‘computer program’ within the Act – infringement of copyright in a computer program by unauthorised adaptation – infringement not established unless infringer has access to and makes use of the copyright program in developing its own program – no infringement of copyright in computer program where alleged infringer reverse-engineers a sample of the copyright fabric and from the information as to the construction of the fabric so obtained writes its own program for use in its computerised knitting machines to make a similar fabric – Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), s 10. INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT IN COMPUTER PROGRAM – where objective similarity relevant to question of infringement – not shown by similarities identified by a comparison of the two programs at the functional level of expression of each.’
Judges:
Drummond J
Citations:
[1998] FCA 10, (1998) 41 IPR 593
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – Coffey v Warner Chappell Music Ltd, Warner Music UK Ltd and EMI Music Publishing Ltd ChD 16-May-2005
The singer had recorded a song, ‘Forever After’. She sought damages in copyright saying that a later recording by the defendants titled ‘Nothing Really Matters’ was infringing, having copied elements of the voice expression of her own performance, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property, Commonwealth
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.246815