References: [2009] AIPC 92-335, [2009] HCA 14, (2009) 239 CLR 458, (2009) 254 ALR 386, (2009) 83 ALJR 585, (2009) 80 IPR 451
Links: Austlii
Coram: French CJ
Austlii High Court of Australia – Intellectual property – Copyright – Literary work – Compilation – Infringement – Production by employees of Nine Network Australia Pty Limited (‘Nine’) of weekly schedules of television programmes to be broadcast on television stations within Nine Network (‘Weekly Schedules’) – Information from Weekly Schedules used by third parties, with licence from Nine, to produce ‘Aggregated Guides’ containing programme schedules for various television stations – Production by employees of IceTV Pty Limited of electronic programme guide for television using information from Aggregated Guides – Subsistence of copyright in each Weekly Schedule admitted – Alleged infringement of copyright by reproduction of substantial part of Weekly Schedules – Whether reproduction of ‘substantial part’ – Quality of part reproduced – Originality – Information/expression dichotomy – Appropriation of ‘skill and labour’ – Relevance of skill and labour devoted to programming decisions – Relevance of competing interests and policy considerations – Animus furandi.
Intellectual property – Copyright – Literary work – Compilation – Subsistence – Need to identify author, and time of making or first publication, of work – Originality – Kind of skill and labour required – ‘Sweat of the brow’ and ‘industrious collection’ compared with ‘creativity’.
Intellectual property – Copyright – Literary work – Compilation – Subsistence – Weekly Schedules produced using computer database – Whether database also work in suit – Whether Weekly Schedules same work.
Words and phrases – ‘animus furandi’, ‘author’, ‘compilation’, ‘information/expression dichotomy’, ‘originality’, ‘skill and labour’, ‘substantial part’.
This case is cited by:
- Cited – The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and Others -v- Meltwater Holding Bv and Others ChD (Bailii, [2010] EWHC 3099 (Ch))
The claimant newspapers complained of the spidering of the web-sites and redistribution of the materials collected by the defendants to its subscribers. The defendants including the Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA) denied that they . .