Swarbrick v Burge: 26 Apr 2007

Austlii (High Court of Australia) Copyright – Artistic works – Works of artistic craftsmanship – The respondent obtained an injunction against infringement by the appellants of the respondent’s ownership of copyright in works constituted by a ‘plug’ from which a mould for a yacht hull could be derived, and in the hull and deck mouldings of that yacht – Whether works protected by copyright or should have been protected, if at all, under the designs registration law.
Copyright – Artistic works – Works of artistic craftsmanship – Whether ‘work of artistic craftsmanship’ is a composite phrase to be construed as a whole – Relevance of aesthetic appeal to the existence of a work of artistic craftsmanship – Relevance of machine production to the existence of a work of artistic craftsmanship – Relevance of functional or utilitarian constraints to the existence of a work of artistic craftsmanship – Whether the ‘plug’ and mouldings constituted works of artistic craftsmanship.
Copyright – Anti-overlap provisions – Interaction between the statutory protection of copyright and designs – Absence of registered ‘corresponding design’ – Exclusion of copyright protection in the three-dimensional reproduction of artistic works, other than works of artistic craftsmanship, where the ‘corresponding design’ has been ‘applied industrially’ – Whether the ‘plug’ and mouldings were protected by copyright.
Intellectual property – Anti-overlap provisions – Interaction between statutory protection of copyright and designs – Position of works of artistic craftsmanship in the statutory scheme – Meaning of ‘corresponding design’.
Words and phrases – ‘applied industrially’, ‘artistic work’, ‘corresponding design’, ‘work of artistic craftsmanship’.
Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Heydon, Crennan JJ
(2007) 232 CLR 336, [2007] HCA 17, 81 ALJR 950
Austlii
Australia
Cited by:
CitedLucasfilm Ltd and Others v Ainsworth and Another SC 27-Jul-2011
The claimant had produced the Star War films which made use of props, in particular a ‘Stormtrooper’ helmet designed by the defendant. The defendant had then himself distributed models of the designs he had created. The appellant obtained judgment . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 May 2021; Ref: scu.442600