Wildash v Klein: 2004

(Supreme Court of the Northern Territory – Australia) The parties, two women, each of whom made craftwork depicting local wildlife for sale at markets. Initially they co-operated but later each accused the other of copyright infringement. The craftworks were made of wire, glass rods, glass nuggets, copper foil and other materials.
Held: They were sculptures or, alternatively, works of artistic craftsmanship. The court set out Australian authority indicating that the word ‘sculpture’ must be given its ordinary meaning. Angel J cited Laddie J in Metix in referring to the need not to extend the meaning of the word beyond the ordinary public’s perception and the reference to the artist’s hand. He also cited from other Australian authority which held that: ‘a sculpture should in some way express in three-dimensional form an idea of the sculptor’, repeating Laddie Js’ theme. He held that the works in his case expressed such an idea. They were ‘designed to have aesthetic appeal to potential purchasers.’


Angel J


(2004) 61 IPR 324, [2004] NTSC 17, (2004) 16 NTLR 66, [2004] AIPC 91-982




CitedMetix (UK) Ltd v G H Maughan (Plastics) Ltd ChD 1997
The plaintiff sought protect its products by claiming copyright protection in the moulds made for making industrial products (twin cartridges like a double-barrelled syringe, which held products prior to their being mixed) The plaintiff claimed that . .

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Intellectual Property

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.442602