{"id":3685,"date":"2012-05-29T18:01:16","date_gmt":"2012-05-29T08:01:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/?p=3685"},"modified":"2012-05-29T18:01:16","modified_gmt":"2012-05-29T08:01:16","slug":"australian-intellectual-property-journal-update-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/2012\/05\/29\/australian-intellectual-property-journal-update-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Australian Intellectual Property Journal update"},"content":{"rendered":"

The latest issue of the Australian\u00c2\u00a0Intellectual Property\u00c2\u00a0Journal<\/em> (Volume\u00c2\u00a022 Part 4) contains the following material:<\/p>\n

EDITORIAL<\/a><\/p>\n

Articles<\/h3>\n

Graduated response schemes and the question of parental liability<\/a> <\/em><\/strong>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c John Bourke<\/p>\n

In Australia, copyright holders are making a strong push for the introduction of a graduated response scheme. Though there are variants, the archetype of the graduated response scheme is the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153three strike\u00e2\u20ac\u009d policy whereby internet users are warned when they are detected infringing copyright on the internet; after the third infringement, the user\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s connection may be terminated. However, because an account holder may not be responsible for the infringement, with these schemes comes the possibility of users being disconnected from the internet despite having committed no wrong. Parents who allow their children to use the internet at home are therefore susceptible to disconnection when their child infringes copyright, and this raises an important question: are parents legally responsible for their child\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s copyright infringement on the internet? This article considers this question by examining: (1) the doctrine of parent liability in tort law; (2) the doctrine of authorisation liability in copyright law; and (3) the grounds for liability in ISP contracts.<\/p>\n

To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Authorisation under copyright law and \u00e2\u20ac\u0153the nature of any relationship\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/a> <\/em><\/strong>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Brendan Scott<\/p>\n

In this article the author argues that recent authority on authorisation under Australian copyright law has not honoured the requirement that the primary infringement must have been consequent on the alleged authorisation. This appears to be the result of too robust an application of the judgment of Gibbs J in University of New South Wales v Moorhouse (1975) 133 CLR 1 in approaching s 101(1A) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). The author argues that the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153nature of any relationship\u00e2\u20ac\u009d between the alleged authoriser and the primary infringer is a critical factor in determining authorisation; one which is implicit in Gibbs J\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s judgment and one which colours other factors such as the power to prevent. The article argues that the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153nature of any relationship\u00e2\u20ac\u009d must be such as to support a communication of the alleged authorisation and to allow the primary infringer\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s actions to be consequent on the alleged authorisation, and that this requires a consideration of the primary infringer\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s receipt of the alleged authorisation.<\/p>\n

To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Copyrighting clothing: The US \u00e2\u20ac\u0153fashion Bill\u00e2\u20ac\u009d as a model for fashion design protection in Australia<\/a> <\/em><\/strong>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Madeleine Sy Chan<\/p>\n

In both the US and Australia, the fashion industry has operated with limited intellectual property protection for garment designs. This has led to efforts to increase fashion design protection in the US. Amid continued debate over whether such protection is required, this article considers whether the latest attempt \u00e2\u20ac\u201c the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act \u00e2\u20ac\u201c is an appropriate model of fashion design protection for Australia. It is argued that in substance, the Bill strikes the proper balance of competing interests of designers and the public, by only rewarding those designs which are most worthy of protection. However, as an amendment to the Copyright Act 1976 (US), the form of protection is inappropriate due to the differences in US and Australian copyright law. Three options are proposed to enhance fashion design protection in Australia, with the ultimate recommendation that sui generis protection is most appropriate.<\/p>\n

To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n

For the pdf version of the table of contents, click here:\u00c2\u00a0AIPJ Vol 22 Pt 4 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Click here to access this Part on Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The final Part of Volume 22 of the Australian Intellectual Property Journal includes articles on graduated response schemes and the question of parental liability; authorisation under copyright law and \u00e2\u20ac\u0153the nature of any relationship\u00e2\u20ac\u009d; and the US Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act as a model for fashion design protection in Australia. Not to be missed!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[192,39],"tags":[191,1994,1995,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001],"class_list":["post-3685","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-australian-intellectual-property-journal","category-update-summaries","tag-aipj","tag-brendan-scott","tag-copyright-law","tag-fashion-design-protection","tag-graduated-response-schemes","tag-innovative-design-protection-and-piracy-prevention-act","tag-john-bourke","tag-madeleine-sy-chan","tag-parental-liability"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3685","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3685"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3685\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3685"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3685"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3685"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}