In Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd v EMI Songs Australia Pty Limited [2009] FCA 799, Jacobson J determined in favour of the applicant Larrikin, a preliminary point in relation to the ownership of copyright in the song “Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree”, said to be infringed by the Men at Work classic “Down Under”.

The respondents EMI raised two issues in relation to the ownership of the copyright in Kookaburra, namely whether the author, Marion Sinclair, assigned her copyright in the song to the Girl Guides Association of Victoria, via her entry of the song in a competition held in 1934 and if not, whether various deeds of assignment were effective to assign copyright in the song to Larrikin.

The Productivity Commission, the Australian Government’s independent research and advisory body on a range of economic, social and environmental issues, has recommended the removal of the current Parallel Import Restrictions (PIRs) for books. The Commission recommends that repeal should take effect three years after the date that it is announced.

The Federal Court in Rutter v Brookland Valley Estate Pty Limited [2009] FCA 702 has ordered that Brookland Valley (the 2009 James Halliday Winery of the Year), pay a substantial sum in damages to Ms Jane Rutter, a prominent Australian flautist in respect of her claim for copyright infringement.

The case concerned the release by Brookland Valley in 1998 of a new brand known as the “Verse 1” range. Key to the brand concept was music and the association between Pan, as a flautist (the image and story of which is strongly connected to Brookland Valley) and Ms Rutter.  Pursuant to this concept Brookland Valley reached an agreement with Ms Rutter which included the composition of an original piece of music (which she titled “Blo”), the production of a number of CDs, various performances and interviews by Ms Rutter and the sale of wine with a label which featured, in the first instance, three staves of music, each of four bars, of Ms Rutter’s original composition.

Melbourne’s Age newspaper has reported today that Police have seized almost 7,000 pirated computer games and DVDs after raids on a computer swap meet and two private homes.

This morning’s Age newspaper report of US$1.92 million fine imposed on a Minnesota woman who illegally downloaded 24 songs contrasts markedly with the approach of Australian courts. The matter was a civil suit, with a jury deciding the penalty.

In arguably a much more serious breach of copyright, a Sydney Internet Cafe was convicted on 40 charges of copyright infringement and fined A$82,000, plus costs and forfeiture of computer equipment. Criminal penalties for copyright infringement in Australia are up to $60,500 and five years imprisonment per offence for individuals, and up to $302,500 for corporations.

While additional (punitive) damages are increasingly applied in civil copyright cases in Australia, juries are not involved in the process and damages against an individual are unlikely to be anywhere near those reported in this US case.

A recent High Court case (IceTV Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited) has reduced the copyright protection given to databases in Australia.

The case relates to copyright in TV schedules. A review of the case is available here.

Today’s Melbourne Age and Sydney Morning Herald have carried a story reporting that copyright-infringing downloads have escalated as a consequence of the economic downturn.

Read the article here.

Australia has moved from the second tier to the first in the Taylor Wessing Global Intellectual Property Index.

The index provides an assessment of IP regimes across 24 key jurisdictions.

The Attorney-General has announced the proposed abolition of the Federal Magistrates Court, with Magistrates being integrated into the Federal and Family Courts.

The majority of IP matters are heard before the Federal Court, which will consist of two tiers. The first being the existing Judges who will hear appeals and more complex matters, and the second being Magistrates, who will hear shorter less-complex matters. The involvement of Magistrates in IP matters in the new structure is unclear.

IP Australia released a new information sheet on ‘Crown Use’ provisions for patents, designs and copyright. The information sheet explains what ‘Crown Use’ is, how the provisions may be applied and your rights.