case of a photograph commissioned for a "private or domestic purpose", the copyright will be owned by

the commissioner of the work. The "private and domestic purposes" condition took effect on 30 July
1998, prior to this the copyright of all commissioned photographs was assigned to the commissioner.
[31]

A copyright notice (©) is not required on a work to gain copyright, but only the copyright owner is
entitled to place a notice. It is useful in publishing the date of first publication and the owner. Where a
copyright notice is used, the onus in infringement proceedings is on the defendant to show that
copyright does not subsist or is not owned by the person stated in the notice.

Government-owned copyright

Main article: Crown Copyright

The Australian Commonwealth and State governments routinely own copyright in Australia. While this
could be seen as being due to the concept of the Crown being traditionally paramount rather than the
people,[clarification needed] it is more influenced by the then British Commonwealth acting as a
copyright policy-making body in the 1950s, which was the basis of the Copyright Act 1968.

The Australian government does not infringe copyright if its actions (or those of an authorised person)
are for the government. A "relevant collecting society" may sample government copies and charge the
government.

The State governments follow different practices in regard to licensing, fees and waivers.

The Australian Attorney-General's Copyright Law Review Committee completed a large review of Crown
Copyright in April 2005. In summary, the Committee recommended that the Crown be treated like any
other employer (i.e., owner of material produced by its employees), and that for certain materials
(legislation, government reports, commissions of inquiry reports) either copyright be removed, or a
generous and generalised licence be granted for re-use. As of early 2007, several governments appear to
be considering the use of open licences modelled along the lines of the Creative Commons model.

Copyrights owned by the Crown in Australia have different durations to publicly held copyrights, as
below:

Published literary, dramatic or musical works (includes published official records) 50 years after
the end of the year in which the work is first published
Unpublished literary, dramatic, musical works Copyright subsists indefinitely (see below)

Artistic works 50 years from the end of the year when made

Photographs 50 years from the end of the year when made

The indefinite copyright term for unpublished works was abolished by the Copyright (Disabilities and
Other Measures) Act 2017. This part of the Act comes into effect on 1 January 2019. As of that date,
Crown Copyright for unpublished works expires 50 years after it was made.[19]

Notable cases

Carpets case (1994)

Further information: Milpurrurru v Indofurn Pty Ltd and Indigenous intellectual property

The "Carpets Case" was one of three Federal Court judgments in the 1990s involving the use of
copyright law relating to Indigenous cultural and intellectual property (ICIP).[26]

In 1993, it was found that a number of designs by Aboriginal artists had been reproduced without
permission on rugs made in Vietnam and marketed by the Perth-based company Indofurn Pty Ltd.[32]
[33] Banduk Marika, George Milpurrurru, Tim Payungka Tjapangarti, and five other artists or their
estates moved to seek reparations under the Copyright Act 1968 and Trade Practices Act,[34][33] in a
case that became known as the "carpets case".[35] Officially it is referred to as Milpurrurru v Indofurn
Pty Ltd.[36]

In 1994,[37] after a trial lasting 14 days,[38] Justice John von Doussa in the Federal Court of Australia,
[39] saying that the copyright infringements had been "plainly deliberate and calculated",[40] awarded
damages of A$188,000 to the artists as a group, in line with their wishes, and ordered that the rugs be
released to them. This was the largest penalty awarded for copyright infringement against Australian
artists up to that time, and included compensation for cultural damage stemming from the unauthorised
use of sacred imagery,[34] and in particular the "cultural hurt suffered by the artists as a result of the
company’s persistent denial of their copyright". However no damages were ever paid to the artists or
their next-of-kin, because the company was declared bankrupt and wound up.[38]

Michael Blakeney (1995) noted that the Carpets Case had represented an improvement on an earlier
case, Yumbulul v Reserve Bank of Australia[40] 1991, in which Galpu clan artist Terry Yumbulul's
Morning Star Pole had been reproduced on the ten-dollar note,[39][41][42] in terms of protection of
Aboriginal works and folklore. However, the Copyright Act "requires creators who are in a position to
assert copyright ownership", which proves a problem where the designs had been created more than
the specified time after the creator's death; in the case of many ancient designs, it is impossible to
identify the creator.[40] Erin Mackay of the Indigenous Law Centre at UNSW (2009) wrote that the case
has been noted as an important one in Indigenous case law because of the damages awarded for the
cultural harm done; however, the Act does not provide "judicial recognition of the nature and
obligations of Indigenous groups in establishing copyright ownership".[43] Bulun Bulun v R & T Textiles
(T-Shirts case) (1998) was the third case involving copyright law and ICIP,[26][44] and was the subject of
further legal analysis relating to the protecting Indigenous art, and its relationship to Indigenous
communal moral rights (ICMR).[39]

Copyright Tribunal

The Copyright Tribunal of Australia was established under the Copyright Act 1968, and has specific
powers relating to royalties and licensing. It is an independent body which is administered by the
Federal Court of Australia, consisting of three Federal Court judges who act as President and Deputy
President, and other members who are appointed by the Governor-General of Australia.[45]

The Tribunal's key function is to determine remuneration payable under the licence schemes provided
for under the Copyright Act, such as provisions that permit reproduction of certain copyright materials
by educational institutions, institutions assisting persons with certain disabilities, and government
agencies. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to confirm or vary an existing or proposed voluntary licence
scheme, or substitute a new scheme, where it has been referred to it by a party.[46]

Collecting societies

A number of copyright collecting societies operate in Australia. Collecting societies are established to
collect royalties for uses of copyright material on behalf of authors and copyright owners: they assist to
overcome the significant transaction costs that would face individual creators in monitoring, enforcing,
and licensing their rights. A notable feature of some of the Australian collecting societies is that some
are 'declared' to be the society with the function of being the sole collector of royalties under the
statutory licences. The collecting societies in Australia are:

APRA AMCOS, consisting of the formerly separate:

Australasian Mechanical Copyright Owners Society (AMCOS): represents music publishers and writers
from for rights in the reproduction of musical works;

Australasian Performing Right Association (APRA): collects royalties for the owners of copyright in
musical works for the performance of their musical works;

Christian Copyright Licensing International (CCLI)

Copyright Agency Limited (CAL): collects royalties for the reproduction of printed material, and in
particular, administers the statutory licences that allow educational institutions to copy and
communicate printed material;

Educational institutions undertook to pay "equitable remuneration" to CAL for their right to make copies
of literacy, dramatic, musical and artistic works for educational purposes.[47]
"Equitable remuneration" is should be fair and reasonable or just in all circumstances to both the
copyright owner and the licensee.[48]

New equitable remuneration rates were decided with a starting point from the 1985 rate of 2 cents per
page copied and adjusted for the Consumer Price Index, then further increased, on the basis of changing
methods of teaching, technology and volume of copying. The new rate came into operation on 1 January
1997.[49]

Phonographic Performance Company of Australia (PPCA): collects royalties for performers for the
broadcast, communication or public playing of recorded music;

Screenrights: set up in 1990 to administer statutory licences that let educational institutions copy from
TV and radio for teaching.

Viscopy, formerly the Visual Arts Copyright Collecting Agency (VISCOPY), which licensed the copyright in
artistic works, merged with Copyright Agency (see above) in 2017.[50][51]

Timeline

1869 – First colonial copyright statute is passed in Victoria. South Australia, New South Wales and
Western Australia enact similar laws in 1878, 1879 and 1895 respectively.

1901 – Federation of Australia. The Federal Parliament, pursuant to section 51(xviii) of the Australian
Constitution, is granted the power to make laws with respect to "Copyrights, patents of inventions and
designs, and trade marks."

1905 – Copyright Act 1905 (Cth) is passed.

1912 – Copyright Act 1912 (Cth) is passed. Pursuant to section 8 of that Act, the entire Copyright Act
1911 (Imp), passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, is enacted into the law of Australia.

1958 – In Copyright Owners Reproduction Society v E.M.I. (Australia) the High Court of Australia finds
that the new UK copyright statute, the Copyright Act 1956, does not apply in Australia and the 1911
Imperial Act remains law.

1959 – The Committee to Consider What Alterations Are Desirable in the Copyright Law of the
Commonwealth (Spicer Committee) delivers its final report. It recommends that the majority of
provisions appearing in the Copyright Act 1956 (UK) should be adopted). However, another eight years
passes before a new Australian statute is introduced.

1966 – Dr David Malangi Daymirringu's mortuary rites story bark painting was used by the Reserve Bank
of Australia on the one dollar note without his permission. Compensation and credit were later supplied.

1968 – Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) is enacted. It repealed the 1912 and the accompanying 1911 statutes.

1973, 1976, 1977, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983 – various amendments

1984 – amendment, defined computer program in the Copyright Act

1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 – various amendments

1989 – Copyright Amendment Act 1989 (repealed)

Levy introduced on blank tapes

1991, 1992 – various amendments

1992 – Autodesk Inc v Dyason ("AutoCAD case").[52]

The High Court supported that the reproduction of a lookup table in an EPROM in a third-party
hardware lock was an infringement of a literary work.

1993 – amendment

1993 – Australian Tape Manufacturers Association Ltd v Commonwealth ("blank tapes levy case").[53]

The High Court struck down the 1989 levy as, essentially, badly located and unfair tax law and not a
royalty.

1994 – The "carpets case", awarding damages to eight Indigenous Australian artists whose designs had
been used on rugs made in Vietnam by a Perth company.

1994 (3x) – various amendments

14 August 1997 – Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd ("music on
hold case").[54]

The High Court found that music-on-hold transmitted by Telstra was a copyright infringement

1998 (3x), and 1999 (2x) – various amendments

2000 – Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act

2000 – Copyright Amendment (Moral Rights) Act

2001 – Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Act

26 July 2002 – Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment v Stevens[55]

Federal Court decides that mod chips for Sony game consoles do not contravene copyright, due to
representations from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) as amicus curiae.

Federal Court decision ultimately upheld by the High Court in Stevens v Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer
Entertainment.[56]

2003 – Copyright Amendment (Parallel Importation) Act

Made some provisions for parallel importing, affecting the 'grey market'.

2003 – Designs (Consequential Amendments) Act

November 2003 – Three Australian students received criminal convictions for copyright infringement,
receiving a mix of suspended sentences, a fine, and community service.

7 February 2004 – KaZaA's Sharman Networks and Brilliant Digital Entertainment in Australia were
raided for copyright violations using Anton Piller orders, along with the University of NSW, University of
Queensland, Monash University, Telstra BigPond and three Sydney Internet service providers. The
investigation was backed by Universal, EMI, BMG, Festival Mushroom Records, Sony and Warner Music.

8 February 2004 - Australia and the United States agree to text of bilateral free trade agreement
(AUSFTA). The copyright-related parts of the Intellectual Property Chapter were:

Longer duration of copyright

Agreed standards for: copyright protection, copyright infringement, remedies and penalties

WIPO Internet Treaties to be implemented by "entry into force" of the FTA

Fast-tracking copyright owners' engagement with Internet Service Providers and subscribers to deal with
allegedly infringing copyright material on the Internet

Tighter controls on circumventing technological restriction of copyrighted material, with a possibility of

public submissions

Tougher on unauthorised satellite Pay-TV signal decoding

9 February 2004 – Australia and the United States sign the FTA.

August 2004 – US FTA Implementation Act passes Senate, with amendments. References to documents
and commentary.

November 2004 – KaZaA case starts in Federal Court.

December 2004 – Copyright Legislation Amendment Act passes, affecting parallel importing, temporary
copies and Internet Service Providers' liability for taking down alleged infringing material.