<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"> <channel>  <title><![CDATA[Clayton Utz | Copyright - Publications]]></title>  <link>http://www.claytonutz.com/area_of_law/intellectual_property/copyright/publications.page</link>  <description/>  <copyright><![CDATA[(c) Clayton Utz 2009]]></copyright>    <language>en-au</language> <item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/edition/10_may_2012/20120510/for_your_eyes_only-the_use_and_abuse_of_confidential_information.page</guid><title><![CDATA[For your eyes only - the use and abuse of confidential information]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/edition/10_may_2012/20120510/for_your_eyes_only-the_use_and_abuse_of_confidential_information.page</link><description><![CDATA[The duty to keep trade secrets confidential can extend well beyond the traditional employer/employee relationship to include third party contractors, as Mary Still, Timothy Webb and Dean Gerakiteys explain.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201204/30/optus_tv_now_loses_copyright_fight_in_sports_programs_for_now-_but_theres_always_the_grand_final.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Optus' TV Now loses copyright fight in sports programs for now - but there's always the Grand Final]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201204/30/optus_tv_now_loses_copyright_fight_in_sports_programs_for_now-_but_theres_always_the_grand_final.page</link><description><![CDATA[Rights-owners scored a win in the Full Federal Court's decision in National Rugby League Investments Pty Limited v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 59 that Optus' TV Now recording service infringed the AFL's and NRL's copyright in their sports broadcasts]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/edition/26_april_2012/20120426/iinet_wins_in_high_court.page</guid><title><![CDATA[iiNet wins in High Court]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/edition/26_april_2012/20120426/iinet_wins_in_high_court.page</link><description><![CDATA[Timothy Webb talks to BRR Media about iiNet's victory in the High Court and what it means for ISPs, copyright owners, and preventing online copyright infringement.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201204/20/iinets_high_court_win_means_isps_must_still_tread_carefully_on_copyright_infringement.page</guid><title><![CDATA[iiNet's High Court win means ISPs must still tread carefully on copyright infringement]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201204/20/iinets_high_court_win_means_isps_must_still_tread_carefully_on_copyright_infringement.page</link><description><![CDATA[Does an ISP have to prevent its customers from infringing copyright? When is an ISP liable for its customers' copyright infringement? iiNet's unanimous victory in the High Court this morning has given some guidance (Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Limited [2012] HCA 16), and left the Full Federal Court's decision standing.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/videos/iinet_wins_in_high_court_tim_webb.page</guid><title><![CDATA[iiNet wins in High Court]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/videos/iinet_wins_in_high_court_tim_webb.page</link><description><![CDATA[Timothy Webb talks to BRR Media about iiNet's victory in the High Court and what it means for ISPs, copyright owners, and preventing online copyright infringement.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/edition/29_march_2012/20120329/one_good_reason_to_take_care_before_threatening_legal_action_in_copyright_disputes.page</guid><title><![CDATA[One good reason to take care before threatening legal action in copyright disputes]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/edition/29_march_2012/20120329/one_good_reason_to_take_care_before_threatening_legal_action_in_copyright_disputes.page</link><description><![CDATA[Be careful when you claim someone has infringed your copyright, because an unjustifiable claim can be expensive, warn Mary Still and Jess Cowell.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/edition/29_march_2012/20120329/expanding_australias_copyright_safe_harbour_scheme_the_industry_response.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Expanding Australia's copyright safe harbour scheme: the industry response]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/edition/29_march_2012/20120329/expanding_australias_copyright_safe_harbour_scheme_the_industry_response.page</link><description><![CDATA[Should Australia's copyright safe harbour scheme be extended? Timothy Webb and Jessica Cowell look at the proposed changes, and what various sectors think about them.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201203/09/australian_government_looks_at_extending_mandatory_deposit_to_electronic_materials.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Australian Government looks at extending mandatory deposit to electronic materials]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201203/09/australian_government_looks_at_extending_mandatory_deposit_to_electronic_materials.page</link><description><![CDATA[As more and more material is produced solely in an electronic form, should its publishers be required to deposit an electronic copy with Australia's National Library? That's the question at the heart of the Australian Government's new consultation paper "Extending Legal Deposit".]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201202/23/no_extra_music_royalties_from_streamed_radio_programs_because_theyre_broadcasts_says_federal_court.page</guid><title><![CDATA[No extra music royalties from streamed radio programs because they're broadcasts, says Federal Court]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201202/23/no_extra_music_royalties_from_streamed_radio_programs_because_theyre_broadcasts_says_federal_court.page</link><description><![CDATA[In the latest case involving online technologies and copyright, the Federal Court has held that radio programs simulcast over the internet are "broadcasts", so broadcasters do not need to pay extra royalties for using copyrighted music (Phonographic Performance Company of Australia Ltd v Commercial Radio Australia Limited [2012] FCA 93).]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201202/07/tv_now_copyright_later_why_the_federal_court_found_for_optus.page</guid><title><![CDATA[TV Now, copyright later: why the Federal Court found for Optus]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201202/07/tv_now_copyright_later_why_the_federal_court_found_for_optus.page</link><description><![CDATA[The issue of copyright in broadcasts is again in the headlines, with the recent decision over Optus' TV Now service (Singtel Optus Pty Ltd v National Rugby League Investments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 34).]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201110/17/any_port_in_a_storm_australian_government_reviews_safe_harbour_laws.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Any port in a storm: Australian Government reviews safe harbour laws]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201110/17/any_port_in_a_storm_australian_government_reviews_safe_harbour_laws.page</link><description><![CDATA[A new consultation paper, Revising the scope of the copyright 'safe harbour scheme', proposes remedying a gap in the safe harbour provisions of the Copyright Act.]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/audio/iiNet_faces_High_Court_showdown.page</guid><title><![CDATA[iiNet faces High Court showdown]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/audio/iiNet_faces_High_Court_showdown.page</link><description><![CDATA[The iiNet copyright case is off to the High Court. Tim Webb tells BRR Media what the issues are for the High Court to consider, and how the internet industry has responded.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201108/16/copyright_makes_headlines_in_the_uk.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Copyright makes headlines in the UK]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201108/16/copyright_makes_headlines_in_the_uk.page</link><description><![CDATA[The UK Court of Appeal has held that the unlicensed receipt and use of headlines or extracts of online news articles, communicated to users by media monitoring companies, will constitute an infringement of the article publisher's copyright (Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd v Meltwater Holding BV [2011] EWCA Civ 890).]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201108/02/federal_court_rules_on_copyright_in_pharmaceutical_product_information_documents.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Federal Court rules on copyright in pharmaceutical product information documents]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201108/02/federal_court_rules_on_copyright_in_pharmaceutical_product_information_documents.page</link><description><![CDATA[In the recent case between Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd and Apotex Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 846, the Federal Court of Australia addressed for the first time the issues of copyright subsistence and infringement in relation to product information documents (PI) for pharmaceutical products.]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201105/23/who_owns_this_ip_independent_contractors_vs_employees_in_ip_ownership_disputes.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Who owns this IP? Independent contractors vs employees in IP ownership disputes]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201105/23/who_owns_this_ip_independent_contractors_vs_employees_in_ip_ownership_disputes.page</link><description><![CDATA[Generally in the workplace context, any intellectual property (IP) created by an employee in the course of their employment is, in the normal course, owned by the employer.]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201105/20/when_is_an_isp_liable_for_its_users_copyright_infringements.page</guid><title><![CDATA[When is an ISP liable for its users' copyright infringements?]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201105/20/when_is_an_isp_liable_for_its_users_copyright_infringements.page</link><description><![CDATA[If the customers of an internet service provider (ISP) infringe copyright and the ISP does not take steps to stop it occurring, is it liable for copyright infringement?]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201104/04/men_at_works_copyright_appeal_over_kookaburra_doesnt_work_so_well_in_full_federal_court.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Men At Work's copyright appeal over Kookaburra doesn't work so well in Full Federal Court]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201104/04/men_at_works_copyright_appeal_over_kookaburra_doesnt_work_so_well_in_full_federal_court.page</link><description><![CDATA[Men At Work and EMI have lost once again in the copyright dispute over "Down under" and "Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree" after the Full Federal Court dismissed their appeal against a finding of copyright infringement (EMI Songs Australia Pty Limited v Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Limited [2011] FCAFC 47 ).]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 04 Apr 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201102/24/when_is_an_isp_liable_for_its_users_copyright_infringements.page</guid><title><![CDATA[When is an ISP liable for its users' copyright infringements?]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201102/24/when_is_an_isp_liable_for_its_users_copyright_infringements.page</link><description><![CDATA[An ISP knows its customer infringe copyright and does not take steps to stop it occurring. Is it liable for the copyright infringements - and can the copyright owners, such as movie studios, sue them?]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201102/08/federal_governments_2011_legislative_plans_for_intellectual_property.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Federal Government's 2011 legislative plans for intellectual property]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201102/08/federal_governments_2011_legislative_plans_for_intellectual_property.page</link><description><![CDATA[The Prime Minister has released the list of legislation proposed for introduction in the Autumn sittings of Federal Parliament, starting Tuesday 8 February.]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201101/17/copyright_in_medical_records_where_is_the_independent_intellectual_effort.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Copyright in medical records: where is the "independent intellectual effort"?]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201101/17/copyright_in_medical_records_where_is_the_independent_intellectual_effort.page</link><description><![CDATA[Australian courts have been emphasising the importance of "independent intellectual effort" in copyright cases recently, and Primary Health Care Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2010] FCA 419 is another in this trend.]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 17 Jan 2011 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201012/23/the_importance_of_being_specific_ip_ownership_in_employee_contracts.page</guid><title><![CDATA[The importance of being specific: IP ownership in employee contracts]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201012/23/the_importance_of_being_specific_ip_ownership_in_employee_contracts.page</link><description><![CDATA[In general, an employer is taken to own any intellectual property (IP) that is created by an employee in the course of their employment. The recent case of Courier Pete Pty Ltd v Metroll Queensland Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 735 highlights the importance of ensuring that this is clearly stated in the employee's contract.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 23 Dec 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201012/16/computer-generated_compilations_not_protected_by_copyright_says_full_federal_court.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Computer-generated compilations not protected by copyright, says Full Federal Court]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201012/16/computer-generated_compilations_not_protected_by_copyright_says_full_federal_court.page</link><description><![CDATA[In rejecting Telstra's appeal the Full Federal Court has confirmed that the output from databases is unlikely to be protected by copyright without some intellectual effort or exercise of skill and judgment.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201012/06/new_anti-counterfeiting_trade_agreement_finalised-now_to_see_if_australia_ratifies_it.page</guid><title><![CDATA[New Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement finalised - now to see if Australia ratifies it]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201012/06/new_anti-counterfeiting_trade_agreement_finalised-now_to_see_if_australia_ratifies_it.page</link><description><![CDATA[The text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a new international intellectual property agreement on enforcement obligations aimed at countering copyright and trade mark piracy, has been settled.]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201011/22/making_your_trap_count_in_passing_off_claims.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Making your trap count in passing off claims]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201011/22/making_your_trap_count_in_passing_off_claims.page</link><description><![CDATA[It is commonplace in litigation involving claims of misleading or deceptive conduct or passing off to rely on evidence obtained by way of "trap" orders or dealings. The recent decision in Nick Scali Limited v Super A-Mart Pty Limited [2010] FCA 1130 highlights that the weight given to such evidence could be diminished where the applicant fails to give timely notice of the trap dealing to the respondent.]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 22 Nov 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201009/10/is_there_copyright_in_this_headline_not_according_to_the_federal_court.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Is there copyright in this headline? Not according to the Federal Court]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201009/10/is_there_copyright_in_this_headline_not_according_to_the_federal_court.page</link><description><![CDATA[For the first time in Australia, a court has decided that there is no copyright in newspaper headlines (Fairfax Media Publications v Reed International Books Australia).]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 10 Sep 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201007/30/taiwanese_company_successfully_sued_in_australia_for_infringing_copyright_in_hong_kong_tv_program.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Taiwanese company successfully sued in Australia for infringing copyright in Hong Kong TV program]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201007/30/taiwanese_company_successfully_sued_in_australia_for_infringing_copyright_in_hong_kong_tv_program.page</link><description><![CDATA[Mary Still, Timothy Webb and Evan Manolios look at a recent case study of how a Chinese copyright owner enforced its rights in Australia.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201007/29/is_the_kookaburra_laughing_about_5_of_down_under_royalties.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Is the kookaburra laughing about 5% of Down Under royalties?]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201007/29/is_the_kookaburra_laughing_about_5_of_down_under_royalties.page</link><description><![CDATA[How much will infringing the copyright in "Kookaburra" cost Men At Work, ask Mary Still and Emily Hawcroft.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201007/09/makers_of_counterfeit_ugg_boots_imprisoned_for_contempt_of_court.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Makers of counterfeit Ugg Boots imprisoned for contempt of court]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201007/09/makers_of_counterfeit_ugg_boots_imprisoned_for_contempt_of_court.page</link><description><![CDATA[Imprisonment in IP cases is unusual, but as Mary Still and Korina Hui explain, it is available when the infringer flouts court orders.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201007/07/youtube_finds_safe_harbour_in_viacom_copyright_case.page</guid><title><![CDATA[YouTube finds safe harbour in Viacom copyright case]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201007/07/youtube_finds_safe_harbour_in_viacom_copyright_case.page</link><description><![CDATA[The Viacom v YouTube case is an important one on the liability of service providers for their users' copyright infringement, as Mary Still explains.]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/newsletters/advertising_and_marketing_law_insights/20100707/home.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Advertising and Marketing Law Insights]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/newsletters/advertising_and_marketing_law_insights/20100707/home.page</link><description><![CDATA[This issue includes: Budget Eyewear v Specsavers: Don't be blind to the risk of copyright infringement;]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201005/05/new_bill_creates_satellite_services_to_fix_digital_tv_black_spots.page</guid><title><![CDATA[New bill creates satellite services to fix digital TV black spots]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201005/05/new_bill_creates_satellite_services_to_fix_digital_tv_black_spots.page</link><description><![CDATA[Australians living in digital TV black spots will be served by new satellite services to be established by a new Broadcasting Bill. Mary Still and Joshua Barwick look at what's in store.]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 05 May 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201004/09/resale_rights_for_visual_artists_royalty_scheme-administrator_appointed.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Resale rights for visual artists royalty scheme - administrator appointed]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201004/09/resale_rights_for_visual_artists_royalty_scheme-administrator_appointed.page</link><description><![CDATA[The collecting agency for the new resale royalty scheme for visual artists has been appointed, says Mary Still.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 09 Apr 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201003/11/resale_royalty_right_for_visual_artists_act_about_to_commence.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Act about to commence]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201003/11/resale_royalty_right_for_visual_artists_act_about_to_commence.page</link><description><![CDATA[The Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Act 2009 (Cth) will enable artists who derive their income from the initial sales of their creative works to share in the commercialisation of their work on the secondary art market.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201002/25/copyright_position_with_books_to_remain_unchanged.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Copyright position with books to remain unchanged]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201002/25/copyright_position_with_books_to_remain_unchanged.page</link><description><![CDATA[The Australian Government announced that it would not change the regulatory regime with respect to books, contrary to the recommendation of the Productivity Commission that it remove parallel importation restrictions on books in the Copyright Act.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201002/24/men_at_work_go_down_under_in_kookaburra_copyright_claim.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Men at Work go down (under) in Kookaburra copyright claim]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201002/24/men_at_work_go_down_under_in_kookaburra_copyright_claim.page</link><description><![CDATA[The Federal Court of Australia has ruled that Men at Work's famous song "Down Under" infringes the copyright in the 1934 children's round "Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree" (Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd v EMI Songs Australia Pty Ltd).]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201002/11/goodbye_to_copyright_for_databases_federal_court_finds_no_copyright_in_phone_directories.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Goodbye to copyright for databases? Federal Court finds no copyright in phone directories]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201002/11/goodbye_to_copyright_for_databases_federal_court_finds_no_copyright_in_phone_directories.page</link><description><![CDATA[The Australian Federal Court has held that Telstra's phone directories are not literary works protected by the Copyright Act because there is no clear authorship and no originality, throwing into doubt the copyright protection for any database.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201002/04/users_not_isps_liable_for_copyright_infringement_after_iinet_decision.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Users, not ISPs, liable for copyright infringement after iiNet decision]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201002/04/users_not_isps_liable_for_copyright_infringement_after_iinet_decision.page</link><description><![CDATA[The landmark copyright decision in Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd (No. 3) [2010] FCA 24 means that an ISP will not be liable for copyright infringement merely for providing access to the internet.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/200904/22/copyright_in_compilations_under_the_spotlight_in_high_court.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Copyright in compilations under the spotlight in High Court]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/200904/22/copyright_in_compilations_under_the_spotlight_in_high_court.page</link><description><![CDATA[In a decision with important implications for compilations of information, such as databases, the High Court today held that an electronic program guide, which reproduced program titles and broadcast times from programming schedules created by TV networks did not infringe copyright (IceTV Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited [2009] HCA 14).]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/newsletters/intellectual_property_and_it_insights/20080630/home.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Intellectual Property and IT Insights]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/newsletters/intellectual_property_and_it_insights/20080630/home.page</link><description><![CDATA[This issue includes: Tricks of the trade (and how not to get trapped) - intellectual property and government grants; A new meaning of consequential loss in technology contracts; Controlling copyright created in the workplace; Trade mark infringement - who can provide consent?; Use it or lose it!; Patents and the financial services industry - show me the money!;]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/200806/23/resale_rights_for_visual_artists.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Resale Rights for Visual Artists]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/200806/23/resale_rights_for_visual_artists.page</link><description><![CDATA[The Rudd Government has recently expressed its commitment to introducing a resale royalty policy of visual artists, similar to that which was rejected by the Howard Government in 2006. Under this policy artists would receive a percentage of the sale price each time their work is resold.]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/docs/IPLitigationinAustralia_May 08.pdf</guid><title><![CDATA[Intellectual Property Litigation in Australia]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/docs/IPLitigationinAustralia_May 08.pdf</link><description><![CDATA[Intellectual Property Litigation in Australia.]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/200802/12/federal_court_opens_door_to_more_parallel_importing.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Federal Court opens door to more parallel importing]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/200802/12/federal_court_opens_door_to_more_parallel_importing.page</link><description><![CDATA[The Federal Court has dealt a blow to businesses seeking use copyright law to prevent the parallel importation of their goods.]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/newsletters/intellectual_property_and_it_insights/20061215/home.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Intellectual Property and IT Insights]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/newsletters/intellectual_property_and_it_insights/20061215/home.page</link><description><![CDATA[This issue includes: So where the bloody hell are you online?; Bad news for Google News; It's good governance - Don't overstate the commercial significance of your IP; Opposing or revoking a trade mark - important changes; Business method patents - does your invention have a physical effect or consequence?; Infringing a design: it might not be obvious, but it could be fraudulent; Technological protection measures and circumvention devices - will new laws solve the problem?;]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 15 Dec 2006 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/200608/07/clayton_utz_lawyers_admired_in_asia.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Clayton Utz lawyers admired in Asia]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/200608/07/clayton_utz_lawyers_admired_in_asia.page</link><description><![CDATA[Clayton Utz partners have been recognised as among the most admired in Asia in a guide to the region's leading commercial lawyers. Eight Clayton Utz partners have been named in Asialaw Leading Lawyers 2006, which honours the region's top legal counsel in a broad range of jurisdictions and practice areas.]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2006 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/newsletters/intellectual_property_and_it_insights/20060719/home.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Intellectual Property and IT Insights]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/newsletters/intellectual_property_and_it_insights/20060719/home.page</link><description><![CDATA[This issue includes: Lara Bingle sues men's magazine - protecting personality rights in Australia; It's patently not obvious to an Aussie Rules coach; Domain names and trade marks: Words of caution from the UK High Court; Review of technological protection measures exceptions: is there an easier way?; When is a licence agreement a franchise agreement?; Name the wrong inventors, lose your patent; Shakeup in evidence preparation for patent oppositions; Trade marks and the issue of bad faith in "non-use applications": who bears the burden of proof?; Summary judgment in Australian IP cases;]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2006 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/200605/24/australian_copyright_law_changes.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Australian Copyright Law Changes]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/200605/24/australian_copyright_law_changes.page</link><description><![CDATA[The Australian Government has this week announced reforms which are to be implemented to make Australian copyright laws "fairer for users" and "tougher on pirates". A draft exposure Bill implementing the changes is to be circulated in the near future. The proposed reforms follow on from obligations imposed on the Australian Government in accordance with the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement.]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 24 May 2006 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/newsletters/intellectual_property_and_it_insights/20051214/home.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Intellectual Property and IT Insights]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/newsletters/intellectual_property_and_it_insights/20051214/home.page</link><description><![CDATA[This issue includes: The Block is no Dream Home - copyright and television program formats; Does your invention "benefit Australian society as a whole" - a new test for patentability; Who owns the IP devised by a company director?; Experimenting at your peril?; A case of software "look and feel"; Crown copyright &#8220; an uncertain future; GITC version 5 - Government ICT contracting in Queensland moves to a new age;]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/200510/07/high_court_decision_a_blow_for_copyright_owners.page</guid><title><![CDATA[High Court decision a blow for copyright owners]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/200510/07/high_court_decision_a_blow_for_copyright_owners.page</link><description><![CDATA[If your copyright material, whether it be digital music files or software, and whether on disk or on the internet, is protected by any anti-copying device, such as encryption or a file locking system, the High Court has delivered you a blow, and opened the way for most forms of circumvention of these devices.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/200509/09/authorising_infringement_of_copyright-what_does_it_mean_for_software_makers.page</guid><title><![CDATA["Authorising" infringement of copyright - what does it mean for software makers?]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/200509/09/authorising_infringement_of_copyright-what_does_it_mean_for_software_makers.page</link><description><![CDATA[By now everyone knows that the Federal Court held that Sharman Networks authorised the infringement of musical companies' copyright (although it dismissed most of the other claims made against it).]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2005 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><guid>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/newsletters/intellectual_property_and_it_insights/20050902/home.page</guid><title><![CDATA[Intellectual Property and IT Insights]]></title><link>http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/newsletters/intellectual_property_and_it_insights/20050902/home.page</link><description><![CDATA[This issue includes: When linking is infringing: the MP3s4FREE case; Was Grokster really a victory for the entertainment industry?; New Act controls workplace surveillance; Is publishing a website "doing business in Australia"?; Court says "cheese" to TV cameras - but are we any the wiser?; Copyright and implied licences - when do they arise?; Do exclusion clauses work?;]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:00:00 EST</pubDate></item></channel></rss>
