The Copyright Amendment Bill 2006 was introduced into Parliament on
19 October 2006 by the Attorney-General.

The full text of the Bill, the Explanatory Memorandum and the
Attorney-General’s Second Reading Speech are available on the
Parliament House website.

The Government has referred the Bill for consideration by the Senate
Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. 

The Attorney-General also tabled in Parliament the Government’s
response to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal
and Constitutional Affairs report on ‘Review of Technological
Protection Measures Exceptions’.

Read Kim Weatherall’s analysis.

UPDATE 26 October: Kim Weatherall’s index to her posts

Brian Fitzgerald’s critique: Copyright vision: copyright jails

In Meskenas v ACP Publishing Pty Ltd [2006] FMCA 1136 (14 August 2006), the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia awarded an artist damages of $9,100.00 against a magazine that published a photograph of his work with attribution to another person.

The artist’s son contacted Woman’s Day shortly after publication in March 2005 and requested a correction and an
apology but despite many requests none was made until June 2006.

It was not in dispute that
Meskenas was the author of the portrait although he no longer had copyright because he had given the painting away.

Under Part 9 of the Copyright Act , derived
from the Copyright Amendment (Moral Rights) Act 2000 (Cth) he was entitled to attribution, the right to be clearly identified and the right
not to have the authorship falsely attributed.

The Magistrate awarded Meskenas the sum of
$1,100.00 for the wrongful attribution which includes the "non-attribution" and
the distress which it caused him. He also awarded the sum of $8 000.00 for an
infringement of moral rights . THe Magistrate made " it clear this award (of $8000) relates to the conduct of the respondent and the
additional hurt caused by that conduct to the applicant following his advice to
it that his copyright/moral right had been infringed. It is therefore additional
to the lesser sum awarded in respect of the original infringement.  It is not
also to be considered a species of exemplary or punitive damages."