Publication
Mission impossible? Teresa Ribera’s mission letter and the future of EU merger review
Executive Vice President Vestager’s momentous tenure as Commissioner responsible for EU competition policy is nearing its end.
Australia | Publication | December 2023
The High Court recently delivered its decision in Real Estate Tool Box v Campaigntrack 1 relating to copyright authorisation.
The High Court held that the appellants, who had engaged a third party software developer to create a real estate marketing system for their use, were not liable for copyright infringement, as they had not authorised the developer’s infringement of Campaigntrack’s copyright when creating the system. Although the appellants in this case successfully avoided a finding of copyright infringement, the High Court has emphasised that each case turns on its facts. The judgment sets out important considerations to keep in mind when engaging contractors to produce work-product in highly competitive fields, such as IT systems, where competitors are highly motivated to disrupt new product launches.
Under s36(1) of the Copyright Act,2 a person who is not, and does not have a licence from, the copyright owner, and does not themselves engage in an infringing act, can nevertheless be found to infringe copyright if they authorised the infringing act. This is particularly relevant in third party contractor scenarios.
Matters that must be taken into account are, as set out in s36(1A):
The High Court confirmed that any finding of authorisation (by indifference or otherwise) is heavily fact dependent and a decision based on a particular set of circumstances may be of no assistance in other cases.3
This question of fact involves an enquiry into whether the conduct of the person amounts to “sufficient involvement” in the infringement.4 There must be a close focus upon all the facts of the case and the matters mandated by s36(1A), including whether the person knows or had reason to anticipate or suspect an infringing act is occurring or is likely to occur.5
Mere neutrality or inattention will not suffice.6
Authorisation by indifference requires the person to be in a position and have knowledge of facts, matters and circumstances sufficient to give rise to a duty to take reasonable steps to avoid or prevent the act.7 This involves an assessment of what the person actually did and what a person, in that position with that knowledge, ought to reasonably have done.8
Key takeaways include:
Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Copyright Act).
Real Estate Tool Box v Campaigntrack at [64] per Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward and Jagot JJ.
Publication
Executive Vice President Vestager’s momentous tenure as Commissioner responsible for EU competition policy is nearing its end.
Publication
On 10 October 2024, the UK government published its long awaited response (the Response) to its January 2024 consultation on “Designing a policy framework to enable investment in long duration electricity storage” (the Consultation).
Publication
Miranda Cole, Julien Haverals and Emma Clarke of our Brussels/ London offices are the authors of a chapter on procedural issues in merger control that has been published in the third edition of the Global Competition Review’s The Guide to Life Sciences. This covers a number of significant procedural developments that have affected merger review of life sciences transactions.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023