Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 27 FEBRUARY 2011

iiNET wins but the door is left ajar for copyright owners

DLA Piper Australia
Explore more from DLA Piper Australia

The Full Federal Court of Australia yesterday dismissed an appeal by Hollywood film studios that Australia’s third largest internet service provider (ISP), iiNet, had authorised copyright infringement by not suspending or terminating user’s accounts in cases of copyright infringement. However, the Full Court left the door open for ISPs to be liable for this conduct in the future by explaining how ISPs could be liable.

AustraliaIntellectual Property
Joshua Henderson
Joshua Henderson
Ben Coogan
Ben Coogan

The Full Federal Court of Australia yesterday dismissed an appeal by Hollywood film studios that Australia's third largest internet service provider (ISP), iiNet, had authorised copyright infringement by not suspending or terminating user's accounts in cases of copyright infringement.1 However, the Full Court left the door open for ISPs to be liable for this conduct in the future by explaining how ISPs could be liable.

The Full Court, which consisted of Justices Emmett, Jagot and Nicholas, all delivered separate and lengthy reasons for judgment. They were not all in agreement. However, they all softened and, in parts, significantly disagreed with the trial judge's reasoning.2 Both Emmett and Nicholas JJ agreed that the appeal should be dismissed but Jagot J dissented. The consequences of this decision will resonate with copyright owners, ISPs, technology innovators and internet users throughout the world. In particular:

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Counterfeit Imports – Tougher Penalties At The Border

Australia strengthens its response to counterfeit goods importation through new legislation that creates strict liability offences and enables infringement notices at the border. The amendments aim to make counterfeit importing unprofitable by ensuring penalties and seized goods exceed potential profits. How will these changes impact intellectual property rights holders and importers operating in Australia?
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Pointon Partners
Pointon Partners
Article

Supporting ‘Human Artistry’: Wholly AI-Generated Recordings Disqualified From ARIA Charts In Australia

The Australian Recording Industry Association has amended its chart eligibility guidelines to exclude songs predominantly created by generative AI, sparking debate about the intersection of artificial intelligence and copyright law. This decision mirrors broader legal challenges facing courts and regulators worldwide as they grapple with determining when AI-generated or AI-assisted works deserve copyright protection and recognition.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
K&L Gates
K&L Gates
Article

How Can You Retain Intellectual Property When A Client Will Not Pay?

A service provider who has not assigned their intellectual property still owns it, regardless of what the invoice says. Under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), the creator owns copyright by default, and ownership moves only by written assignment. Paying a designer or developer does not transfer ownership on its own. That default gives service providers real leverage where a client refuses to pay. Retention and suspension clauses turn the default into a contractual right to withhold deliverables.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
LegalVision
LegalVision
Article

Benchmarking “not Too Closely” – Is It Still Too Close?

The Full Federal Court has clarified the test for copyright infringement in artistic works on product packaging, rejecting a generalised 'look and feel' approach in favour of detailed side-by-side comparisons. In a dispute between Aldi and Hampden Holdings over baby snack packaging, the Court found that five of Aldi's eleven MAMIA designs infringed copyright, despite Aldi's deliberate strategy to stay 'not too close' to its competitor's benchmark designs.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Piper Alderman
Piper Alderman
Article

Protecting The AI Systems Competitors Can Actually Copy

Businesses building AI products on third-party models face a critical intellectual property challenge: determining what parts of their AI systems can actually be protected when competitors have access to the same underlying models. This analysis explores where protectable value sits in AI workflows, from data retrieval and validation processes to system integration and deployment architecture, and why patent strategy must focus on the commercially defensible elements rather than just the AI model itself.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers
Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers