Acohs Pty Ltd v Ucorp Pty Ltd

The appeal before the court concerns a dispute between Acohs Pty Ltd (the appellant) and Ucorp Pty Ltd (the first respondent), with an additional respondent, the second respondent, also involved. The primary dispute revolves around the ownership and infringement of copyright in relation to Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) and their HTML source code generated by the Infosafe system. The court was tasked with determining several legal issues, including whether copyright subsists in the HTML source code of MSDSs, whether the work is a joint authorship, and whether an implied licence existed for the reproduction of MSDSs under specific circumstances.

The court examined the originality and authorship of the HTML source code and the MSDSs themselves, finding that while the HTML source code was computer-generated, it incorporated human input in the form of MSDS content and formatting decisions. The court concluded that copyright subsists in the HTML source code, but only to the extent that it reflects original human authorship, specifically the HTML instruction tags and the unique assembly of these tags with other elements. Regarding the MSDSs created through a transcription process, the court determined that these too were original works, as the transcription involved more than mere copying, including decisions about content and format.

Regarding the implied licence, the court found that manufacturers, importers, and suppliers of hazardous substances had an implied licence to reproduce MSDSs in anticipation of customer requests, as required by legislative regimes. The court held that the appellant had not discharged the onus to prove the absence of such a licence, particularly as the primary judge found that many MSDSs were reproduced in response to customer requests while others were not. Consequently, the respondents bore the burden to demonstrate that their actions fell within the scope of the implied licence.

The court ordered that the parties submit draft orders within 14 days to give effect to the reasons for judgment, and granted leave for the parties to file written submissions on the question of costs, limited to four pages each. This order ensures that the court's decision is implemented effectively and that the issue of costs is addressed within a specified timeframe.