COPYRIGHT TRIBUNAL OF AUSTRALIA
Application by Isentia Pty Limited [2020] ACopyT 2
File numbers: CT 2 of 2017
CT 1 of 2018
CT 2 of 2018The Tribunal: GREENWOOD J (PRESIDENT) Date of decision: 15 July 2020 Legislation: Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), ss 15AA, 15AB
Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), ss 31, 113P, 113Q, 136, 137, 154, 155, 156, 157, 159
Copyright Amendment Act 2006 (Cth)
Cases cited: Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009) 239 CLR 27
CIC Insurance Limited v Bankstown Football Club Limited (1997) 187 CLR 384
Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Agalianos (1955) 92 CLR 390
Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd (2012) 250 CLR 503
K & S Lake City Freighters Pty Ltd v Gordon & Gotch Ltd (1985) 157 CLR 309
Lacey v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland (2011) 242 CLR 573
Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd [1997] AC 749
Mills v Meeking (1990) 169 CLR 214
Momcilovic v The Queen (2011) 245 CLR 1
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355
Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22
Sloane v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1992) 37 FCR 429
SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 262 CLR 362
Thiess v Collector of Customs (2014) 250 CLR 664
Wilson v Anderson (2002) 213 CLR 401
Zheng v Cai (2010) 239 CLR 446
Jurisdiction and Procedures of the Copyright Tribunal, December 2000, Copyright Law Review Committee Legislative Intention [2015] MonashULawRw 1; (2015) 41(1) Monash University Law Review 1, the Hon Justice Stephen Gageler
Date of hearing: 22 May 2020 Date of last submissions: 22 May 2020 Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 168 Counsel for the Applicant in CT 2 of 2017: Ms F St John Solicitor for the Applicant in CT 2 of 2017: Baker McKenzie Solicitor for the Applicant in CT 1 of 2018: Corrs Chambers Westgarth Counsel for the Applicant in CT 1 of 2018 and CT 2 of 2018: Mr P Brereton SC and Ms L Thomas Solicitor for the Applicant in CT 2 of 2018: Clayton Utz Counsel for the Respondent in all matters: Mr C Dimitriadis SC and Ms E Whitby Solicitor for the Respondent in all matters: MinterEllison COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Copyright Act 1968
IN THE COPYRIGHT TRIBUNAL CT 2 of 2017 APPLICATION BY: MELTWATER AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 121 849 769) BETWEEN: MELTWATER AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 121 849 769)
Applicant
AND: COPYRIGHT AGENCY LIMITED (ABN 53 001 228 799)
Respondent
TRIBUNAL:
GREENWOOD J (PRESIDENT)
DATE OF ORDER:
15 JULY 2020
THE TRIBUNAL DETERMINES THAT:
1.The answer to Question 1 is the answer set out at [157] of the Determination having particular regard to the observations at [146](1) to (18) of the Reasons for Determination and the discussion contained in the Reasons more generally.
Continue reading Application by Isentia Pty Limited
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Application by Isentia Pty Limited [2020] ACopyT 2
- Case
- [2020] ACopyT 2
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the content in question was protected by copyright, how certain terms in the licence agreement should be interpreted, and the ramifications of these interpretations for the parties. The Tribunal had to consider the legal principles governing copyright protection for databases, the nature of the contractual terms, and the effect of these terms on the parties' rights and obligations.
The Tribunal concluded that the content in question was not protected by copyright, that certain terms in the licence agreement should be interpreted in a specific manner, and that these interpretations had particular consequences for the parties. The Tribunal's reasoning was based on an analysis of the relevant legal principles, the terms of the licence agreement, and the evidence presented by the parties. The Tribunal provided detailed reasons for its conclusions, which were set out in the Determination and the Confidential Schedule.
The Tribunal made several determinations, including that the content in question was not protected by copyright, that certain terms in the licence agreement should be interpreted in a specific manner, and that these interpretations had particular consequences for the parties. These conclusions were based on the Tribunal's analysis of the legal principles, the terms of the licence agreement, and the evidence presented. The Tribunal's determinations were set out in the Determination and the Confidential Schedule, and the Tribunal made orders accordingly.
Orders
Orders of the court
THE TRIBUNAL DETERMINES THAT:
1. The answer to Question 1 is the answer set out at [157] of the Determination having particular regard to the observations at [146](1) to (18) of the Reasons for Determination and the discussion contained in the Reasons more generally.
2. The answer to Question 2 is the answer set out at [158] to [163] of the Determination having regard to the discussion in the Confidential Schedule under the headings “The Characterisation of the Clauses of the CA Licence”, “Annexure D: Downstream Licence Terms” and “Other Annexures”, and the discussion in the Reasons more generally.
3. The answer to Question 3 is the answer set out at [164] of the Determination and the discussion contained in the Reasons more generally.
4. The answer to Question 4 is the answer set out at [165] and [166] of the Determination having regard to the discussion in the Confidential Schedule under the heading “Characterisation of the Question 4 Items” and the discussion in the Reasons more generally.
5. The answer to Question 5 is the answer set out at [167] of the Determination having regard to the discussion contained in the Reasons more generally.
6. The answer to Question 6 is the answer set out at [168] of the Determination having regard to the discussion contained in the Reasons more generally.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.