Copyright Agency Limited v State of New South Wales

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal concerning the application of the statutory licence scheme under the *Copyright Act 1968* (Cth) to survey plans lodged for registration with the New South Wales Land and Property Information Division. The appellant, Copyright Agency Limited (CAL), sought to establish the terms of equitable remuneration payable by the State of New South Wales for the reproduction and public communication of survey plans, arguing that these acts were authorised by section 183(1) of the Act. The State of New South Wales contended that the statutory licence scheme applied, authorising its use of the survey plans for its services.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the statutory licence scheme in Part VII, Division 2 of the *Copyright Act 1968* applied to authorise the State to reproduce survey plans and communicate them to the public, and if so, what terms governed such acts. Specifically, the Court was asked to determine if the State's actions fell within the scope of section 183(1) and (5) of the Act, which provide for Crown use of copyright material for the services of the Commonwealth or a State, and stipulate that terms for such use are to be agreed or fixed by the Copyright Tribunal. The Court also considered whether the surveyor had impliedly licensed the reproduction and communication of the survey plan apart from the statutory scheme.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The Court determined that the State's actions in reproducing and communicating survey plans were not authorised by section 183(1) of the *Copyright Act 1968*. The reasoning focused on the nature of survey plans within the Torrens System and the statutory obligations to maintain public registers and provide access to registered documents. The Court concluded that the State's activities were not undertaken "for the services of the Commonwealth or State" in a manner that would engage the statutory licence scheme. Consequently, questions regarding the terms of remuneration under that scheme did not arise.