Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Reed International Books Australia Pty Ltd

In the case of Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Reed International Books Australia Pty Ltd, Fairfax Media Publications, publisher of the Australian Financial Review (AFR), sought an interlocutory injunction against Reed International Books Australia, which operates the Australian Business Information Xpress (ABIX) service. Fairfax alleged that Reed's use of AFR headlines in its service constituted copyright infringement. Fairfax argued that the headlines in question were original, literary works in which copyright subsisted, and that Reed's use of these headlines amounted to infringement. Reed contended that the headlines were not capable of copyright protection, and that, even if they were, Reed's use constituted fair dealing under the Copyright Act.

The court had to determine whether the headlines in question were capable of copyright protection, whether Fairfax had established that the headlines were original literary works, and if so, whether Reed's use of these headlines constituted infringement or was protected by fair dealing. The court also had to consider whether Fairfax was estopped from asserting copyright in the headlines due to any representations it may have made to Reed.

The court held that none of the ten selected headlines were capable of being literary works in which copyright subsisted. It found that the headlines were not original in the sense that they were not copied, nor were they literary works in the sense that they conveyed information and instruction or pleasure in the form of literary enjoyment. The court also found that Fairfax had failed to prove that any of the Article/Headline Combinations were discrete works of joint authorship in which copyright could subsist. However, the court did find that copyright subsisted in the Article Compilation and the Edition Work in each of the June and November editions, as these were original literary works owned by Fairfax.

The court found that, even if the Article/Headline Combinations constituted copyright works, Reed did not take a substantial part of such a work. It also held that Reed did not take a substantial part of either the Article Compilation or the Edition Work. The court considered that Reed's conduct in reproducing and communicating the AFR headlines as part of the Abstracts was a fair dealing for the purpose of reporting news, such that Reed's conduct would not constitute an infringement of copyright. The court also held that Fairfax was not estopped from asserting that Reed's reproduction and communication of AFR headlines in the Abstracts as part of the ABIX service amounted to infringement of its copyright in the contended works.

The court dismissed Fairfax's application and ordered that Fairfax and Reed would be given an opportunity to make submissions on costs.