IceTV Pty Limited & Anor v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited

IceTV Pty Limited and Anor (appellants) appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Full Federal Court which had found in favour of Nine Network Australia Pty Limited (respondent). The dispute concerned allegations of copyright infringement arising from the respondent's use of program schedule data provided by the appellants. The respondent had used this data to create its own electronic program guide (EPG) service, which the appellants contended infringed their copyright in the original schedule data.

The High Court was required to determine whether the respondent's use of the appellants' program schedule data constituted an infringement of copyright. Specifically, the court considered whether the schedule data, as presented and organised by the appellants, was a "literary work" or a "compilation" in which copyright subsisted, and if so, whether the respondent had copied a "substantial part" of that work or compilation. The court also examined the nature of the "skill and labour" expended by the appellants in creating the schedule data and whether this was sufficient to attract copyright protection.

The High Court, by majority, held that the program schedule data, as compiled and presented by IceTV, did not possess the requisite originality to be protected as a literary work or compilation under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). The court reasoned that while the appellants had expended skill and labour in collecting and arranging the information, the resulting schedules were largely factual and utilitarian, lacking the creative expression necessary for copyright subsistence. The judges applied principles established in cases concerning the copyrightability of compilations and factual material, emphasising that copyright protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas or facts themselves, nor the skill and labour involved in their collection.

The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the Full Federal Court were set aside. The High Court entered judgment for the appellants, finding that no copyright infringement had occurred.