Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd v IceTV Pty Ltd

In the case of Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd v IceTV Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Nine Network Australia, brought an action against the defendant, IceTV Pty Ltd, for copyright infringement. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had reproduced and communicated substantial parts of the plaintiff's weekly television program schedules, known as the Nine Weekly Program Schedules, without authorisation. The dispute was heard and determined by the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue that the court needed to decide was whether the defendant had indeed infringed the plaintiff's copyright by using the Nine Weekly Program Schedules in the production of its own television program schedules, specifically the IceGuide. The court had to determine whether the defendant's use of the plaintiff's schedules constituted an infringement of the plaintiff's copyright under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). Additionally, the court had to assess whether any of the claimed infringements were authorised by law and whether the defendant had a valid defence under the concept of 'fair dealing'.

The court found that the defendant had infringed the plaintiff's copyright by reproducing and communicating substantial parts of the Nine Weekly Program Schedules. The court held that the defendant's use of the plaintiff's schedules in the creation of the IceGuide constituted an infringement of copyright as it involved reproducing the schedules in a material form and communicating them to the public. The court concluded that the defendant's actions were not authorised by law and did not fall under the exceptions for fair dealing. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's request for declarations of ownership and infringement, and issued permanent injunctions against the defendant to restrain it from further infringing the plaintiff's copyright.

The court also ordered the defendant to delete specific information from its electronic copies of television program schedules. Furthermore, the operation of certain orders was suspended to allow the defendant an opportunity to seek a stay if advised. The court reserved the question of whether any orders should be made in respect of the second respondent.