FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Wilson v Australian Copyright Council [2001] FCA 1918
PAUL WILSON V AUSTRALIAN COPYRIGHT COUNCIL
N392 of 2001
WILCOX, WEINBERG and HELY JJ
13 AUGUST 2001
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 392 OF 2001
BETWEEN:
PAUL WILSON
APPLICANTAND:
AUSTRALIAN COPYRIGHT COUNCIL
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
WILCOX, WEINBERG and HELY JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
13 AUGUST 2001
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed.
2.The appellant pay the costs of the respondent.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 392 OF 2001
BETWEEN:
PAUL WILSON
APPLICANTAND:
AUSTRALIAN COPYRIGHT COUNCIL
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
WILCOX, WEINBERG and HELY JJ
DATE:
13 AUGUST 2001
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
The Court received extensive written submissions from the appellant before today and we have had the opportunity of considering those. We have also had the benefit of extensive oral development of his position by Mr Wilson. During the course of his oral submissions, in particular, Mr Wilson referred to a number of aspects of the conduct of the trial and notwithstanding the matters that he raised, we are not satisfied that there was any unfairness in the way in which this trial was conducted.
In relation to the substantive merit of the matter, it is unnecessary for us to deal with that at any length. The merits are crystallised in paragraph 48 of his Honour's reasons for judgment, to which reference was made during the course of the argument. On those findings it was inevitable that his Honour would come to the conclusion that there had been no infringement of copyright and dismiss the application. No error has been shown in regard to those findings, consequently, his Honour was correct in dismissing the application and it follows that the appeal should be dismissed.
The order of the Court will be that the appeal was dismissed with costs.
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court. Associate:
Dated: 29 April 2002
Applicant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: M Green Solicitor for the Respondent: Minter Ellison Date of Hearing: 13 August 2001
- AGLC
- Wilson v Australian Copyright Council [2001] FCA 1918
- Case
- [2001] FCA 1918
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the respondent's use of the appellant's work constituted a fair dealing for the purposes of criticism or review. The court had to consider the purpose and effect of the use, the amount of the work used, and whether the use was likely to affect the market for the original work. The court also had to consider whether the respondent's use of the work was reasonable in all the circumstances.
The court held that the respondent's use of the appellant's work was a fair dealing for the purposes of criticism or review. The court found that the respondent's use of the work was for a legitimate purpose, and the amount used was reasonable in the circumstances. The court also found that the use was unlikely to affect the market for the original work. The court held that the respondent's use of the work was reasonable in all the circumstances. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the respondent.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the costs of the respondent.
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.