Zeccola v Universal City Studios Inc - [1982] FCA 271

Re: GIOVANNI ZECCOLA, LILIANA ZECCOLA, SUPERSTAR INTERNATIONAL FILMS PTY. LTD.
FRANCO BENITO ADOLFO ZECCOLA, VINCENZO ZECCOLA, GREGORY PHILLIP LYNCH, G.L.
FILM ENTERPRISES PTY. LTD.
And: UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS INC. (1982) 67 FLR 225
No. VG 117 of 1982
Copyright

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Lockhart(1), Fitzgerald(1) and Jenkinson(2) JJ.

CATCHWORDS

Copyright - infringement of copyright in novel, screenplay and film "Jaws" by film "Great White" - injunctions - application for interlocutory relief - discretion of trial judge - function of appellate court.

Copyright - Infringement of copyright in novel, screenplay and film - Whether copyright exists in central theme or idea of story - Interlocutory injunction - Whether trial judge erred in granting relief - Copyright Act (Cth), ss 10(1), 14(1)(b), 21(1), 31(1)(a)(i), 36(1), 86(a), 101, 113.

HEADNOTE

Following a lengthy hearing before the trial judge at which much evidence was presented by both parties, the respondent was granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the appellants from infringing the respondent's copyright in a novel , screenplay and film entitled Jaws by the showing of a film entitled Great White, each film being about a killer shark terrorizing human beings. The appellants appealed, claiming (inter alia) that the trial judge was in error in finding that the novel Jaws, on which the screenplay and film of the same name were substantially based, was an original work.

Held, per Lockhart and Fitzgerald JJ: (1) In general, there is no copyright in the central idea or theme of a story or play however original it may be; copyright subsists in the combination of situations, events and scenes which constitute the particular working out or expression of the idea or theme.

(2) Where a story is written based on various incidents which themselves are commonplace, a claim for copyright must be confined closely to the story which has been composed by the author. If a literary or dramatic work is not wholly original there is no copyright in the unoriginal part.

(3) It has not been shown that the exercise by the trial judge of his discretion to grant relief involved an error of the relevant kind, and therefore an appellate court should not interfere with the judge's decision.

House v. Queen (1936) 55 CLR 499 referred to.

(4) Per Jenkinson J.: The film Great White cannot be said to constitute an infringement of copyright in the film Jaws as opposed to a novel or screenplay of the same name, unless it was an exact or facsimile copy of the film Jaws. This follows from the use of the word "copy" (as defined in s. 10(1)) in s. 86(a).

HEARING

1982, November 24, 26. #DATE 26:11:1982

APPEAL.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Victoria granting interlocutory injunctions restraining the appellants until the final hearing of the action or further order from infringing the respondent's copyright in a novel, screenplay and film.

K.L. Milte and G.J. Traczyk, for…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Zeccola v Universal City Studios Inc and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1982] FCA 271
Decision Date: 26 NOVEMBER 1982

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs in Zeccola v Universal City Studios Inc sought relief from the Federal Court of Australia, alleging that the defendants had infringed their copyright in the novel, screenplay, and film "Jaws" by producing the film "Great White". The plaintiffs sought interlocutory relief in the form of an injunction and an order for the destruction of all copies of "Great White". The defendants opposed the application and appealed to the High Court against the primary judge's decision to grant interlocutory relief. The legal issues before the High Court were the discretionary factors relevant to the grant of interlocutory relief, the function of the appellate court in assessing the exercise of such discretion, and whether the primary judge had erred in exercising his discretion. The High Court held that the primary judge had not erred in exercising his discretion to grant interlocutory relief. The Court held that the primary judge had considered all relevant factors and had not placed undue weight on any particular factor. The Court held that the function of the appellate court was to assess whether the primary judge had exercised his discretion lawfully and reasonably, and that the primary judge had done so in this case. The appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the costs of the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellants pay the costs of the respondent of the appeal. Orders accordingly.

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.