Abstract
This chapter examines the rights of government under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) and related laws to use copyright material owned by other persons for the purposes of government. Why does the government possess these rights and are they necessary for the effective operation of modern government?
The nature, scope and operation of the Crown use provision in the Copyright Act 1968, the extent to which licences may be implied to government to reproduce or publish copyright material sent to it and the breadth of other statutory rights held by government and their relationship to s 183 of the Copyright Act 1968 are discussed in more detail in this chapter. In particular, the chapter examines arguments for construing s 183 to complement, rather than override, the special defences to infringement, such as s 40 (fair dealing for research or study), which users of copyright material may rely on generally under the Copyright Act 1968. It also examines the laws in the light of the needs of modern government information management to transfer information across agency boundaries and to develop access systems for that information.
An earlier version of this work was first published in the (2010) 9 Canberra Law Review 36.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Refer s 163 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) and s 96 of the Designs Act 2003 (Cth). It would appear that the Crown use provision (s 183 of the Copyright Act 1968) is consistent with the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Article 13, Section 1 (Copyright and Related Rights), of this Agreement, which is headed Limitations and Exceptions, provides that Members shall confine limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder, which is consistent with Berne Convention obligations Australia has long adhered to. Article 31(b), Section 5 (Patents) is more limited and stipulates that ‘other use’ (that is, use without the authorization of the right holder) is only permitted if, prior to such use, the proposed user has made efforts to obtain authorization from the right holder on reasonable terms and such efforts have been unsuccessful within a reasonable period of time (except in cases of national emergency or public non-commercial use).
- 2.
Refer s 20 of the Freedom of Information Act 1984 (Cth).
- 3.
Under the Act, the Commonwealth includes the Administration of a Territory: s 10(1), and a reference to a State includes the Northern Territory and Norfolk Island…: s 10(3)(n).
- 4.
Copyright Agency Limited v New South Wales [2008] HCA 35.
- 5.
The description ‘special defences’ is used in this chapter to describe those defences which are available in limited and specified circumstances and which, apart from a few exceptions, do not enable large scale or multiple acts in relation to copyright such as reproduction. The special defences do not provide a right of remuneration to copyright owners. I exclude from the description ‘special defences’ all the statutory licence schemes under the Act such as those for the manufacture of records of musical works (ss 54–64), multiple copying of works for the teaching purposes of an educational institution (Div 2, Part VB) and copying by institutions assisting handicapped readers (Div 3, Part VB), as well as the Crown use provisions.
- 6.
Refer, for example, to s 135ZJ or s 135 ZL of the Act, where copying is expressed to be conditional on copying being made solely for the educational purposes of the institution (or of another educational institution), a remuneration notice having been given to the relevant collecting society and the body complying with the marking and record-keeping requirements set out in s 135ZX of the Act.
- 7.
Australia. Copyright Law Committee on Reprographic Reproduction (Franki Committee) (1976), p. 57 [7.10].
- 8.
Section 183A and its related provisions which were inserted by the Copyright Amendment Act 1998 (Cth) are directed at providing a more practical alternative to the notice requirements under s 183(4) and (5) and do not address this question.
- 9.
Copyright Agency Limited v New South Wales [2008] HCA 35 [11].
- 10.
Inserted by s 24 of the Copyright Amendment Act 1980 (Cth) No 154 of 1980.
- 11.
[2007] FCAFC 80 (5 June 2007) [152–158] and [2008] HCA 35 [45–47]. This case is discussed in Part 9.3 of this chapter.
- 12.
Australia. Copyright Law Committee on Reprographic Reproduction (Franki Committee) (1976), p. 57 [7.11].
- 13.
Curiously, s 183(11) does not cover acts by institutions assisting handicapped readers and institutions assisting intellectually handicapped persons which are not educational institutions but which are nevertheless emanations of the Commonwealth or the States.
- 14.
Campbell and Monotti (2002), pp. 459 and 462–463. The major professional works on Australian copyright law, Lahore and Ricketson, do not address the interrelationship between the special defences and s 183—refer Lindgren et al. (2004), Vol 1 [28, 561] and Ricketson and Creswell (2002), Vol 1 [12, 275].
- 15.
By virtue of s 15AB of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) extrinsic materials may be referred to in order to determine the meaning of a provision when the provision is ambiguous or obscure.
- 16.
Refer second reading speech for the Copyright Bill 1968: Australia, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), House of Representatives, 16 May 1968, 1536 (N Bowen, Attorney-General), and Australia. Copyright Law Review Committee (1959), p. 77 (Spicer Committee) [404–406].
- 17.
United Kingdom. Board of Trade (1952) [75].
- 18.
By provisions of the Defence Contracts Act 1958 (UK).
- 19.
Australia. Copyright Law Review Committee (Spicer Committee) (1959), [404–405]. Two members of the Committee were of the view that the Crown’s right to use copyright material without the consent of the copyright owner should be confined to use for defence purposes only.
- 20.
(1964) 112 CLR 125, 134.
- 21.
Section 195A(1)(c) defines ‘officer in charge’ in relation to a library referred to in the sections to mean ‘the officer holding, or performing the duties of, the office or position in the service of the body administering the library the duties of which involve that person having direct responsibility for the maintenance of, and the provision of services in relation to, the collection comprising the library'. Section 195A(1)(a) similarly defines ‘officer in charge’ in relation to archives. By virtue of s 10(3)(b) a reference to a body administering a library or archives shall be read as a reference to the body (whether incorporated or not), or the person (including the Crown), having ultimate responsibility for the administration of the library or archives. Further, s 51AA enables the making of single working, reference and replacement copies of copyright works by the officer in charge of Australian Archives in certain circumstances. The functions, the strong capacity for executive control, budgetary dependency and accountability to Government inter alia evidenced under the Australian Archives’ constituent legislation, the Archives Act 1983 (Cth), suggest the Australian Archives is an emanation of the Commonwealth for the purposes of the Part VII of the Act.
- 22.
The United States Government is able to rely on the doctrine of ‘fair use’ under s 107 of the US Copyright Act of 1976. Refer US Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel (1999): Memorandum from Acting Assistant Attorney-General RE: Whether Government Reproduction of Copyrighted Materials Invariably is a “Fair Use” under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976.
- 23.
Pearce and Geddes (2011), p. 147; White v Mason [1958] VR 79; Purcell v Electricity Commission of New South Wales (1985) 60 ALR 652.
- 24.
Copying is recorded on a sampling basis. Clause 12 of Schedule 8 which deals with survey data protocols provides—
Exempt - this includes all Commonwealth published and unpublished material as well as material for which a licence has been obtained(subject to verification) or is otherwise exempt from payment because of the utilisation of section 43 of the Copyright Act being a reproduction for the purposes of judicial proceedings or for the purposes of the provision of professional legal advice. (Reliance is not placed on other exemptions in the Copyright Act.)
There is also no express allowance presently made for copying of an insubstantial part of awork. Refer: Australian Government. Attorney-General’s Department, Agreement between Copyright Agency Limited and the Commonwealth for copying of literary works by the Commonwealth – June 2003 (signed 10 June 2003) cal 30 may pdf provided by copyright@ag.gov.au. Refer also Attorney-General’s Department, Australian Government Use of Copyright Material http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/IntellectualProperty/Pages/Governmentuseofcopyrightmaterial.aspx.
- 25.
Refer, for example, to the Agreement between the Crown in right of the State of New South Wales and the Copyright Agency Limited dated 14 March 2005, Clause 1.1 (definition of copy) and Annexure C to that Agreement, Clause 9 ‘Copying Exempt from Payment’ http://www.copyright.com.au/states_territories.htm and the Interim Rate Agreement between Copyright Agency Limited and Crown in Right of the State of New South Wales [2009] http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/legislation_policy/. These Agreements are referred to in Clauses 3.5–3.6 of the current Remuneration Agreement between the Crown in Right of the State of New South Wales and Copyright Agency Limited [2010] http://www.lpclrd.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lpclrd/lpclrd_copyright/lpclrd_agreements.html. ‘The experience since 2003 is that disagreements about which uses are remunerable have led to difficult and protracted negotiations over the amounts payable under the statutory licence. The parties (governments agencies and collecting societies) have not reached agreement over whether fair dealing and other exceptions are available to governments, or over how surveys should be conducted and what should be counted’: Australia. Australian Law Reform Commission, Copyright and the Digital Economy: Final Report (ALRC Report 122), 332 [15.14] http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/copyright-reportd-122.
- 26.
Email from Peter Treyde, Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department, to John Gilchrist, 31 January 2008. However, the Copyright Agency Ltd takes the wide view of the operation of s183(1) (email from Phillip Stabile, Copyright Agency Ltd, to John Gilchrist, 4 April 2008).
- 27.
(1982) 42 ALR 549.
- 28.
Section 53B is now embodied in ss 135ZJ and 135ZL of the Act and s 53D is now embodied in ss 135ZP and 135ZQ of the Act.
- 29.
Haines v Copyright Agency Ltd (1982) 42 ALR 549, 556.
- 30.
Copyright Agency Ltd v Haines [1982] 1 NSWLR 182, 191.
- 31.
An agreement or licence fixing the terms upon which a person other than the Commonwealth or State may do an act comprised in a copyright under s 183(1) is inoperative with respect to the doing of that act after the commencement of the 1968 Act unless it has been approved by the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth or a State (s 183(6)).
- 32.
For the purposes of these and all other provisions in s 183, references to the owner of copyright include references to an exclusive licensee where there is an exclusive licence in force in relation to any copyright (s 183(9)).
- 33.
Refer comments by Cooper J in Stack v Brisbane City Council (1995) 131 ALR 333 at 345 on the meaning of ‘the services of’. In Allied Mills Industries Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (No 1) (1981) 55 FLR 125 Sheppard J of the Federal Court of Australia held that the Trade Practices Commission was an emanation or agency of the Commonwealth and simply concluded that the use by the Commission of documents in which copyright might subsist in favour of Allied Mills would not be a breach of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) by reason of s 183 as such acts would have been done for the services of the Commonwealth. Most of the documents were relevant to proceedings brought by the Commission against Allied Mills for penalties for breaches of s 45 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). As a matter of precaution the Commission obtained an authority from the Commonwealth to use the various documents.
- 34.
(1964) 112 CLR 125.
- 35.
‘THE COMMISSIONER FOR RAILWAYS … HEREBY pursuant to s 125(1) of the Patents Act 1952 of the Commonwealth of Australia AUTHORIZES AE GOODWIN LIMITED a Company duly incorporated and carrying on business in the State of New South Wales … (hereinafter called the Contractor) and any of its Subcontractors IN RELATION to the supply by the Contractor to the Commissioner of any article to be used by the Commissioner in or in relation to the exercise of his powers and the operation of the said railways TO MAKE USE EXERCISE OR VEND any invention to which the provisions of the said s 125(1) relate AND TO USE any model plan document or information relating to any such invention which may be required for that purpose....’ (1964) 112 CLR 125, 128.
- 36.
The defence provision is s 163 but ss 163–165 set out a broadly similar notification scheme to that contained in s 183. Exploitation rights are dealt with in Ch 17 Part 2 of the Act: Exploitation by the Crown. Wider rights are provided to the Commonwealth to acquire patents under the Act in Part 3 of Ch 17.
- 37.
(1964) 112 CLR 125, 133, 134.
- 38.
[1965] AC 512.
- 39.
Ibid, 533, 534, 535.
- 40.
Ibid, 543.
- 41.
Ibid, 549, 568.
- 42.
Ibid, 569.
- 43.
(1995) 131 ALR 333.
- 44.
(1995) 131 ALR 333, 348.
- 45.
(1982) 65 FLR 437.
- 46.
Copyright Agency Limited v New South Wales [2008] HCA 35 [56].
- 47.
Ibid. [70].
- 48.
Refer to judgment of the High Court in Ibid, [8, 55–59, 70].
- 49.
It has for more than two decades generally been the practice of the Commonwealth to rely on the provision as a last resort.
- 50.
Refer Pearce and Geddes (2011), pp. 164–165 [4.56], where the authors point out that punctuation is a relevant consideration in determining the meaning of a provision even though at the Commonwealth level at least there is no statutory clarification of this principle and courts have at times shown a reluctance to pay regard to punctuation. In four jurisdictions amendments to their Interpretation Acts provide that punctuation in an Act is part of the Act: Legislation Act 2001 (ACT) s 126(6); Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) s 14(6); Acts Interpretation Act 1915 (SA) s 19; Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic) s 36(3B).
- 51.
Lindgren et al. (2004), Vol 1 [28, 561].
- 52.
Refer Australia. Copyright Law Review Committee (Spicer Committee) (1959), [404–405]. ‘The occasions on which the Crown may need to use copyright material are varied and many. Most of us think that it is not possible to list those matters which might be said to be more vital to the public interest than others. At the same time the rights of the author should be protected by provisions for the payment of just compensation to be fixed in the last resort by the Court....’ and second reading speech for the Copyright Bill 1968, Australia. Copyright Law Review Committee (Spicer Committee) (1959): ‘The Bill puts beyond doubt that the Crown is bound by the copyright law. Provision is made, however, [in Pt VII] for the use of copyright material for the services of the Commonwealth or the States upon payment of compensation to the owner of the copyright.’ There was very little change from the original 1967 Bill: second reading speech for the Copyright Bill 1967: Australia, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), House of Representatives, 18 May 1967, 2334–2335 (N Bowen, Attorney-General): ‘Provision is made … for the use of copyright material for the services of the Commonwealth or the States upon payment of compensation to the owner of the copyright. These provisions are contained in clause 179 of the Bill, which in this respect follows the relevant provisions of the Patents Act.’
- 53.
Other than ‘excluded copies’ and copies for personal use. Screenrights is the trading name of the Audio-Visual Copyright Society Limited which is a declared collecting society under s 182C of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).
- 54.
Sections 36 and 101. A similar position applies to those indirect infringements under the Act, such as importation for sale or hire (s 102). These indirect infringements require proof of knowledge by the person infringing.
- 55.
(1841) 9 F. Cas. 342, 2 Story (Amer.) 100. Refer also Bentley and Kretschmer (eds), Primary Sources on copyright (1450–1900).
- 56.
Folsom v Marsh 9 F.Cas.342, 2 Story (Amer) 100, 111.
- 57.
Folsom v Marsh 9 F.Cas.342, 2 Story (Amer) 100, 113, 114.
- 58.
[2007] FCAFC 80 (5 June 2007).
- 59.
Ibid [156].
- 60.
Copyright Agency Limited v New South Wales [2008] HCA 35 [46, 47].
- 61.
Ibid, [92, 93].
- 62.
‘At its narrowest, the High Court’s decision in Copyright Agency Ltd v New South Wales can be read as holding that where third party copyright documents (in this case the survey plans) are lodged with a government registry and the State later sells rights to access and use of those documents to commercial vendors at commercial rates, the State’s rights to reproduce and communicate those copyright materials are governed by the statutory licensing arrangements and payment of equitable remuneration under ss 183 and 183A of the Copyright Act 1968’: Fitzgerald et al. (2011), p. 430.
- 63.
Fitzgerald et al. (2011), p. 431.
- 64.
Springfield v Thame (1903) 89 LT 242; De Garis v Neville Jeffress Pidler Pty Ltd (1990) 18 IPR 292, 302–303.
- 65.
[2006] HCA 55; (2006) 229 CLR 577 at 595–596 [59] per Kirby and Crennan JJ; see also Gummow ACJ at 584 [16].
- 66.
This gives business efficacy to the relationship established by the submission of the correspondence.
- 67.
The former permits a single working copy and a single reference copy of a published or an unpublished work kept in the collection of the National Archives of Australia to be made by the Archives where the work is open to public inspection. The latter, which has application to all non-profit archival institutions (as well as libraries), inter alia permits a copy of a work in manuscript form or an original artistic work that forms part of the collection of the archives to be made by the archives for the purpose of preserving the manuscript or original artistic work against loss or deterioration.
- 68.
Refer Springfield v Thame (1903) 89 LT 242 and DeGaris v Neville Jeffress Pidler Pty Ltd (1990) 18 IPR 292, 303–303. An implied licence to publish public submissions sent to parliamentary and other public inquiries would normally subsist in the convenor of such inquiries.
- 69.
Folsom v Marsh 9 F.Cas.342, 2 Story (Amer) 100, 113, 114.
- 70.
The agreement or licence providing the authority must be approved by the relevant Commonwealth or State Attorney-General (s 183(6)).
- 71.
The Copyright Act 1968 includes special defence provisions enabling the doing of acts comprised in the copyright in works and other subject matter by the judicial and parliamentary arms of government. Section 48A and s 104A are defences to infringement which enable a parliamentary library to do acts comprised in the copyright for the sole purpose of assisting a member of parliament in the performance of that person’s duties as a member. Section 43 and s104 are defences to infringement which enable anything done for the purpose of a judicial proceeding or a report of a judicial proceeding. No compensation is provided to the copyright owner under these provisions.
- 72.
Other examples are ss 720 and 743 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (Cth) which enable the responsible Commonwealth Minister or Titles Administrator in exercise of their powers under to the Act to do any acts comprised in the copyright in a literary or artistic work that are applicable documents (which include lodged applications, reports and returns under the Act). Refer to the discussion in Fitzgerald et al. (2012), p. 160.
- 73.
State Freedom of Information Acts contain bars on actions for defamation and breach of confidence in respect of the giving of access under their several enactments but not bars on actions for copyright infringement although all contemplate the provision of a copy of a document as a form of access. Section 23(3)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic) provides that if the form of access to a document would involve an infringement of copyright, access in that form may be refused and access given in another form. The Commonwealth Parliament under the Australian Constitution has exclusive legislative power over copyright.
- 74.
As Gaudron J stated in Saraswati v R (1991) 100 ALR 193, 204,’ It is a basic rule of construction that, in the absence of express words, an earlier statutory provision is not repealed, altered or derogated from by a later provision unless an intention to that effect is necessarily to be implied. There must be very strong grounds to support that implication, for there is a general presumption that the legislature intended that both provisions should operate and that, to the extent that they would otherwise overlap, one should be read as subject to the other’.
- 75.
Refer Rose v Hrvic (1963) 108 CLR 353, 360.
- 76.
For further discussion see Campbell and Monotti (2002).
- 77.
See for example Parliamentary Papers Act 1891 (WA) s 1 and the Parliamentary Papers (Supplementary Provisions) Act 1975 (NSW) s 6, Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 (SA) s 31. Refer also s 11(1) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth) which provides that no action, civil or criminal, lies against an officer of a House in respect of a publication to a member of a document that has been laid before a House.
- 78.
Attorney-General (Qld) v Attorney-General (Cwth) (1915) 20 CLR 148, 172; Almalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co (Engineers Case) (1920) 28 CLR 129, 154; Melbourne v Commonwealth (1947) 74 CLR 31, 66, 75, 83, Stuart-Robertson v Lloyd (1932) 47 CLR 482: Queensland Electricity Commission v Commonwealth (1985) 159 CLR 192, Victoria v Commonwealth (1996) 187 CLR 416.
- 79.
Duke of Newcastle v Morris (1870) LR 4HL 661, 671, 677, 680.
- 80.
As in most industrialised capitalist democracies, refer generally Wilenski (1982), p. 37.
- 81.
Australia. Office of Government Information Technology (1997), xxix, 164.
- 82.
Australia. Department of Finance and Deregulation (2010) [11].
- 83.
For example, along the lines of ss 47–50 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (UK).
- 84.
Australia, Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (2005) [3].
- 85.
World Trade Organization (1994) and the position under Article 13, Section 1 of TRIPS (Copyright and Related Rights) at n 1.
- 86.
Australia. Copyright Law Review Committee (Spicer Committee Report) (1959) [404]. In New Zealand, where the Crown use provision in its Copyright Act 1994 has a restricted scope relating to the needs of national security, period of emergency, and the safety and health of the public or any member of the public and which is subject to equitable remuneration, the law also provides a number of express non-remunerated provisions enabling copying and other acts by the Crown for administrative and other purposes in addition to acts done under statutory authority: refer Copyright Act 1994 (NZ) ss 61–63, s 66.
- 87.
Refer to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) s 11C.
- 88.
Gilchrist (2011), pp. 65 and 67. The Australian Copyright Council Ltd had made submissions to the Franki Committee that all copying should be remunerated upon the basis that authors should receive a royalty for each copy page made of any work within copyright. In Britain, the Whitford Committee also reached a similar view by concluding that all reprography be remunerated and that fair dealing be confined to hand or typewritten copies.
- 89.
The author of this chapter. Australia, Copyright Law Review Committee (2005), p. 187.
- 90.
Copyright Act 1994 (NZ) s 62. Section 61 of that Act also provides another public administration defence—namely the specific defence to infringement in relation to copying of material open to public inspection or on an official (statutory) register. This provision is similar to s 47 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (UK).
- 91.
Section 48 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (UK) was amended by the the Copyright (Public Administration) Regulations 2014 (UK) to encompass making the work available to the public by electronic transmission, which remedies a limitation of the earlier provision to enable copies to be shared on the internet. United Kingdom. Intellectual Property Office (2011), p. 108. ‘7.198 The Copyright Act allows a variety of acts to be performed by public bodies to enable them to discharge their duties effectively…. 7.201 However, although some of these exceptions permit the issuing of copies to the public, this relates only to the issuing of individual copies, for example paper copies. It does not permit copies to be shared on the internet.’
- 92.
Australia. Australian Law Reform Commission, Copyright and the Digital Economy (ALRC Report 122), 349, 350, 347, 344 http://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiries/copyright-and-digital-economy.
- 93.
The Australian Law Reform Commission released a discussion paper on its Copyright and the Digital Economy reference with a draft recommendation that proposed repeal of the statutory licence in Part VII Div 2 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) in favour of voluntary licensing arrangements. Australia. Australian Law Reform Commission, pp. 283–297. However in its final Report, it recommended the retention of the statutory licence in an amended form so that it was more flexible and less prescriptive. It recommended detailed provisions such as the setting of equitable remuneration, sampling notices and record keeping be removed ‘so that more commercial and efficient agreements can be made between the parties’. It did warn however that ‘the criticism will be that this reduced prescription comes at a cost – namely, uncertainty and litigation’. Australia. Australian Law Reform Commission, Copyright and the Digital Economy (ALRC Report 122), 95, 201–202, 206–208 http://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiries/copyright-and-digital-economy.
References
Government Reports
Australia. Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (2005) Review of crown use provisions for patents and designs, November 2005. http://www.acip.gov.au/library/review_of_crown_use_provisions.pdf
Australia. Copyright Law Committee on Reprographic Reproduction (Franki Committee) (1976) Report of the Copyright Law Committee on Reprographic Reproduction. AGPS, Canberra
Australia. Copyright Law Review Committee (2005) Crown Copyright, Canberra
Australia. Copyright Law Review Committee (Spicer Committee) (1959) Report to consider what alterations are desirable in the copyright law of the commonwealth. Canberra
Australia. Department of Finance and Deregulation (2010) Government response to the report of the government 2.0 Taskforce, May 2010. http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/govresponse20report/doc/Government-Response-to-Gov-2-0-Report.pdf
Australia. Office of Government Information Technology (1997) management of government information as a national strategic resource: report of the Information Management Steering Committee on information management in the Commonwealth Government, August 1997
Australia. Australian Law Reform Commission, copyright and the digital economy: discussion paper (DP79). http://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiries/copyright-and-digital-economy
United Kingdom. Board of Trade (1952) Report of the copyright committee (Gregory Committee), Cmd 8662
United Kingdom. Intellectual Property Office (2011) Consultation on Copyright. http://www.ipo.gov.uk/consult-ia-bis0309.pdf
US Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel (1999) Memorandum from Acting Assistant Attorney-General RE: Whether Government Reproduction of Copyrighted Materials Invariably is a “Fair Use” under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 (30 April 1999). http://www.loc.gov/flicc/gc/fairuse.html
World Trade Organization (1994) Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm0_e.htm
Articles/Monographs
Bentley L, Kretschmer M (eds) Primary sources on copyright (1450–1900). http://www.copyrighthistory.org
Campbell E, Monotti A (2002) Immunities of agents of government from liability for infringement of copyright. Federal Law Rev 30(3):459–473
Fitzgerald B, Fitzgerald A et al (2011) Internet and e-commerce law, business and policy. Lawbook Co, Sydney
Fitzgerald B, Foong C, Fitzgerald A (2012) Copyright exceptions beyond the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). Canb Law Rev 11(2):160–166
Gilchrist J (2011) The Franki Committee (1976) Report and Statutory Licensing. In: Fitzgerald B, Atkinson B (eds) Copyright future: copyright freedom. Sydney University Press, Sydney, pp 65–71
Lindgren K, Rothnie WA, Lahore JC (2004) Copyright and designs. LexisNexis Butterworths, Sydney
Pearce DC, Geddes RS (2011) Statutory interpretation in Australia, 7th edn. LexisNexis Butterworths, Sydney
Ricketson S, Creswell C (2002) The law of intellectual property: copyright, designs and confidential information, 2nd edn. LBC Thomson Reuters, Sydney
Wilenski PS (1982) Small government and social equity. In: Withers G (ed) Bigger or smaller government? Papers from the sixth symposium of the academy of social sciences in Australia, Academy of Social Sciences in Australia, Canberra, pp 37-70
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gilchrist, J. (2015). Crown Use: The Government as User of Copyright Material Owned by Other Persons. In: Fitzgerald, B., Gilchrist, J. (eds) Copyright Perspectives. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15913-3_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15913-3_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-15912-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-15913-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)