Category Archive for: ‘Defamation’
The Supreme Court of Victoria today handed down its damages judgment in an online defamation case brought against Google Inc and Google Australia. The man, Mr Trkulja, was falsely identified as being a criminal on the internet. In particular, when one performed a search using the Google search engine the resulting pages showed an image of Mr Trkulja’s appearing next …
The recent case of Cornes v The Ten Group & Ors  SASC 104 has put into question where humour fits within our society. The judgment indicates that the Court is prepared to intervene where a joke goes too far.
Google had a laugh on April Fool’s Day, releasing a joke ad for a “human autocompleter” in place of the computer algorithms presently used. It’s good to see a corporate entity willing to take the mickey out of itself, as only days earlier, the Milan Court of Appeal handed down a decision that held Google Italy liable for defamation because of the way its autocomplete feature linked a businessman’s name with the words for “fraud” and “conman”.
The Australian parody/satire fair dealing defence to copyright infringement was introduced in December 2006 (s 41A of the Copyright Act ). But does anyone really know what it covers? Humour is subjective, and there is a dearth of relevant case law in this country. Of course, the parody/satire defence doesn’t require a piece to be funny per se (although such a requirement could lead to interesting courtroom debates), and the nature of parody implies that the piece must at least be comedic in nature.