Moral ripes: when people eat copyright works
It’s bananas! Someone has eaten an artwork, and we're obliged at IP Whiteboard to comment on the consequences in intellectual property law, if it was ever art at all. read more...Author: Luke Hawthorne
Luke is a Senior Associate in the Sydney IP Litigation team. Luke loves litigation – he even once caught himself refreshing AustLii. He joins the King & Wood Mallesons team from the world of media and entertainment; sadly, only ever as a lawyer. Swapping the spotlight for the limelight, he enjoys a comment on all things contentious, commercialised, or conspicuously copyright-related.
It’s bananas! Someone has eaten an artwork, and we're obliged at IP Whiteboard to comment on the consequences in intellectual property law, if it was ever art at all. read more...
“13 Reasons Why” to watch Article 13 – Copyright reform in the European Union
Last week, a plenary session of the European Parliament has voted to adopt changes to the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (or the Copyright Directive for short), that was first introduced by the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs on 20 June 2018.
The Copyright Directive contains a number of sections that have been extremely polarising – critics argue that the Copyright Directive will encourage a form of censorship while supporters argue that the Copyright Directive will protect the works of artists and creators. One of the most contentious parts of the Copyright Directive is Article 13. read more...
The Budget 2018-2019: our three key areas for intellectual property
Biotechnology companies and generic pharmaceuticals are the winners and celebrities are the Biggest Losers in some intellectual property-related measures in last night’s Australian Federal Budget. Below, we set out the three key areas of interest from our first reading. Swap it! Boost for generic and biosimilar awareness campaigns The Budget will fund measures to increase the use read more...Blockchained to the rhythm: what are ‘distributed ledgers’ and could they help the music industry and copyright?
Forget Napster! One of the biggest problems in the music industry is the who, what, where, and why: which labels and publishers, performers, songwriters and producers own which rights and what split of royalties should be paid? Worse still: when are the songs being played, who by, and for what purpose? This occurs, in part, read more...
Counter-productive? Australia’s Productivity Commission releases Final Report into Australia’s Intellectual Property Arrangements
Yesterday, Australia’s Productivity Commission released their Final Report into Australia’s Intellectual Property Arrangements. This report was sent to Government on 23 September 2016. The Government is carrying out additional public consultation in relation to the recommendations made in the Final Report, which differ in key respects from some of the Commission’s draft recommendations. You can read more...An apparently ‘precious’ ring: Federal Court grants summary judgment to rule them all
The Federal Court of Australia has given summary judgment in Tolkien Estate Limited v Saltalamacchia [2016] FCA 944 for Tolkien Estate Limited (representing the estate of the late JRR Tolkien) against a jewellery trader selling rings bearing the infamous inscription of the ‘One Ring’ from Tolkien’s The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings series. read more...The fragrant but (un)safe harbour: what happened to Hong Kong’s Copyright amendment?
Hong Kong may be famed for its deep and sheltered harbour, but prolonged debate over amendments to the Copyright Ordinance have seen ‘safe harbours’ for internet providers sink. On 8 March 2016, an Editorial in the South China Morning Post mourned for Hong Kong’s amendment, Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014: With the legislature becoming increasingly hostile, read more...