6 September 2004
Louise Gell
The Director
Copyright Law Review Committee Secretariat
Attorney-General’s Department
Robert Garran Offices
National Circuit
BARTON ACT 2600
Dear Ms Gell
REVIEW OF CROWN COPYRIGHT IN AUSTRALIA
Copyright Agency Limited (CAL) is grateful that it had the opportunity to attend the Crown
Copyright Forum held by the Copyright Law Review Committee (CLRC) on 27 July 2004 in Sydney.
CAL wishes to respond to several of the issues raised at the forum which are of central interest to
CAL’s members.
Section 182A
CAL is aware of the views put by various parties at the forum that section 182A of the Copyright Act
1968 should be extended to permit multiple copying of prescribed documents, or that various
categories of documents should not be afforded copyright protection under the Act.
CAL wishes to restate its view that prescribed documents, such as judgments and legislation, should
be protected by copyright in order to ensure their integrity if they are copied. CAL cannot see how
providing copyright protection to works prevents access to them, particularly as section 182A is
already in force and providing access to these works to users. There does not appear to have been
any example given showing that users are not adequately provided access under the current section
182A.
Should the committee decide to recommend that multiple copying of prescribed works be
permitted under section 182A, CAL would like the Committee to consider the position expressed
by CAL in its original submission. This is that a further section be inserted into the Act to ensure
that users are aware that such an exception does not apply to non-Crown works, especially those
produced by legal publishers. CAL suggests that the additional clause be drafted in similar terms to
paragraph 15 of UK Guidance Note 6 to alert users to the distinction between prescribed works
created by the Crown and other works for which the copyright owner should be afforded copyright
protection.
C