IPMojo

BOOK AN APPOINTMENT

Archives for August 2025

by

Copy That, Part 3 – Economic Rights, Moral Rights, and Beyond

Copyright isn’t just about money—it’s also about dignity.

In Australia, copyright law recognises two distinct sets of rights: economic rights and moral rights. Economic rights are about commercial control and exploitation. Moral rights are about personal connection and respect for the creator. Together, they shape not just who can profit from a work, but also how that work can be used and credited.

Economic rights: the commercial engine

Economic rights give the copyright owner exclusive control over:

  • Reproduction – copying the work in any form (printing, scanning, duplicating files)

  • Publication – releasing the work to the public for the first time

  • Performance – performing the work in public (for plays, music, etc.)

  • Communication – sharing the work online or by broadcast

  • Adaptation – turning the work into another form (e.g. a book into a film)

These rights can be licensed (permission granted, usually with conditions) or assigned (ownership permanently transferred). They’re the levers by which copyright generates income—royalties, sales, syndication, and more.

Moral rights: the creator’s personal stake

Moral rights aren’t about money—they’re about the creator’s relationship to their work. They belong only to individuals (not companies) and last for the creator’s life plus 70 years. There are three:

  1. Right of attribution – to be named as the creator

  2. Right against false attribution – to prevent someone else being credited for your work

  3. Right of integrity – to prevent derogatory treatment of your work that prejudices your honour or reputation

Moral rights cannot be assigned—you can’t sell them. But a creator can give written consent to acts that might otherwise infringe these rights.

The commercial reality

In industries like film, publishing, advertising, and architecture, it’s common for creators to be asked to give moral rights consents (sometimes called waivers). This lets the work be altered, edited, or incorporated into larger projects without constant approvals—important in collaborative, large-scale productions.

For businesses, understanding moral rights isn’t just legal hygiene—it’s risk management. For creators, it’s a reminder that copyright isn’t just an asset, it’s part of your identity.

Next up in our Copy That series:
Part 4 – Copyright Duration and the Public Domain
Because nothing lasts forever—except maybe the internet.

by

Site-Blocking at Scale: Roadshow v Telstra 2025 and the Machinery of s 115A

Roadshow Films Pty Limited v Telstra Limited [2025] FCA 744 marks another brick in the ever-growing wall of Australian site-blocking jurisprudence. The decision adds little doctrinal spice but delivers a strong dose of enforcement pragmatism — and plenty to reflect on.

🎬 The Backstory

In this latest chapter of the Roadshow saga, rights-holders — including Disney, Netflix, Warner Bros., Paramount and others — sought injunctions under s 115A of the Copyright Act to block dozens of offshore streaming sites serving up pirated films to Australian users. The targets included notorious offenders like Hianime, Soap2Day, 123Movies, and HydraHD — many already well known to regular visitors of the Federal Court’s website.

📡 The ISPs: Here We Go Again

The respondents — a who’s who of Australia’s internet service providers (Telstra, Optus, TPG, Vodafone, Vocus, and Aussie Broadband) — all filed submitting appearances. They didn’t contest the application and were ordered to implement DNS, IP, and/or URL blocking within 15 business days of service. Compliance costs were awarded at $50 per domain, continuing the usual practice.

🧾 The Legal Machinery

Justice Younan applied the now-settled framework from the earlier Roadshow decisions. Key points:

  • The Court relied on deemed admissions and hearsay waivers (under s 190 of the Evidence Act) to accept that copyright subsisted, was owned or exclusively licensed to the applicants, and was being infringed.

  • Reasonable efforts had been made to notify the site operators, who unsurprisingly didn’t show.

  • The purpose and effect of the sites was plainly to infringe or facilitate infringement: free access to recent films, indexed and monetised by ads.

📈 Expansion Orders and Continuity Clauses

The orders include mechanisms for:

  • Rolling additions of new domains/IPs via solicitor certificates and no-objection notices;

  • Applications to extend the block after the initial 3-year lifespan expires;

  • Rights of affected site owners to apply to vary or discharge the order.

🧠 So What?

This case adds to a growing body of precedent that renders s 115A injunctions almost administrative when uncontested. The Federal Court has effectively created a template — one that large rights-holders can now run through with minimal friction.

But there are questions here too:

  • Does this model amount to efficient enforcement, or a piecemeal arms race?

  • Should there be more judicial scrutiny — especially where evidence is largely hearsay or paralegal-driven?

  • Is blocking access via ISPs still a meaningful remedy in a world of VPNs and mirror sites?

📌 Either way, the case underscores how s 115A — once a bold legislative experiment — is now part of the copyright enforcement machinery. It may not be glamorous, but it’s getting the job done.

by

Copy That, Part 2 – Who Owns Copyright? Navigating the Rights Minefield

You wrote it. You made it. You own it… right?

Not always.

In Australia, the question of who owns copyright isn’t as simple as “the person who created it”.

The answer depends heavily on how the work was created, who you were working with at the time, and what agreements—if any—were in place. Misunderstanding ownership rules can cause disputes that are far more expensive to fix than they would have been to prevent.

The general rule: the creator owns the copyright

If you sit down at your kitchen table and write a short story, paint a landscape, or compose a song, you own the copyright. No-one else can use it without your permission.

But in the real world, works are often created in the context of a job, a collaboration, or a paid commission—and that’s where the rules get tricky.

When the general rule doesn’t apply

There are a few other specific exceptions under the Copyright Act (for example, certain government works and older commission rules), but for most situations the main ones to watch are:

1. Employees

If you create a work in the course of your employment and as part of your normal job duties, the copyright usually belongs to your employer.

That “in the course of employment” test is important—something you do entirely on your own time, with your own equipment, may well remain yours.

2. Contractors & freelancers

Unlike employees, independent contractors usually retain copyright in their work unless there’s an agreement that transfers it to the client.

That means if you commission a designer to create a logo without a written assignment of copyright, they might still own it, even though you paid for it.

3. Commissioned works

Paying for a work doesn’t automatically make you the copyright owner. The main exception is certain photographs and portraits commissioned for private or domestic purposes—here, the person commissioning the work is the first owner of copyright.

4. Collaborations

Just because two people worked together on a project doesn’t mean they’re joint authors. Joint authorship arises only if each person made a real creative contribution to the work.

Supplying ideas, feedback, or research assistance doesn’t always count.

Why it matters

Getting ownership wrong can leave you unable to stop someone else from using the work you thought was yours—or unable to use it yourself without their permission.

Disputes often arise years later, when the work turns out to have commercial value.

IP Mojo tip: put it in writing

Whether you’re commissioning a work, collaborating on a project, or creating as part of your job, don’t rely on assumptions.

A clear, written agreement about who will own the copyright (and on what terms) is one of the cheapest and most effective forms of IP insurance you can buy.

Next up in our Copy That series:
Part 3 – Economic Rights, Moral Rights, and Beyond
Because copyright isn’t just about money—it’s also about recognition and control.

by

What’s in a Name? Paige LLC Fails to Block “Sage + Paige” Despite Collab Confusion Claims

In a decision straight from the catwalk of modern trade mark law, the Federal Court has dismissed a challenge by Californian fashion label Paige LLC against the Australian brand Sage + Paige, ruling that the newer composite marks are not deceptively similar to PAIGE and won’t mislead fashion-savvy Aussie consumers.

Decision: Paige LLC v Sage and Paige Collective Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 750 (10 July 2025) (Needham J)

👗 Background: Denim v Dresses

Paige LLC, known globally for its premium denim and celeb collabs, owns the trade mark PAIGE in Australia. When Aussie fashion house Sage and Paige Collective Pty Ltd applied to register two composite trade marks—Saige + Paige (stylised with a pink circle) and Sage + Paige (stylised, but text-only)—the US company objected under:

  • Section 44: deceptive similarity to its PAIGE marks, and

  • Section 60: likelihood of confusion due to its established reputation.

The core argument? That the “+” sign in Sage + Paige might lead consumers to believe it’s a collaboration with PAIGE—a well-known practice in fashion.

⚖️ The Court’s Take

Justice Needham accepted that brand collaborations (or “collabs”) are indeed a recognised trend, and the notional consumer might think of such things. But that wasn’t enough.

“The use of two names with the same stylisation tend to indicate… a singular brand name, rather than two separate, collaborating, brand names.” — Needham J at [89]

Despite PAIGE having a modest reputation in Australia, the Court found no real, tangible danger of deception or confusion. The composite marks were deemed to stand on their own: visually unified, aurally distinct, and conceptually grounded in a “two names, one brand” tradition, not a collab cue.

🧵 Key Takeaways

  • “+” doesn’t equal collab: Just linking two names with a plus sign doesn’t automatically imply co-branding, even in industries where collabs are common.

  • Given names don’t always dominate: Paige is not an invented or highly distinctive term; it’s just a given name, and its presence doesn’t override the overall impression.

  • Stylisation and consumer habits matter: The Court looked at actual branding trends and consumer practices (like buying online and familiarity with fashion collabs).

🪡 The Bottom Line

This is a rich example of the law stitching together traditional principles of deceptive similarity with modern commercial practices. It shows how context—consumer knowledge, industry trends, brand stylisation—can make or break a trade mark opposition, even where name overlap exists.

For now, Sage + Paige gets to strut the IP runway without tripping over PAIGE’s heels.

by

Part 1 – Copyright 101: What It Is and Why It Matters

If you create, you already own more than you think.

Every day, Australians are producing things that copyright protects—often without even realising it. A marketing brochure. A wedding photograph. A hand-drawn logo. The source code for an app. The jingle that gets stuck in your head from your local café’s radio ad.

Copyright is the invisible shield that springs into existence the moment an original work is created. No forms to fill in, no fees to pay, no government stamp of approval required. In Australia, the protection is automatic.

So, what does copyright actually protect?

Quite a lot. The Copyright Act covers a wide range of works, including:

  • Literary works – from novels and poetry to software code and blog posts

  • Musical works – original music compositions

  • Dramatic works – plays, screenplays, choreography

  • Artistic works – paintings, photographs, drawings, architectural plans

  • Films – movies, short films, animations

  • Sound recordings – audio files, albums, podcasts

  • Broadcasts – radio and television transmissions

  • Published editions – the typographical layout of printed material

What it doesn’t protect is just as important: ideas, titles, names, slogans, methods, or styles. Those might fall into other areas of intellectual property, like trade marks, patents, or designs.

The rights you get as a copyright owner

As the owner, you have exclusive control over how your work is used. That means you can:

  • Reproduce it – make copies, whether physical or digital

  • Publish it – make it available for the first time

  • Communicate it – share it online, broadcast it, or stream it

  • Adapt it – turn your novel into a screenplay, or your photo series into a calendar

These rights are known as economic rights—and they’re the foundation for licensing deals, royalties, and other commercial uses.

How is copyright different from trade marks and patents?

Think of it this way:

  • Copyright protects the original expression of an idea (e.g. the book you wrote).

  • Trade marks protect your brand identity (e.g. the name and logo on the cover).

  • Patents protect new inventions or processes (e.g. a new kind of printing press).

  • Design rights protect the visual appearance of a product (e.g. the unique shape of your book’s slipcase).

Different tools, different jobs—but all part of the IP toolkit.

Why it matters

In a world where content is copied, reposted, and remixed in seconds, copyright is one of the most important protections a creator or business can have. It helps you:

  • Stop unauthorised copying or use

  • Control how your work is presented and distributed

  • Monetise your creativity through licensing and sales

  • Safeguard your competitive edge

The bottom line? If you create something original, copyright is already in your corner—you just need to know how to use it.

Next in our “Copy That” series:
Part 2 – Who Owns Copyright? Navigating the Rights Minefield
Because owning it isn’t always as simple as creating it.

by

Never Get Busted! — Principal Director Dispute Stops the Projectors Rolling

The Federal Court has issued an injunction two days before the Melbourne International Film Festival (MIFF) in relation to the credits of a documentary called Never Get Busted! after one of its co-directors claimed the other director was busted crediting himself as “Principal Director”.

The fight for “Principal Director”

Stephen McCallum and David Ngo both directed the documentary, but McCallum claimed he was the Principal Director under both his contract and the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).

That distinction matters. Section 191 says that where there’s more than one director, “director” means principal director for moral rights purposes. Being named principal director can influence reputation, career progression, and eligibility for awards.

Ngo accepted McCallum was a director, but said he (Ngo) was the principal director — especially after McCallum allegedly stepped back from key phases of production.

Moral rights + misleading conduct

McCallum alleged:

  • Infringement of his moral rights — failure to attribute him as principal director and false attribution of Ngo as principal director (ss 189, 191, 195AW).

  • Misleading and deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL s 18) — particularly in promotional materials suggesting Ngo alone “helmed” the film.

The respondents countered that McCallum had waived or consented to infringements via a contractual clause (cl 6.2) and that the current festival credits, listing both men as “Directors”, were enough.

Why credit order matters

Industry evidence showed that:

  • The phrase “Directed by” — and the order of names — signals who is principal director.

  • The person listed last in opening credits (or first in closing credits) is usually the principal director.

  • Festival program notes, Q&A invitations, and even website blurbs shape perception within the industry, not just for audiences.

Here, McCallum’s name came second to Ngo in credits and promotional materials, with Ngo described as “helming” the project. The Court found this created a real risk of conveying Ngo as sole principal director.

The injunction

Justice Shariff found a serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience favoured McCallum. The injunction stopped the screening and promotion unless:

  • The credits read “Directed by Stephen McCallum” and did not say “Directed by” for Ngo; or

  • Promotional materials gave McCallum the principal director attribution.

McCallum’s alternative — stating the credits were “the subject of court proceedings” — was rejected as commercially riskier.

Why it matters

This isn’t just about ego or font order. It’s about:

  • The legal and reputational value of creative credits.

  • How moral rights, contracts, and the ACL can collide.

  • How quickly these disputes can boil over when a premiere’s at stake.

💡 IP Mojo Tips:

  • Lock it in — Nail down exactly how you’ll be credited in your contract, including the exact wording and where it appears.

  • Think beyond the film — Festival programs, Q&A panels, and press releases are part of your “attribution ecosystem”.

  • Watch the waivers — A broad moral rights consent might not save the other side if it clashes with specific credit clauses.

The sequel? The full trial is set for September 2025. Pass the popcorn.