IPMojo

BOOK AN APPOINTMENT

IP

by

Whose Work Is It Anyway? The Remix War, AI, Coffee Plungers and Swimsuits

From Elton John to anonymous meme-makers, a battle is raging over what it means to be “creative” — and whether it starts with permission.

Two stories made waves in copyright circles last week:

  • In the UK, Sir Elton John, Sir Paul McCartney and other musical heavyweights called for stronger rules to stop AI from “scraping” their songs without a licence.

  • In India, news agency ANI drew criticism for aggressively issuing YouTube copyright claims — even for sub-10 second clips — triggering takedown threats against creators.

At first glance, these might seem worlds apart. But they highlight the same question:

At what point does using someone else’s work become exploitation, not inspiration?

And who decides?

Creators vs Reusers: Two Sides of the Copyright Culture Clash

On one side: Creators — musicians, writers, filmmakers, photographers — frustrated by tech platforms and algorithms ingesting their work without permission. Whether it’s AI training data or news footage embedded in political commentary, their message is the same:
“You’re building on our backs. Pay up.”

On the other side: Remixers, meme-makers, educators, and critics argue that strict copyright regimes chill creativity. “How can we critique culture,” they ask, “if we’re not allowed to reference it?”

This isn’t new — hip hop, collage art, satire, and even pop music are full of samples and nods. But AI has industrialised the scale of reuse. It doesn’t borrow one beat or a single shot. It eats the entire catalogue — then spits out something “new.”

So what counts as originality anymore?

Australian Lens: Seafolly, Bodum, and the Meaning of “Original”

Seafolly v Madden [2012] FCA 1346

In this high-profile swimwear spat, designer Leah Madden accused Seafolly of copying her designs. She posted comparison images on social media implying that Seafolly had engaged in plagiarism. Seafolly sued for misleading and deceptive conduct under ss 52 and 53 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (predecessors to s18 of the Australian Consumer Law – which had by then commenced but the relevant conduct being sued for took place before it had commenced).

The Federal Court found that Madden’s claims were not only misleading but also unsubstantiated, because the design similarities were not the result of actual copying. The case reinforced that:

  • Independent creation is a valid defence, even if the resulting works are similar

  • Superficial resemblance isn’t enough — there must be a causal connection

It’s a reminder that derivation must be substantial and material, not speculative or assumed.

Bodum v DKSH [2011] FCAFC 98

This case involved Bodum’s iconic French press coffee plunger — the Chambord — and whether a rival product sold by DKSH under the “Euroline” brand misled consumers or passed off Bodum’s get-up as its own.

Bodum alleged misleading or deceptive conduct and passing off, based not on name or logo, but on the visual appearance of the product: a clear glass beaker, metal band, and distinctive handles, which had come to be strongly associated with Bodum.

At trial, the Federal Court rejected Bodum’s claims. But on appeal, the Full Federal Court reversed that decision, holding that:

  • Bodum had a substantial reputation in the get-up alone;

  • The Euroline plunger was highly similar in appearance; and

  • DKSH’s failure to adequately differentiate its product through branding or design gave rise to a misleading impression.

Both passing off and misleading/deceptive conduct (also under the old s52) were found. The Court emphasised that reputation in shape and design can be enough — and differentiation must be meaningful, not tokenistic.

The AI Angle: Who Trains Whom?

AI tools like ChatGPT, Midjourney, and Suno don’t just copy works. They learn patterns from thousands of inputs. But in doing so, they arguably absorb creative expression — chord progressions, phrasing, brushstroke styles — and then make new outputs in that same vein.

AI developers claim this is fair use or transformative. Artists argue it’s a form of invisible appropriation — no different from copying and tweaking a painting, but with zero attribution or compensation.

It’s the Seafolly and Bodum problem, scaled up: if AI’s “original” work was trained on 10,000 human ones, is it really original? Or just a remix with plausible deniability?

The Bottom Line

Copyright law is meant to balance:

  • Encouraging creativity

  • Rewarding labour

  • Allowing critique and cultural dialogue

But that balance is breaking under the weight of machine learning models and automated copyright bots. As Seafolly and Bodum show, the law still values intention, process, and context — not just resemblance.

Yet in a world of remix and AI, intention is opaque, and process is synthetic.

So where do we draw the line?

by

IP Australia Knocks Canva to the Canvas

How many patents could a patent combatant patent if a patent combatant could patent patents?  It turns out possibly none, if they’re IT-based patents …

It’s not often that a legal decision about slide deck formatting gets a 230-page appendix and a judicial tone verging on exasperation. But that’s exactly what happened in April when IP Australia handed down the Delegate’s ruling on two Canva patent applications. And for tech lawyers, it’s a masterclass in where the edges of software patentability still lie in Australia.

What Canva Sought to Patent

Canva — Australia’s SaaS design darling — had sought patent protection for two computer-implemented inventions. One described how to take content from a document and reflow it into a deck format automatically. The other focused on the math behind mapping design “fills” into limited layout “frames.”

The applications were meticulous. Detailed. Full of flowcharts, hierarchy data, bounding boxes, fills, and pagination logic. They read like a design engineer’s epic poem – a love letter to structured templates.

But in the eyes of IP Australia, they weren’t inventions. Not in the legal sense, anyway.

The Legal Lesson: “Manner of Manufacture” Still Matters

Australia’s test for whether a computer-implemented invention is patentable remains the “manner of manufacture” test — essentially asking whether the claimed invention involves more than just abstract ideas, business rules, or well-known computer functions.

And here, the Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents said: nope.

Despite Canva’s argument that their invention transformed how users generate designs and templates, IP Australia saw it differently: the claims described a process for applying “rules” to content in order to lay it out aesthetically — something a human designer could do, and something that didn’t, in substance, solve a technical problem or enhance the functioning of a computer. It was more scheme than science.

More Than Just a Canva Problem

Why should the rest of us care?

Because this is yet another signal — after decisions like Research Affiliates and Rokt — that Australia continues to draw a relatively narrow line on software patents. If you’re advising a client on patent strategy in the digital design, AI, or UX tooling space, the key takeaway is this: just because something’s hard to code doesn’t mean it’s patentable.

The software has to do more than automate — it must yield a technical effect or improvement that isn’t just the automation itself.

So, What’s Next?

For Canva, it’s back to the drawing board — or perhaps, back to their formidable brand and copyright moat. And they still have six months to reframe the claims in a way that may survive scrutiny.

For the rest of us, it’s another sharp reminder that patenting in the tech sector remains as much an art as a science. Don’t just ask “Is it clever?” Ask, “Is it a manner of manufacture?”

Because in Australian patent law, not all clicks are created equal.

by

Bed Bath ‘N’ Table Not Throwing In the Towel

What happens when your new brand smells a little too much like the towels next door?

If you’re Global Retail Brands Australia (GRBA) — the team behind House and its spinoff House Bed & Bath — you might find yourself embroiled in a multi-front legal fight with long-standing soft homewares heavyweight Bed Bath ‘N’ Table (BBNT). And if you’re BBNT, you might soon be on your way to the High Court of Australia to argue that while a trade mark might not be confusing, a brand strategy can still mislead.

GRBA, long known for “hard homewares” like kitchenware, took a foray into “soft homewares” by launching a new store format under the brand House Bed & Bath. The problem? BBNT had been using Bed Bath ‘N’ Table for over four decades and held multiple trade mark registrations.

BBNT sued under both the Trade Marks Act 1995 and the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), alleging trade mark infringement and misleading and deceptive conduct. While the primary judge in the Federal Court agreed GRBA’s branding was misleading under the ACL (and upheld passing off), they did not find trade mark infringement. The marks weren’t deceptively similar, said the Court — but the Court found  GRBA’s conduct was misleading/deceptive and also constituted passing off.

GRBA appealed, and in a twist befitting a soap opera about linen stores (Doylies of Our Lives? Folded and the Beautiful?), they won. The Full Federal Court overturned the misleading conduct and passing off findings — not because BBNT didn’t have a reputation, but because that reputation didn’t extend far enough to make “Bed & Bath” independently distinctive. The court also pointed to widespread descriptive use of “bed” and “bath” by other retailers and found that GRBA’s actions, while perhaps careless or even opportunistic, didn’t cross the legal line into deception.

BBNT sought special leave to appeal to the High Court. And now the top court in the land will get to decide how much weight to give to brand reputation, wilful blindness, and near-miss branding in Australia’s consumer protection and passing off law.

For trade mark lawyers and marketing advisors, this case is shaping up to be the test of the limits of brand mimicry in retail. Can a well-established business with a household brand name claim monopoly over combinations of common words like “bed” and “bath”? And what level of consumer confusion — or intent to confuse — is enough?

The main takeaways seem to be:

  • Trade mark law and consumer law don’t always walk in lockstep. You can lose one claim and win the other, based on different thresholds and factual assumptions.

  • “Wilful blindness” is not enough by itself. The Federal Court was clear that being strategic (or even a bit cheeky) isn’t the same as being legally deceptive — though the High Court may weigh in differently.

  • Descriptive branding is always a high-risk game. If your mark relies on common category words (like “bed” and “bath”), even 40 years of use might not give you exclusive rights.

  • Appealing to the High Court is rare and consequential. This will be a must-watch for IP lawyers — and one that could reshape how consumer law operates alongside trade mark protection.

Stay tuned for when the High Court beds down the final answer. For now, the towels are fluffed, the pillows are puffed, and the soft homewares sector is on notice.

For the Hitchhiker’s Guide fans, hey, who knows, maybe the HC will make their decision next year on Towel Day?

by

Who Owns the Music? Taylor Swift and the Master Rights Nobody Talks About

She might be Swift, but she wasn’t quick enough to catch the Scooter back in the day.  But now all has changed …

It’s the music industry story that refuses to fade: Taylor Swift may finally have the chance to buy back her original masters — the recordings that launched her global superstardom. If the deal happens, it would close a saga that began in 2019, when her former label sold those recordings to private equity giant Shamrock Capital, following an earlier sale by Scooter Braun’s Ithaca Holdings.

For Swift fans, it’s a long-awaited victory. But for lawyers — and especially those in IP — the story is a masterclass in what most people don’t understand about music rights.

Let’s break it down.

It’s Her Song, But Not Her Recording

When people say “Taylor Swift owns her music,” they’re often talking about copyright in the song/composition itself — comprised of the lyrics, melodies and chord structure. And yes, she owns or co-owns the copyright in many of her compositions, particularly the later albums.

But that’s not the same as owning the recordings. The actual sound recordings of her early music — the studio masters — were owned by her former label, Big Machine Records. That’s standard in the music industry. Unless you’re a major independent artist or had rare contract leverage, your label usually controls the master rights from day one.

So even though the voice on those original albums is Taylor’s, and even though the songs are her words and melodies, the master recordings were never hers to begin with.

Why Master Ownership Matters

Owning the masters means controlling how the recordings are used, licensed, sold, or synced in media. If someone wants to use the originally recorded “Love Story” in a film, the master rights holder — not Taylor — says yes or no and collects the licensing fee.

It also means revenue. Master owners collect royalties from streaming, downloads, radio play, and physical sales. For a catalogue like Swift’s, we’re talking tens of millions of dollars per year.

In fairness, so does Taylor as the songwriter – but not as many as she’d collect if she owned the masters too.

When Swift lost control of her masters, she didn’t just lose licensing rights — she lost influence over how those recordings were represented commercially, something she’s made clear she cares deeply about.

The Re-Recording Strategy — and What This Offer Means

Swift’s response was bold: she began re-recording her albums (as “Taylor’s Versions”) to reclaim both control and commercial value. Because copyright law allows the same songwriter to create a new recording of their own work, she’s been able to rebuild her catalogue under her own terms.

But this new offer — to buy back the original recordings — is different. It’s about reconciling emotional legacy and legal control. For Swift, it could mean regaining ownership of the original audio associated with her rise to fame … and far more royalties.  For Shamrock Capital, it could mean cashing out at a high watermark while retaining goodwill.

The Legal Lesson

Here’s the IP truth every artist — and every lawyer advising creators — should remember:

  • Songs and recordings are separate IP assets with separate ownership structures.

  • A performer can own either, neither, or both.

  • Contract terms set at the start of a career can shape or strangle an artist’s control for decades.

For artists, the Swift story is a cautionary tale — but also a blueprint. For lawyers, it’s a reminder to explain the difference between composition rights, performance rights, and master rights clearly — preferably before the artist becomes a household name.

And for Swifties? It’s one more reason to stream the hell out of 1989 (Taylor’s Version).

by

Sportsgirl Got Sabred

Not a food fight this time, but there’s real passion in fashion in the recent spat between Sportsgirl and high end Sydney brand Maison de Sabre.

Sportsgirl has recently removed from sale some miniature wallets shaped like fruit after Maison de Sabre accused them of copying their products.

Maison de Sabre says that in 2023 it launched its now very popular fruit-shaped charms, which are quite distinctive.  More recently, Sportsgirl started selling miniature wallets, some of which are seen below side by side with the relevant Maison de Sabre products (obviously the Sportsgirl products don’t have “Maison de Sabre” printed on them).

   

Images: Courier Mail

Well, imagine that – Sportsgirl releases some products strikingly similar to Maison de Sabre’s best-sellers. No logos are copied, and the products aren’t passed off by Sportsgirl as being those of Maison de Sabre (we can assume Sportsgirl hung a Sportsgirl label on them), and Maison de Sabre is renowned for these designs. Is Sportsgirl legally in the wrong?

What About Copyright?

In Australia, copyright protects original artistic works. However, once a design is industrially applied—meaning it’s mass-produced—copyright protection typically doesn’t apply. So, if Maison de Sabre’s design has been sold widely, it’s likely not protected by copyright anymore.

Passing Off / Misleading or Deceptive Conduct?

Passing off occurs when one brand misrepresents its products as those of another, causing consumer confusion. But if Sportsgirl clearly branded the products and didn’t suggest any association with Maison de Sabre, it’s challenging to claim passing off.

For the same reasons, it could be difficult to establish misleading or deceptive conduct, or false representations, in breach of the Australian Consumer Law.

Registered Designs: Your Fashion Shield

The most robust protection for product designs in Australia is through registering the design. This grants exclusive rights to the visual appearance of a product.

If Maison de Sabre had registered its designs, it could take action against Sportsgirl for infringement.

⚖️ The Verdict

Without a registered design, and if there’s no misleading branding or consumer confusion, Sportsgirl’s original actions in releasing those products for sale might have been legally permissible (even if not a great look / ethically questionable).

Again, Sportsgirl has withdrawn those products now, so perhaps crisis averted for either party.

It’s still a stark reminder for designers: protect your creations proactively.

by

Caramel slice of heaven, or recipe for disaster?  There has been calamity in the kitchen (or at least, all over social media) as two cooks have a donnybrook over a cookbook – and it’s not a good look.

The rich buffet of available cooking puns aside, various plagiarism accusations have been flung by Nagi Maehashi (author of RecipeTin Eats) at Brooke Bellamy (author of Bake With Brooki), including about a caramel slice recipe Ms Bellamy has published in her Bake with Brooki book.

Ms Maehashi says she wrote that recipe and that Ms Bellamy has plagiarised it in her book – which of course Ms Bellamy denies.  To demonstrate her “evidence”, Ms Maehashi posted the below on her Instagram page:

Maehashi has compared her caramel slice recipe with Bellamy's as 'evidence' of copying. Picture: Instagram

Interesting (and tasty) … but … it’s caramel slice – even this author can make caramel slice.  So, what rights have been infringed?

Well, original works expressed in a material form may be protected by copyright – so if Maehashi’s recipe is original and she published it first then perhaps she has a point against Bellamy.

The bigger problem is whether the recipe Maehashi published is actually sufficiently “original”.  While those measurements might at first glance seem oddly specific (which might support an argument that it was original), they are individually very common measurement amounts.  Maehashi would need to be able to prove (if she was going to pursue the argument) not only that those measurements in that combination were her original works, but also that the rest of the recipe (such as the ingredients and the method) were also originally hers, and not just some slight tweaks on her part of other well-known recipes and methods.

Maybe this is why there is a cry of “plagiarism” instead of “breach of copyright” – plagiarism is not a legal claim as such, but is often more loosely referred to when there has been apparently copying of some parts of a work that might not actually amount to a breach of copyright (which seems to be the case here).

The biggest challenge for cooks in Maehashi’s position to make a legal claim for breach of copyright, even if those precise measurement combinations are hers, is that the rest of the recipe and that method are in fairness pretty well known – that’s simply how you make caramel slices.

Copyright does not protect “ideas” – not even really tasty ones.  Copyright only protects the original expression of those ideas.

If I like my Corn Flakes with precisely 425 mls of milk of a morning, that doesn’t mean I can publish that as my own original Corn Flakes recipe and have copyright protect me.

Perhaps the plagiarism claim has been overbaked?