• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

IPMojo

  • About IP Mojo
  • About Scott Coulthart
  • CONTACT
BOOK AN APPOINTMENT

IP

August 25, 2025 by Scott Coulthart

Copy That, Part 5 – Exceptions and Limitations: Fair Dealing in Australia

There’s a common misconception that “if I’m not making money from it, it’s fine.” Not so.

In Australia, there are only very specific circumstances where you can use someone else’s copyright material without permission—and they’re called fair dealing exceptions.

These are not catch-all “free use” rules. They’re targeted, purpose-driven carve-outs in the Copyright Act, and if you step outside them, you risk infringement.


The five main fair dealing purposes

You can use copyright material without permission if your use is fair and is for one of these legally recognised purposes:

  1. Research or study

    • This includes both academic and private study.

    • Factors like the amount used and the purpose matter—copying an entire textbook probably isn’t “fair.”

  2. Criticism or review

    • The material must genuinely be part of a critique or review, and you must provide sufficient acknowledgment of the source.

  3. Parody or satire

    • This can be humorous or biting, but must be a genuine parody or satire—not just borrowing the work for entertainment value.

  4. Reporting the news

    • Use must be connected to an actual news report, not just general commentary. Proper attribution is required.

  5. Giving professional legal advice

    • Lawyers can use works as part of providing legal advice to clients.


The fairness test

Even if you meet one of the above purposes, your use must also be “fair.”  Courts look at factors such as:

  • The purpose and character of your use

  • The nature of the work

  • The amount and substantiality of the portion used

  • Whether your use competes with or harms the market for the work


Not to be confused with US “fair use”

The US doctrine of “fair use” is broader and more flexible. Australia’s fair dealing is narrow—if your use doesn’t fit one of the listed purposes, there’s no exception, no matter how “reasonable” it seems.


IP Mojo tip: When in doubt, get permission

Fair dealing can be a powerful defence, but it’s not a free pass. If you’re outside the scope of the exceptions, or if “fairness” is debatable, permission (or a licence) is the safest route.


Next up in our Copy That series:
Part 6 – Copyright and the Digital Age: Online Use, Streaming, and AI
Because copyright law applies online too—and the rules can surprise you.

Filed Under: Copyright, Copyright Series, IP Tagged With: Copyright, Copyright Series Part 5, IP

August 22, 2025 by Scott Coulthart

IMMIGPT Blocked: OpenAI’s GPT Reputation Stops Immigration Trade Mark

What happens when you take a world-famous tech acronym and bolt it onto your own business name?

An Australian migration services provider just found out — the hard way — that riding the coat-tails of GPT’s fame can sink your trade mark application, even outside the tech sector.


The Players

  • OpenAI OpCo LLC – creator of GPT, ChatGPT, and other AI products with global reach.

  • Realoz International Pty Ltd – provider of immigration and legal services, trading via a platform called “IMMIGPT”.


The Mark and the Fight

Realoz applied to register IMMIGPT in Class 45 for migration and immigration services.

OpenAI opposed on multiple grounds, but ran s 42(b) (contrary to law) and s 60 (reputation) at the hearing.

The Delegate focused on s 60 — whether OpenAI’s GPT marks had a reputation in Australia before 25 April 2023, and whether that reputation made confusion likely.


Reputation in Overdrive

OpenAI launched GPT in 2018, then GPT-2, GPT-3, GPT-4. In November 2022, ChatGPT arrived and “exploded in popularity”, becoming the fastest-growing consumer app in history — hitting 100 million monthly users in two months.

By the relevant date:

  • Australians were using ChatGPT in law, architecture, retail, beauty, marketing, accounting — and for everything from recipes to speechwriting.

  • The media coverage was intense; even those who hadn’t tried it had heard of it.

The Delegate found substantial reputation in both GPT and ChatGPT in Australia.


Why Confusion Was Likely

Realoz argued GPT was just a descriptive acronym (“generative pre-trained transformer”) and that it had a disclaimer on its site disavowing any link to OpenAI.

The Delegate disagreed because:

  • Most Australians wouldn’t know GPT’s technical meaning.

  • Even if they did, they’d still associate it with OpenAI.

  • “IMMIGPT” mirrored the ChatGPT construction — suggesting an “immigration” version of ChatGPT or immigration services powered by OpenAI’s GPT software.

  • The Applicant had agreed to OpenAI’s T&Cs — so it clearly knew about the marks.

The result? A significant number of consumers would be likely to wonder if IMMIGPT was connected to OpenAI.


The Decision

  • s 60 established — registration refused.

  • Costs awarded against the applicant.


IP Mojo Takeaways

  1. Fame Spreads Fast – A trade mark can acquire reputation in months if public uptake is explosive.

  2. Tech Acronyms Aren’t Neutral – If the public recognises an acronym as a brand, expect trouble using it — even for unrelated services.

  3. Construction Counts – Mimicking a famous brand’s naming pattern (“___GPT”) invites an association in consumers’ minds.

  4. Disclaimers Don’t Cure Confusion – If your name suggests a link, a footnote won’t save you.


Citation: OpenAI OpCo LLC v Realoz International Pty Ltd [2025] ATMO 141

Filed Under: IP, Trade Marks Tagged With: IP, Trade Marks

August 20, 2025 by Scott Coulthart

Copy That, Part 4 – Copyright Duration and the Public Domain

Nothing lasts forever—not even copyright.

In Australia, copyright protection is generous, but it isn’t permanent. Once it expires, the work enters the public domain, where anyone can use it freely without permission or payment. For creators, this means a valuable asset eventually becomes a shared cultural resource. For users, it’s an open invitation to repurpose, remix, and reimagine.


How long does copyright last?

It depends on the type of work:

  • Literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works: Life of the creator plus 70 years.

  • Films and sound recordings: Generally 70 years from the year of first publication.

  • Broadcasts: 50 years from the year of broadcast.

  • Published editions: 25 years from first publication (protects the typographical arrangement, not the content).


Why the long tail?

The “life + 70 years” rule aligns Australia with most of its major trading partners. The idea is that copyright rewards creators and their estates for decades after creation—often long enough to benefit children and grandchildren—while ensuring that, eventually, the work joins the public’s shared heritage.


The public domain: free, but not always simple

When a work falls into the public domain, you can:

  • Copy, adapt, and distribute it without permission

  • Use it in new creations (films, books, merchandise, etc.)

  • Monetise it without paying royalties

But be careful:

  • New editions, translations, or adaptations of a public domain work can have their own copyright.

  • Moral rights still apply—meaning you may still need to credit the original creator or avoid derogatory treatment.

  • Other rights (like trade marks or cultural heritage protections) can limit how you use older works.


IP Mojo tip: double-check before you dive in

Don’t assume a work is in the public domain just because it’s “old” or freely available online. Confirm the date of creation and publication, and check whether there have been later editions or modifications that might still be protected.

Please note images you find in Google Images or that pop up in your searches irrespective of the search engine you use, are generally not in the public domain and may well be protected by copyright.  That should be your assumption until proven otherwise – don’t assume it’s public domain … find out first!


Next up in our Copy That series:
Part 5 – Exceptions and Limitations: Fair Dealing in Australia
Because yes, there are times you can use someone else’s work without asking first—but they’re narrower than you might think.

Filed Under: Copyright, Copyright Series, IP Tagged With: Copyright, Copyright Series Part 4, IP

August 18, 2025 by Scott Coulthart

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.

Filed Under: Copyright, Copyright Series, IP Tagged With: Copyright, Copyright Series Part 3, IP

August 15, 2025 by Scott Coulthart

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.

Filed Under: Copyright, Entertainment, IP Tagged With: Copyright, Entertainment, IP

August 14, 2025 by Scott Coulthart

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.

Filed Under: Copyright, Copyright Series, IP Tagged With: Copyright, Copyright Series Part 2, IP

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 4
  • Go to page 5
  • Go to page 6
  • Go to page 7
  • Go to page 8
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 13
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • 🏇 When the Race Stops a Nation — Who Owns the Moment?
  • AI Training in Australia: Why a Mandatory Licence Could Be the Practical Middle Ground
  • AI-Generated Works & Australian Copyright — What IP Owners Need to Know
  • When Cheaper Medicines Meet Patent Law: Regeneron v Sandoz
  • #NotThatFamous: When Influencer Buzz Fails the s 60 Test

Archives

  • November 2025 (1)
  • October 2025 (14)
  • September 2025 (21)
  • August 2025 (18)
  • July 2025 (16)
  • June 2025 (21)
  • May 2025 (12)
  • April 2025 (4)

Footer

© Scott Coulthart 2025