Haines, T.W. & Anor v. Copyright Agency Ltd & Ors [1982] FCA 137

Haines, T.W. & Anor v. Copyright Agency Ltd & Ors [1982] FCA 137

The memorandum issued by the Director General was found misleading regarding copyright law as it applied to record keeping, the right of inspection, and the consequences of using/not using provisions such as ss.53B and 53D. The Court affirmed that the right to inspect records applies only if the statutory record-keeping provisions have been invoked through actual copying, and that respondents have no right to inspect if copying is done under fair dealing or where no records exist. Mandatory orders requiring correction and withdrawal of the misleading memorandum were upheld.

Parties
First Appellant: Trevor William Haines; Second Appellant: Douglas Arthur Swan, Director General of Education for the State of New South Wales; First Respondent: Copyright Agency Limited; Second Respondent: McGraw-Hill Book Company Australia Pty. Limited; Third Respondent: Heinemann Educational Australia Pty. Limited; Fourth Respondent: Jacaranda Wiley Limited; Fifth Respondent: Bay Publishing Group Pty. Limited; Sixth Respondent: Leslie Allan Murray
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 July 1982
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Orders and Reasons for Judgment Given on Appeal From the Supreme Court of NSW (equity Division)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; mandatory orders and prohibitory injunction granted; otherwise dismissed; costs awarded to respondents.
Legal Topics
Copyright, Copyright Infringement, Inspection of Records, Multiple Copying, Libraries and Schools, Fair Dealing
Intellectual Property Copyright Copyright Infringement Inspection of Records Multiple Copying Libraries and Schools Fair Dealing

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trevor William Haines

First Appellant

Douglas Arthur Swan, Director General of Education for the State of New South Wales

Second Appellant

Copyright Agency Limited

First Respondent

McGraw-Hill Book Company Australia Pty. Limited

Second Respondent

Heinemann Educational Australia Pty. Limited

Third Respondent

Jacaranda Wiley Limited

Fourth Respondent

Bay Publishing Group Pty. Limited

Fifth Respondent

Leslie Allan Murray

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Orders and Reasons for Judgment Given on Appeal From the Supreme Court of NSW (equity Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the memorandum issued by the Director General of Education misrepresented the operation of the Copyright Act 1968 regarding copying in schools and libraries
  2. 2 Whether the statutory rights to inspect records under s.203E of the Copyright Act required the existence of copies before an inspection could occur
  3. 3 Whether principals and teachers could be liable for breaches of record keeping provisions

Ratio Decidendi

The memorandum issued by the Director General was found misleading regarding copyright law as it applied to record keeping, the right of inspection, and the consequences of using/not using provisions such as ss.53B and 53D. The Court affirmed that the right to inspect records applies only if the statutory record-keeping provisions have been invoked through actual copying, and that respondents have no right to inspect if copying is done under fair dealing or where no records exist. Mandatory orders requiring correction and withdrawal of the misleading memorandum were upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; mandatory orders and prohibitory injunction granted; otherwise dismissed; costs awarded to respondents.

Orders

  • Orders 1 and 2 made by McClelland J on 12 March 1982 set aside.
  • Douglas Arthur Swan, Director General of Education for NSW, to send to principals a written notice withdrawing Memorandum No. 81,248.