Polygram P/L v. Golden Editions P/L & Anor [1994] FCA 925

Polygram P/L v. Golden Editions P/L & Anor [1994] FCA 925

The respondents’ defences under ss 115(3) and 116(2)(b) fail because Mr Hughes (on whose state of mind Golden Editions relies) was aware, or at best reckless, as to whether he was licensing original, copyright-protected sound recordings and did not make reasonable enquiries when circumstances required it. Recklessness precludes application of the statutory defences.

Parties
First Applicant: PolyGram Pty Limited; Second Applicant: Island; Third Applicant: A&M Records Inc; First Respondent: Golden Editions Pty Limited; Second Respondent: Houghton Hughes
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 December 1994
Procedural Posture
Copyright Infringement Proceeding / Reasons for Interlocutory Judgment on Defence Under Ss 115(3) and 116(2)(b) Copyright Act 1968
Outcome
Defences under s 115(3) and s 116(2)(b) dismissed
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Damages, Defences to Infringement, Sound Recordings
Intellectual Property Copyright Infringement Damages Defences to Infringement Sound Recordings

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PolyGram Pty Limited

First Applicant

Island

Second Applicant

A&M Records Inc

Third Applicant

Golden Editions Pty Limited

First Respondent

Houghton Hughes

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Copyright Infringement Proceeding / Reasons for Interlocutory Judgment on Defence Under Ss 115(3) and 116(2)(b) Copyright Act 1968

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents' infringement was 'innocent' within s 115(3) Copyright Act 1968
  2. 2 Whether respondents believed or had reasonable grounds for believing that licensed sound recordings were not infringing copies under s 116(2)(b) Copyright Act 1968
  3. 3 Whether defences under ss 115(3) and 116(2)(b) available where respondent was reckless

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents’ defences under ss 115(3) and 116(2)(b) fail because Mr Hughes (on whose state of mind Golden Editions relies) was aware, or at best reckless, as to whether he was licensing original, copyright-protected sound recordings and did not make reasonable enquiries when circumstances required it. Recklessness precludes application of the statutory defences.

Court Disposition

Defences under s 115(3) and s 116(2)(b) dismissed

Orders

  • Matter stood over for 7 days for parties to bring short minutes of order and to consider further conduct of the matter