Crocker, A. v. Papunya Tula Artists Pty Ltd & Anor [1985] FCA 275

Crocker, A. v. Papunya Tula Artists Pty Ltd & Anor [1985] FCA 275

Description of the applicant as editor of the second edition was not misleading or deceptive within s.52(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974, nor did it represent, expressly or by implication, that the work had not been altered in any respect. Omission of the Introduction and change of title did not amount to material alteration under s.191(a) of the Copyright Act 1968, nor did these changes affect the applicant's reputation.

Parties
Applicant: Andrew Crocker; First Respondent: Papunya Tula Artists Pty. Limited; Second Respondent: Aboriginal Artists Agency Pty. Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 1985
Procedural Posture
Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Copyright, Publication of Altered Work
Intellectual Property Law Trade Practices Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Copyright Publication of Altered Work

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Crocker

Applicant

Papunya Tula Artists Pty. Limited

First Respondent

Aboriginal Artists Agency Pty. Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether describing the applicant as editor of the second edition was misleading or deceptive under s.52(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether omission of applicant's Introduction and change of title constituted representing the work as his unaltered work under s.191(a) of the Copyright Act 1968

Ratio Decidendi

Description of the applicant as editor of the second edition was not misleading or deceptive within s.52(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974, nor did it represent, expressly or by implication, that the work had not been altered in any respect. Omission of the Introduction and change of title did not amount to material alteration under s.191(a) of the Copyright Act 1968, nor did these changes affect the applicant's reputation.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Applicant to pay respondents' costs