Golden Editions Pty Ltd & Anor v Polygram Pty Ltd & Ors [1996] FCA 141

Golden Editions Pty Ltd & Anor v Polygram Pty Ltd & Ors [1996] FCA 141

Although the trial judge misstated the relationship between s.115(3) Copyright Act 1968 and the earlier United Kingdom provision, her Honour ultimately addressed the correct question: whether the appellants were aware, or had reasonable grounds to suspect, that their proposed manufacture and distribution would infringe the copyright. The findings that Mr Hughes knew or suspected that New Breed was licensing original sound recordings, knew Island and A&M owned the copyright in those recordings, understood that a licence did not amount to ownership, and failed to make inquiries despite New Breed's inconsistent assertion of ownership meant the appellants could not establish the defence under...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 1996
Procedural Posture
Appeal in Copyright Infringement Proceedings / Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia on Separately Determined Questions Concerning Defences Under Ss.115(3) and 116(2)(b) Copyright Act 1968
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['innocent Infringement' 'awareness of Infringement' 'reasonable Grounds for Suspecting Infringement' 'infringing Copies' 'appellate Review of Findings of Fact']
['copyright' 'appeals'] ['innocent Infringement' 'awareness of Infringement' 'reasonable Grounds for Suspecting Infringement' 'infringing Copies' 'appellate Review of Findings of Fact']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal in Copyright Infringement Proceedings / Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia on Separately Determined Questions Concerning Defences Under Ss.115(3) and 116(2)(b) Copyright Act 1968

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellants established under s.115(3) Copyright Act 1968 that they were not aware, and had no reasonable grounds for suspecting, that the acts constituting infringement were infringements of the copyright.' 'Whether the expression "the copyright" in s.115(3) requires knowledge of the identity of the owner of the infringed copyright.' "Whether Beazley J's error in comparing s.115(3) with s.17(2) of the Copyright Act 1956 (UK) affected the ultimate conclusion." 'Whether the appellants established the defence under s.116(2)(b) Copyright Act 1968.' "Whether findings concerning Mr Hughes' knowledge and credibility should be disturbed on appeal."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the trial judge misstated the relationship between s.115(3) Copyright Act 1968 and the earlier United Kingdom provision, her Honour ultimately addressed the correct question: whether the appellants were aware, or had reasonable grounds to suspect, that their proposed manufacture and distribution would infringe the copyright. The findings that Mr Hughes knew or suspected that New Breed was licensing original sound recordings, knew Island and A&M owned the copyright in those recordings, understood that a licence did not amount to ownership, and failed to make inquiries despite New Breed's inconsistent assertion of ownership meant the appellants could not establish the defence under...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed with costs.']