Copyright Agency Ltd & Ors v Victoria University of Technology [1995] FCA 75

Copyright Agency Ltd & Ors v Victoria University of Technology [1995] FCA 75

The respondent's objective in producing and supplying the copied course materials was to make materials available to its students for use in its courses at a price intended to cover costs, not to make a financial profit. The implementation of a user-pays system and the 30% mark-up to recover identified costs were not inconsistent with the sole educational purpose required by s.135ZL(1)(b). Accordingly, s.135ZZH(1)(a) and (b) did not disapply the Part VB statutory licence, and the appellants were not entitled to relief.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 1995
Procedural Posture
Copyright Appeal Concerning Part VB Statutory Licence for Copying by an Educational Institution / Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed, with costs.
Legal Topics
['part VB of the Copyright Act 1968' 'multiple Copying by Educational Institutions' 'educational Purposes' 'financial Profit' 'statutory Licence']
['copyright Law'] ['part VB of the Copyright Act 1968' 'multiple Copying by Educational Institutions' 'educational Purposes' 'financial Profit' 'statutory Licence']

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

Copyright Appeal Concerning Part VB Statutory Licence for Copying by an Educational Institution / Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether copies of literary works made by or on behalf of the respondent educational institution were made solely for the educational purposes of the institution within s.135ZL(1)(b) of the Copyright Act 1968.' 'Whether the copies were sold or otherwise supplied for a financial profit within s.135ZZH(1)(a) of the Copyright Act 1968 so that the prescribed provision did not apply and was taken never to have applied.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's objective in producing and supplying the copied course materials was to make materials available to its students for use in its courses at a price intended to cover costs, not to make a financial profit. The implementation of a user-pays system and the 30% mark-up to recover identified costs were not inconsistent with the sole educational purpose required by s.135ZL(1)(b). Accordingly, s.135ZZH(1)(a) and (b) did not disapply the Part VB statutory licence, and the appellants were not entitled to relief.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed, with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed, with costs.']