Australian Society of Authors
Authors will be disappointed to learn that a judge in the US has held that, despite a prima facie copyright infringement by Google in what is known as the Google Books Project, the digitisation of millions of books without reference to copyright owners or creators was nevertheless an instance of ‘fair use’ under US copyright law. The US Authors Guild intends to appeal this decision (www.authorsguild.org).

The ASA believes the latest judgement, issued by Judge Denny Chin of the US District Court, skirts around at least two primary principles in copyright – of property and of ownership – and may have impacts beyond the US.

In asserting that the American ‘fair use’ doctrine permits the use of copyright works “to fulfil copyright’s very purpose, ‘to promote the progress of Science and the useful Arts,’” Judge Chin only tells half the story of copyright. We do not believe that it is possible to speak of ends in copyright without reference to the needs of those who create copyright work, or their rights to control this work.

The danger of the decision in the Australian context is that proponents of ‘fair use’, currently trying to persuade the ALRC to rebalance the Australian Copyright Act in favour of ‘users’, will seize upon this partial approach to copyright to suit their own interests and diminish the purpose and value of the Act for creators.

New Bill no fair go for authors

The ASA’s Executive Director, Angelo Loukakis, has submitted a letter to the Australian Government in response to the ‘Fair go for fair use’ Bill 2013. The Australian Society of Authors is vigorously opposed to the copyright law revision proposed by Scott Ludlam of the Greens. For literary creators, this attempt to rework the Act has potentially damaging consequences for Australia’s literary culture and educational practices.

In focusing on the removal of ‘access control’ measures (for the apparent purpose of reducing the exposure of ISPs and users of ISPs to copyright breach claims), and in renaming universities as ‘service providers’ (so as to deflect responsibility for infringement), the Bill ignores the need to maintain an adequate safety and protection regime for literary creators and owners of copyright material.

Allowing for more ‘free’ use on a supposedly ‘fair use’ basis will particularly exacerbate an already poor remunerative situation for authors and other practitioners.

You can read the full letter at www.asauthors.org