Copyright Laws in Australia

This article discusses the existing copyright laws in Australia and how Prenilla violated them by creating a social media channel to increase Pansy and Posy's fanbase without taking prior approval and permission from them. The article also explains the legal consequences of her actions and the way forward for her.

Copyright Laws in Australia

Assessment 1
From the scenario given before us, it is clearly evident that Prenilla had made a grave mistake
by creating a social media channel to increase Pansy and Posy’s fanbase without taking prior
approval and permission from Pansy and Posy. Her actions clearly violated the existing
copyright laws in Australia1. It is a secondary fact whether the motive for her actions were
good or bad. The evidence from the case study clearly points to the fact that her actions were
the result of desperation as she tried to bag a coveted job position of direct and digital
marketing manager with Pansy and Posy. Prenilla had earlier applied for the job position at
Pansy and Posy but her candidature was subsequently rejected. She only created the social
media channel for impressing Pansy and Posy which contained selective portions from their
hit show P’s Place and it played a vital role in increasing the fanbase of Pansy and Posy.
However, Prenilla’s actions were unethical in the first place as under the existing Australian
regulations (Copyright Act of 1968) only the author or the creator has the right and authority
to exploit their work/creation. Under Section 35 of Copyright Act of 1968, only the creator of
an original content has the right to publish the work, adapt the work, communicate the work
to the public and reproduce the work or authorise another person to carry out any all the
activities that are mentioned under Sections 31 of the Act2. Pansy and Posy are the stars of
the hit TV show P’s Place and all the content provided to the audience through their shows
are a part of their Intellectual Property which is protected by unfair access and utilisation by
any third party individuals by the existing Copyright Act of 1968. P’s Place included unique
and out of the box content such as self-defence tutorial, scientific experiments, making of
clothing, music, and cooking. Prenilla unethically reproduced and published the contents of
P’s Place on the social media channel created by her without consulting either Pansy or Posy
(the owners of the show) and this is where she has made a major mistake.
Under Section 38 of the Copyright Act of 1968 which deals with infringement by sale and
other dealings it has been clearly mentioned that in case of any work that could be considered
to be of artistic, dramatic or literary nature, the copyright is infringed by an individual who is
not the actual licensed owner of the actual work and has been found to distribute any articles
for either the purpose of trade or any other purpose which could prejudicially affect the
1 Dan Burk, "Copyright, Culture, And Community In Virtual Worlds" (2016) 5(4) Laws.
2 Michael Madison, "IP Things As Boundary Objects: The Case Of The Copyright Work" (2017)
6(3) Laws.

original owner of the copyright3. Under this legal clause, the actions committed by Prenilla
were clearly unethical and unjustified and as a result she is liable to face consequences for her
actions. The only way forward for Prenilla now is to immediately take down all the contents
of her social media channel and tender an unconditional apology to both Pansy and Posy for
her actions.
3 COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 38Infringement By Sale And Other Dealings (2018)
Www8.austlii.edu.au <http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/
s38.htmlhttp://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s38.html>.

References
COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 38Infringement By Sale And Other Dealings (2018)
Www8.austlii.edu.au <http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/
ca1968133/s38.htmlhttp://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/
ca1968133/s38.html>
Burk, Dan, "Copyright, Culture, And Community In Virtual Worlds" (2016) 5(4) Laws.
Madison, Michael, "IP Things As Boundary Objects: The Case Of The Copyright Work"
(2017) 6(3) Laws