University Assignment: Copyright Law Analysis - P's Place TV Show

This report addresses a copyright infringement issue arising from a scenario involving the TV show "P's Place." The assignment requires an analysis of whether Prenilla violated copyright laws by creating a social media channel featuring content from the show. The report examines relevant legal principles, focusing on the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) and the case of Matthews vs. ACP Publishing Pty Ltd. The analysis considers the roles of Pansy and Posy as copyright owners and Prenilla's actions in relation to their intellectual property. The conclusion determines Prenilla's liability for copyright violation, referencing specific sections of the Act. The report incorporates a bibliography of legal resources and case law.

Running head: INTELLECTUAL ROPERTY LAW
Intellectual Property Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Authors note

1INTELLECTUAL ROPERTY LAW
Issue
In this paper, the issue to be discussed is whether, any Copyright are violated by Prenilla.
Rule
The present tissue must be discussed in the light of the Copyright Act, 1968 (Cth). It
cannot be ignored that in the present day, where technology is developing day by day, this
Copyright law has a great importance to protect the artistic, musical, literary and dramatic work.
In regard to the protection of various artistic works, the Copyright Act, 1968 (Cth) can be
divided into two categories. Part III of the above-mentioned Act1 protect the material works
which include original music, literary, dramatic or artistic work. Part IV of the said Act2 protects
the subject matters of the work and not the material works. Here the term subject matters of the
work include film, cinematography, sound recording, broadcasting through television and sound
and published editions of works3. Whenever a work is created by any person, the question of
copyright arises mechanically. The Act elaborated that the copyright law has been violated only
when someone copied the words.
This Act4 also elaborates that it is not possible for the holder of a copyright to bring legal
actions for the purpose of developing a creation which was done independently and without
referring the work of the owner.
This law also states that there is no official process available to obtain a copyright. To
qualify for obtaining a copyright, the creative work done by any person must fall within any of
1 Copyright Act, 1968 (Cth)
2 Copyright Act, 1968 (Cth)
3 Stewart, Andrew (Andrew John), 1959-, author.; Caenegem, William van, author.; Bannister, Judith,
author.; Liberman, Adam, author.; Lawson, Charles, author.; (LexisNexis Butterworths publisher, 2017). CCH
Australia Limited distributor
4 Copyright Act, 1968 (Cth)

2INTELLECTUAL ROPERTY LAW
the accepted categories. This Act5 clearly states that any material works which fall not within the
categories cannot be protected under this law.
Section 36 and section 101 of the Act6 state that the violation of copyrights takes place
only when any act has been done by any person within the jurisdiction of Australia who is not an
owner of copyright and did not have the license of the copyright owner.
Section 32 of the said Act7 states that the first owner of the copyright is the author.
Section 35 (1) states that the person who gave expression to the idea of the creative work, such
as the maker of a film, sound recording and broadcast editions is the first owner of the copyright.
In Matthews vs. ACP Publishing Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1122 case, a photographer took a photo of
a model for Cleo magazine and the ACP, the owner of that magazine. He supplied the photo to
the publisher and that publisher without the consent of the photographer sold it. The court stated
that the photographer was eligible to get compensation for the violation8.
Analysis
In this given scenario, Prenilla in order to impress Posy and Pansy created a channel and
provides some video of best recipes, clothing design and show clips which is against the
copyright law because as they are the artistic owner of the ideas and also give expression to the
idea, therefore they are the first owner of the copyright. By applying the rules of Matthews vs.
ACP Publishing Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1122 it can be said that Prenilla has violated the copyright
law.
5 Copyright Act, 1968 (Cth)
6 Copyright Act, 1968 (Cth)
7 Copyright Act, 1968 (Cth)
8 Matthews vs. ACP Publishing Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1122

3INTELLECTUAL ROPERTY LAW
Conclusion
Therefore, from the above discussion it can be concluded the Copyright law has been
violated by Prenilla u/s 32 and 35 (1) of the said Act9 and she is also liable to pay compensation
to Posy and Pansy.
9 Copyright Act, 1968 (Cth)

4INTELLECTUAL ROPERTY LAW
Bibliography
Books and Journals
Stewart, Andrew (Andrew John), 1959-, author.; Caenegem, William van, author.; Bannister,
Judith, author.; Liberman, Adam, author.; Lawson, Charles, author.; (LexisNexis Butterworths
publisher, 2017). CCH Australia Limited distributor.
Cases
Matthews vs. ACP Publishing Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1122
Legislation
Copyright Act, 1968 (Cth)