Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T14:57:37.969Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

University of New South Wales v. Moorhouse and Angus & Robertson (Publishers) Pty Ltd

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Pamela Nase
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Case Notes
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , June 1976 , pp. 227 - 232
Copyright
Copyright © 1976 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

(1975) 6 A.L.R. 193. High Court of Australia; McTiernan A-C.J., Gibbs and Jacobs JJ.

References

2 The term covers facsimile reproduction by photocopying or equivalent processes.

3 The matter has also been considered by a Committee of Experts convened in accordance with the views of the Joint Committees and as a result of a resolution of the Fourteenth General Conference of UNESCO, and by a Working Group on reprographic reproduction formed to assist the Secretariats of UNESCO and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

4 (1974) 3 A.L.R. 1. The proceedings were initiated by the Australian Copyright Council as a result of its concern that large numbers of copyright infringements were taking place in universities and schools.

5 (1975) 6 A.L.R. 193.

6 (1974) 3 A.L.R. 1, 17.

7 (1928) 40 C.L.R. 481.

8 [1946] V.L.R. 338.

9 Id. 354.

10 (1975) 6 A.L.R. 193, 200-201 per Gibbs J., 207-208 per Jacobs J.

11 In particular, Falcon v. Famous Players Film Company [1926] 2 K.B. 474; Adelaide Corporation v. Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd (1928) 40 C.L.R. 481; Winstone v. Wurlitzer Automatic Phonograph Co. of Australia Pty Ltd [1946] V.L.R. 338.

12 (1975) 6 A.L.R. 193, 200-201.

13 The section relates to copying done “by or on behalf of” librarians for students and members of Parliament.

14 (1975) 6 A.L.R. 193, 202 per Gibbs J.

15 Id. 203 per Gibbs J., 209 per Jacobs J.

16 Id. 203.

17 Id. 209.

18 In re Barnato, deed; Joel v. Sanges [1949] Ch. 258, 270; Odhams Press Ltd v. London & Provincial Sporting News Agency (1929) Ltd [1936] Ch. 357; Forster v. Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 C.L.R. 421.

19 (1975) 6 A.L.R. 193, 198.

20 Ibid.

21 This view has also been expressed in the U.S.A. In 1973, the Court of Claims, in the case of Williams & Wilkins Co. v. U.S. (1973) 487 F. 2d. 1345, held that the Department of Health, Education & Welfare had not infringed copyright in medical journals by making unauthorised copies of articles from those journals. The Court considered the harm that would be done to medical science if such copying were held to be an infringement and was of the opinion that it was for Congress, not for the Courts, to decide the extent to which and the situations in which photocopying should be permitted.