Valuation and copyright

Last Sunday the IPKat posted a request for information from an African reader regarding the assessment of damages for copyright infringement. Specifically, "Is there any case law that you are aware of that determines what falls to be paid by a user if no agreement was arrived at prior to a public performance". The Kat hasn't received much in the way of responses, but he did receive this very interesting information from Professor David Brennan (University of Melbourne, Australia):
"Your correspondent and readers may be interested in some Australian developments in two Australian Copyright Tribunal cases, in particular the latter which deals with the public performance right in sound recordings specifically: Audio-Visual Copyright Society (t/a Screenrights) v Foxtel [2006] ACopyT 2 and Re PPCA [2007] ACopyT 1. In both cases, survey evidence of consumer valuation of copyright was adduced with (wildly) varying results! I have attached the slides related to a recent public presentation I gave on point in Australia for IPRIA.

I have written on the valuation of copyright and section 4.7 of my book Retransmission and US Compliance with TRIPS (2003) deals with fair market value awards in English, US and Australian general common law and IP settings".
Valuation and copyright Valuation and copyright Reviewed by Jeremy on Sunday, December 14, 2008 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.