Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Australian Federal Court Awards Damages To Artist For False Copyright Claim

Posted by Soulskill on from the it's-a-start dept.

New submitter BarryHaworth writes "In a decision handed down earlier this month, the Australian Federal Court awarded damages to Aboriginal artist Richard Bell over a false claim of copyright infringement. The claim related to a take-down notice claiming copyright infringement from film footage used in a trailer for a film being made by the artist. The court declared Mr. Bell the owner of the copyright and awarded him $147,000 in damages for lost sales of paintings and catalogues. At time of writing, YouTube does not appear to have caught up with the decision."

7 of 77 comments (clear)

  1. I wish this would happen in the USA by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... just one big case would be enough to bring some sanity to our system.

    --
    "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
    1. Re:I wish this would happen in the USA by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Who the heck is Tanya Steele, and how could she be so dumb as to claim that she owns the copyright over a film maker's video???

      ALSO: Didn't Megaupload win a False claim of copyright infrigement against a music company back in December? That would be a major win in our favor.

      (Unfortunately the music company then called their friends in the Obamahouse, and they executed a worldwide raid in January, and shutdown the foreign site. Winning a court case is bad form in the U.S. of Corporation.)

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  2. This Can't Be! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

    How could an artist be awarded a copyright? Only corporations are allowed to own those...

  3. Re:The defendant didn't show up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it meaningless? It sets precedence. The next case in that jurisdiction is more likely to go the same way; that seems meaningful to me.

  4. Re:The defendant didn't show up by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Informative

    1. Not showing up is often an indication that they have no leg to stand on.
    2. The Australian government has lots of ways to collect, the simplest being that if the defendant does any business in Australia the government can simply seize assets up to the amount of the judgment. If that isn't an option, they probably have agreements with other countries to collect judgments.

    So it's not meaningless - they lost their case, and have to pay.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  5. Re:The defendant didn't show up by nahdude812 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is it meaningless? It sets precedence.

    Not from a legal perspective it doesn't. It's just a claim for damages, with nobody disputing the claim. No consideration at all is given to the law because it is not actually tested.

    --
    Slay a dragon... over lunch!
  6. Re:The defendant didn't show up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    May be the FBI can extradite her to the Australia.