Overview
The Corby v Allen & Unwin case was brought to the courts by the Corby family who had alleged that the book Sins of the Father, written by Eamonn Duff (Novel). AN book with 37 photographs in total published within the book. Infringed their copyright and moral rights. Due to five photographs. The publisher disputed this and claimed that all images were either given to the author ( Mr. Duff) or to media outlets.
Case
Schapelle Corby’s family alleged that the five photographs taken by members of the Corby family. Between 1985 and 2005, that were used as a part of the book “Sins of the Father (published in 2011)”, by the publisher infringed their copyright and moral rights.
Some of the subject photographs in question, appear on the following pages: Photograph 1 appears at the bottom of the sixth page, Photograph 2 appears at the top of right the fourth page.Photograph 3 appears at the bottom of the fourth page.Photograph 4 appears at the bottom of the fifth page and Photograph 5 appears at the top of the tenth page.
The subject photographs that were reproduced as alleged by the publisher had been either given to the author or various media outlets. In some instances, the photographs had been given directly to media outlets by family members of Schapelle Corby.
The issue with Schapelle Corby’s family allegations from a legal point of view was proving that Corby family had copyright ownership to these photos as some of them had been either given to the author or media outlets (alleged by the publisher) in association to various articles about Schapelle Corby. Proving that the publisher did not possess a license to publish these five photographs. Another issue was to authentically identify the authors of this photos. As the publisher failed to attribute the authors of these photographs.
During court sessions, the court took into consideration whether the owners of these five photographs in question. Had given copyright clearance to the publisher to use these photographs, and if this was the case. The Court would have to determine whether the authors of these photographs had revoked their copyright clearance prior to the publication of the book.
In the court’s’ findings, the courts ruled in favor of the Corby family. The court concluded that the publisher had not been given the copyright license. Had infringed the copyrights and moral rights of the Corby family. Under the copyright and moral right act. For instance, the publisher had infringed the copyright of the third applicant in photograph one. When reproducing the subject photographs in the book the publisher, infringed the moral right of the third applicant under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), to attribution as the author of photograph 1.
In regards to compassion and punishment, the courts ordered none of the subject photographs, in this case, are to be reproduced after the hearing. All copies of the book in the possession of the publisher must be delivered to the solicitors within seven days for destruction. The publisher had to pay $45,000in damages for infringement of copyright within 21 days.
My opinion
I think the Corby v Allen & Unwin case was handled appropriating by the courts. The court’s decision to rule in favor of the Corby family was justifiable for multiple reasons. For starters, the Corby family was still entitled to copyright despite the fact the subject pictures of this case might have been distributed to media outlets. To date, the Corby Family had only given consent to the author to use the subject photographs but not the publisher. Another justifiable reason was the fact that the Corby family might have revoked copyright clearance before the book was published.
In regards to the moral rights, it could be argued that the subject photographs had minimal impact on the subjects in the photographs since there might have been used media outlets before. However, it could dispute that the publication of these photographs an impact on the subjects morally as the publication of these five subject photos was the act of invasion of privacy.
Over all think this case was a good case. The high profile case brought attention to copyright laws with Australia. The case re-enforced the protection of copyright material under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). As the sole purpose of the copyright act is to protect and artistic work.
What a thrill for Macleay College’s Advertising & Digital Media students to be delivered a guest lecture on social media strategy and brand influencers from two of the best: HotnDelicious strategist Dan Wilkinson (
ruvimbo portfolio 