In either case, the ABA will give the ISP a take-down notice directing the removal of the material within one working day.

Fines for non-compliance are approximately $5,000 per day for individuals and $25,000 per day for companies.

Take care with what you put on a website. The government is determined not to let Australian hosted websites go unregulated, and content will be subject to to the restrictions that are imposed on other media.

___________________________________________________________

Tomb Raider vs Playboy

The publishers of popular video game Tomb Raider attempted to stop Playboy magazine from publishing nude photographs of their former official model.

The real life model for the game's main character is featured in a nude pictorial in the current issue. Although it is possible that the pictorial may actually increase sales, it is feared that the publicity may have some negative effects.

Tomb Raider appears to have lost the battle because of a leaking talent contract. Exclusive talent contracts should have clauses ensuring that models are restrained from activities unfairly exploiting the publicity they have gained as exclusive models. The restrictions give replacements enough time to take their places in the public eye. By then the public will have lost interest in the original model.

___________________________________________________________

If Tiger Woods sued in Australia, he'd lose

Tiger Woods has sued Rick Rush, an Alabama painter, to prevent him from selling prints of Tiger in action at public tournaments. Tiger is suing under US Right of Publicity laws and trademark violations.

In Australia, there is no right of publicity, so there is generally no way to stop the unauthorised use of a famous face unless the use is misleading (for example if use implies a commercial connection).

As for trade mark infringements, it is unclear how a trade mark could be infringed by the paintings. It is more likely that the Nike trade mark, rather than anything owned by Tiger, would be infringed.

___________________________________________________________

Why Star Wars prequel won't be a windfall for Murdoch

Under the very clever deal creator George Lucas did with Fox, he now owns the copyright to the whole Star Wars concept. For the first movie, he sold the original film rights to Fox, and to get the rights to distribute the latest instalment, Fox had to return them to Lucas. Fox also collects an unusually low distribution fee for the prequel (estimated at 8%). Why is this so clever?

More money was made in merchandising the original trilogy than from the movies themselves. US$4.5 billion on merchandising versus US$2.5 billion from the box office and video. As the owner of the copyright to the whole concept, Lucas is looking at licensing fees of US$2 billion from Pepsi and an estimated $500 million from toy manufacturer Hasbro. Not to mention licensing the soundtrack to Sony, clothing and trading cards.

This is an illustration of the commercial benefit to owning copyright in a good idea / brand / concept. As he now owns the lot, Lucas stands to profit handsomely from the US$120 million he paid to make the prequel.

___________________________________________________________

Federal Court judge thinks strippers are 'simply irresistable'

Simply Irresistible Promotions tried to stop another striptease promoter from registering the businessname 'Simply Irresistible Strippers'. It said that the use of 'Simply Irresistible Strippers' would confuse the public and it would be misleading.

However, the judge decided that the words 'simply irresistible' could be descriptive of the girls' performances, rather than just being a name. Because they were descriptive, Simply Irresistible Promotions was not allowed to have a monopoly over the words 'simply irresistible'.

When you are naming a product or service, be careful if you want to use a descriptive name. A registered trade mark can be taken away if it is too descriptive or generic. For example, Rollerblade nearly lost their trade mark when people started using it as a generic term "I'm going rollerblading". That's why they insist on people saying "I'm going in-line skating" instead.

___________________________________________________________

Batman producers forgot to check copyright

Warner Bros, the makers of Batman Forever, are being sued by a sculptor whose work was used in the movie without his permission. The sculpture was in a building which was rented for the movie. Warner Bros had assumed that if they rented the building they could film anything in it.

However, simply because the building owner also owned the sculpture itself didn't mean that he owned the copyright to the sculpture.

The case is not yet resolved, and since there are thousands of copies of the movie in theatres, on video and on laser discs, Warner Bros may have to pay several million dollars if it loses.

This case shows why copyright clearance is so important. If you are making any significant use of any artwork in the production of an annual report, advertisement, catalogue, anything - make sure that you check for copyright clearance.

___________________________________________________________

Author of all articles - Trevor Choy
Choy Lawyers
Level 2, 488 Bourke Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
Phone (03) 9602 1000
Fax (03) 9600 4910
E-mail tc@choylawyers.com.au

[Is this guy great or what? Ed]