2014 Volume 19 Issue 1
Articles
Navigating the landscape of the .au Dispute Resolution Policy as it enters its second decade
Alpana Roy
Abstract
The .au Dispute Resolution Policy (auDRP) came into effect in 2002. The purpose of the auDRP is to provide an alternative to litigation for the quicker and cheaper resolution of disputes between the registrant of an .au domain name and a party with competing rights in the domain name. The auDRP appears to have been an effective method for resolving disputes, and since its inception some 344 auDRP decisions have been decided under the policy. As there have been no comprehensive studies to date providing data on the growing body of auDRP proceedings and practice which has evolved since 2002, the aim of this article is to begin to fill a gap in knowledge in Australian domain name law as a distinct and developing body of law.
The .au Dispute Resolution Policy (auDRP) came into effect in 2002. The purpose of the auDRP is to provide an alternative to litigation for the quicker and cheaper resolution of disputes between the registrant of an .au domain name and a party with competing rights in the domain name. The auDRP appears to have been an effective method for resolving disputes, and since its inception some 344 auDRP decisions have been decided under the policy. As there have been no comprehensive studies to date providing data on the growing body of auDRP proceedings and practice which has evolved since 2002, the aim of this article is to begin to fill a gap in knowledge in Australian domain name law as a distinct and developing body of law.
Fixation and Originality in Copyright Law and the Challenges Posed by Postmodern Art
Jennifer Kwong
Abstract
Postmodern art poses unique challenges to the conditions of fixation in material form and originality of creation required for copyright protection. These challenges arise because the application of copyright law, which champions the work itself, is at fundamental odds with postmodern art, which is concerned with the idea behind the work. The article examines five key movements in postmodern art — land art, body art, performance art, conceptual art, and installation art. It argues that these movements are excluded or given limited protection by copyright law and that reform is required to ensure that the avant-garde practices of postmodern art can continue to contribute meaningfully in an increasingly litigious society.
Postmodern art poses unique challenges to the conditions of fixation in material form and originality of creation required for copyright protection. These challenges arise because the application of copyright law, which champions the work itself, is at fundamental odds with postmodern art, which is concerned with the idea behind the work. The article examines five key movements in postmodern art — land art, body art, performance art, conceptual art, and installation art. It argues that these movements are excluded or given limited protection by copyright law and that reform is required to ensure that the avant-garde practices of postmodern art can continue to contribute meaningfully in an increasingly litigious society.
Defamatory Meaning, Community Perspectives and Standards
Gary K Y Chan
Abstract
One of the legal requirements in the tort of defamation is to show that the statement made by the defendant was defamatory of the plaintiff. The mainstream test is whether the statement tends to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.1 The application of the legal test becomes challenging in respect of controversial allegations concerning the plaintiff’s religious beliefs and/or practices, sexual orientation, practice of abortion, act of informing the police and so on. In certain common law jurisdictions, the courts have adopted in particular cases the perspective of a section of the community to determine defamatory meaning instead of the general societal view. The brief reasons that have been given include the following: legal liability is not based on majority vote, practical harm had already been done from the perspective of a particular section of a community, and it is difficult for judges to decide between contradictory attitudes on defamatory meaning in a pluralistic society. This article discusses the above rationales, focusing on the question as to whether defamatory meaning may be determined from the perspective of a limited section of the community and whether the community should be expected to adhere to certain legal and moral standards. It concludes with a proposed framework of guidelines for applying the societal and community perspectives and standards in defamation cases.
One of the legal requirements in the tort of defamation is to show that the statement made by the defendant was defamatory of the plaintiff. The mainstream test is whether the statement tends to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.1 The application of the legal test becomes challenging in respect of controversial allegations concerning the plaintiff’s religious beliefs and/or practices, sexual orientation, practice of abortion, act of informing the police and so on. In certain common law jurisdictions, the courts have adopted in particular cases the perspective of a section of the community to determine defamatory meaning instead of the general societal view. The brief reasons that have been given include the following: legal liability is not based on majority vote, practical harm had already been done from the perspective of a particular section of a community, and it is difficult for judges to decide between contradictory attitudes on defamatory meaning in a pluralistic society. This article discusses the above rationales, focusing on the question as to whether defamatory meaning may be determined from the perspective of a limited section of the community and whether the community should be expected to adhere to certain legal and moral standards. It concludes with a proposed framework of guidelines for applying the societal and community perspectives and standards in defamation cases.
Update
NZ Media Law Update
Ursula Chee
Book Review
Privacy and Media Freedom
Raymond Wacks