Media and Arts Law Review
Media and Arts Law Review
Overview
The Media & Arts Law Review examines all areas of media and arts law, including communications, contempt, copyright, cultural heritage, defamation, digitisation, entertainment, free speech, intellectual property, the internet, journalism, privacy and the public interest.
The Media & Arts Law Review has a distinguished Editorial Board and publishes independently refereed articles from Australian and international authors. It also includes regular updates on media and arts law globally curated by a team of International Contributing Editors.
The Media & Arts Law Review was founded in 1996 and is issued quarterly. It is published by LexisNexis.
Editorial Board
General Editors
Associate Professor Jason Bosland
Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne, Australia
Brendan Clift
Senior Fellow, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, Australia
Editorial Board
Professor Tanya Aplin
Dickson Poon School of Law, King's College London, UK
Professor Graeme Austin
Melbourne Law School, Australia and Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
Professor Lionel Bently
Herchel Smith Professor of Intellectual Property, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge, UK
Delia Browne
Board Director, Creative Commons
Ursula Cheer
Professor, School of Law, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Professor Graeme Dinwoodie
Global Professor, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology, USA
Colin Golvan AM QC
Barrister
Emeritus Professor Reg Graycar
Faculty of Law, University of Sydney, Australia
Professor Michael Handler
Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales, Australia
Professor Andrew Kenyon
Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne, Australia
Professor David Lindsay
Faculty of Law, University of Technology, Sydney
Professor Fiona Macmillan
Department of Law, Birkbeck, University of London, UK
Professor Brian C Murchison
School of Law, Washington and Lee University, USA
Professor Megan Richardson
Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne, Australia
Emeritus Professor Sam Ricketson
Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne, Australia
Professor David Rolph
Sydney Law School, The University of Sydney
Professor Melissa de Zwart
Jeff Bleich Centre, Flinders University, Australia
Emeritus Professor Michael Chesterman
Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales, Australia
International Contributing Editors
The Review has a number of International Contributing Editors who provide regular updates about developments in their region. Updates offer a snapshot of matters such as case law, legislation, law reform, international conventions, and changes in industry self-regulation.
Contributors Include:
Samtani Anil - Singapore Media Law
Associate Professor, Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Anne Cheung - Hong Kong Media Law
Professor, Department of Law, Hong Kong University
Jonathan Griffiths - UK and European Media Law
Professor of Intellectual Property Law, Department of Law, Queen Mary, University of London
Lyrissa Lidsky
Dean and Judge CA Leedy Professor of Law, School of Law, University of Missouri
Roger D McConchie - Canadian Media Law
McConchie Law, Vancouver, Canada
Andrew Scott - UK and European Media Law
Associate Professor, Department of Law, London School of Economics and Political Science
David Tan - Singapore IP
Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore, Singapore
Kyu Ho Youm - Korean Media Law
Professor, Jonathan Marshall First Amendment Chair, School of Journalism and Communication, University of Oregon
Information for Authors
Submissions
To contribute to the Media & Arts Law Review please visit the Review’s LexisNexis website.
Style
Authors are expected to follow the Australian Guide to Legal Citation (AGLC).
General
The Media & Arts Law Review publishes articles (generally between 4,000 and 15,000 words) and shorter case notes, update reports, book reviews and conference reports.
Articles submitted to the Media & Arts Law Review undergo editorial review and double-blind review by two anonymous professional peers of the author. The identity of the author should not appear in the body of a submitted article, but the relevant details should be attached to the article.
Authors should provide an abstract of approximately 100 words with a submitted article.
All manuscripts submitted to the Media & Arts Law Review should be original and not under consideration for another publication.
Authors license publication in the Media & Arts Law Review in print and electronic form.
Past Volumes
Latest Volume
2022 Volume 25 Issue 1
Articles
Art law and policy in Australia and the appropriation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art styles
Marie Hadley and Clara Klemski
In 2018, British artist Damien Hirst was accused of cultural appropriation of Aboriginal art from Alice Springs, Australia, for his series of 24 abstract expressionist paintings known as ‘The Veil Paintings’. This article uses the contestation surrounding The Veil Paintings to animate a discussion of the legal status of ‘style appropriation’ — that is, the appropriation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art styles, designs and motifs — under customary law, copyright law, cultural heritage laws and consumer law, as well as recent art policy and law reform initiatives. While there is momentum in favour of greater regulation of intercultural engagements with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art, particularly following recognition of the cultural and economic harms of fake art and the push for intangible heritage protection, legal protections against style appropriation remain limited in scope under the Australian legal system.
Defamation in context: Expanding the defence of contextual truth
Shane Montgomery
Amendments to the statutory contextual truth defence of the Uniform Defamation Acts may have (perhaps inadvertently) resulted in the re-enlivening of the ‘Polly Peck’ and ‘Lucas-Box’ defences in Australia. This change should be welcomed. Expanding the ambit of ‘contextual truth’ could see the defence serve its intended purpose, and better enable tribunals of fact to conclusively determine whether a plaintiff’s reputation was actually harmed by a publication, as opposed to focusing on resolving unduly complex and artificial pleading disputes. This article considers the background to the reforms of the s 26 defence, the historical disapproval of Polly Peck and Lucas-Box in Australia, and assesses the future of the defence following its amendments in 2021.
New Zealand Media Law Update
New Zealand Media Law Update
Ursula Cheer