Editorial

摘要

This issue of the journal features three articles covering diverse areas of IP law. The first article, by Jani McCutcheon and Simon Holloway of the University of Western Australia, addresses an abiding issue in the application of the copyright fair dealing exceptions, which is especially relevant to the exception for the purpose of parody or satire: namely, whether the exception is confined to the person with a parodic purpose or whether it might be extended to protect third parties, such as those involved with disseminating the parody. The difficulty arises from the judgment of Beaumont J in De Garis v Neville Jeffress Pidler Pty Ltd~1, which held that for the purpose of the fair dealing defences the relevant purpose must be narrowly confined to the purpose of the person seeking to rely on the defence. This may give rise to an issue in relation to third parties as, for example, the third party may have a purpose such as disseminating parodic material rather than the purpose of making a parody. After examining unresolved issues and ambiguities in the interpretation of the "purpose" element of the exception, the authors recommend adopting a more liberal construction of the purpose, broadly consistent with the Canadian and UK approaches. While the paucity of case law might suggest that a common sense approach is being taken to parodies and satire in practice, there remains scope for redressing some of the problems and ambiguities arising from the De Garis judgment, including the interpretation of the purpose of the dealing.