Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Copyright law update – proposed amendments to website blocking laws

By Martin Ross of Hall & Wilcox, Ben Hamilton of Hall & Wilcox, James Deady of Hall & Wilcox, David Holland of Hall & Wilcox & Raelene Brown of Hall & Wilcox on December 26, 2018
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Background

The Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Act 2018 (Act) which passed both Houses of Parliament on 28 November 2018, and is due to commence the day after it receives Royal Assent, amends section 115A of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).

Section 115A of the Copyright Act was introduced in 2015 and enables a copyright owner to apply to the Federal Court of Australia for an injunction requiring a carriage service provider (CSP) to take reasonable steps to block access to an online location located outside Australia that infringes, or facilitates an infringement, of copyright and has the primary purpose of infringing copyright or facilitating the infringement of copyright (whether or not in Australia) (Online Infringement Provisions).

The key changes to section 115A made by the Act are:

  • amending the threshold test from ‘primary purpose’ to ‘primary purpose or primary effect‘;
  • including a rebuttable presumption that the relevant online location is outside Australia;
  • extending its application to online search engine providers; and
  • making provision for more responsive orders to be made by the Court.

These changes were prompted following consultation by the Department of Communications with stakeholders earlier this year regarding the effectiveness of the operation and processes of the Online Infringement Provisions.

Summary of key amendments

The key amendments to section 115A made by the Act are set out below:

Amending the threshold test – ‘primary purpose or primary effect‘

The Act amends section 115A so that the relevant test for obtaining an injunction is whether the relevant online location outside of Australia infringes, or facilitates infringement, of copyright and has the primary purpose or primary effect of infringing or facilitating an infringement, of copyright (whether or not in Australia).1

By expanding the test to cover both purpose and effect, the Copyright Act now operates to reduce the evidentiary burden which had been placed on copyright owners to satisfy the Court that the requirements for an injunction have been met.

Rebuttable presumption that the relevant online location is outside Australia

The Act also relieves the evidentiary burden on copyright owners in obtaining an injunction under section 115A by including a rebuttable presumption that the relevant online location is outside Australia.2

Previously, copyright owners had to establish that an infringing location is located outside of Australia. This can be difficult for copyright owners to prove given the use of proxy servers and other devices which hide the location of an infringing online location.

Extending application to online search engine providers

The Act amends section 115A to enable copyright owners to apply for an injunction against an on ‘online search engine provider’ (other than a provider that has been declared exempt under new subsection 115A(8B))3, where an injunction is also sought against a CSP.

Under the amended section 115A(2) the Court may require an online search engine provider (such as Google) to take such steps as the Court considers reasonable so as not to provide a search result that refers users to the online location the subject of the injunction application against the CSP.

The matters that the Court will take into account when considering whether to grant an injunction against a CSP have been expanded to also cover an online search engine provider.4

Provision for more responsive orders to be made by the Court

As noted in the explanatory memorandum to the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2018, one of the limitations of the earlier legislation is that operators of online locations could attempt to avoid injunctions under section 115A by using another domain name, creating a new URL for the same content or obtaining a new IP address.

To address this, the Act includes new provisions which allow the Court to make more responsive orders as part of an injunction application.

The Copyright Act now provides that the Court may grant an injunction in the terms and conditions it considers appropriate.5 The new section 115A(2B) makes it clear that, without limiting the terms and conditions that may apply to an injunction, the Court may make injunctions in terms that require CSPs and online search engine providers to take reasonable steps to block, or not provide search results that include certain domain names, URLs and IP addresses that provide access to the online location.6


The Act is a positive step in assisting copyright owners address online copyright infringement.


1Amended section 115A(1)(b).
2New section 115A(5).
3New section 115A(8B) empowers the Minister, by legislative instrument, to declare that a particular online search engine provider, or an online search engine provider that is a member of a particular class, must not be specified in an application for an injunction under section 115A.
4New sections 115A(5)(ea) and 115A(5)(ga).
5New section 115A(2A).
6New section 115A(2B)(a)(i) and 115A(2B)(b)(i).


Connect with Martin, Ben, James and David on LinkedIn.

Photo of Martin Ross of Hall & Wilcox Martin Ross of Hall & Wilcox

“Martin Ross has extensive experience advising on the full range of issues faced by sporting organisations, assisting with both commercial and disputes matters. Interviewees report: ‘He’s worked in this area his whole working life and has built a really good sports practice;

…

“Martin Ross has extensive experience advising on the full range of issues faced by sporting organisations, assisting with both commercial and disputes matters. Interviewees report: ‘He’s worked in this area his whole working life and has built a really good sports practice; he’s exactly what we want from an external lawyer’.” Chambers Asia-Pacific 2017

Martin practices commercial law with extensive experience in contracts and commercial litigation. Martin focuses on corporate, commercial, regulatory and private clients, with particular expertise in the sports and media sectors.

Martin’s clients include public and private corporations, numerous well known national and international sporting organisations, governing bodies, athletes, sponsors, agencies and high profile individuals.

Martin has worked on high profile and complex transactions and litigation, including media rights transactions, major sponsorship agreements, M&A in sport, governance, and rules and regulations.

Martin is well known for his expert, prompt and commercially focused advice on high profile, high value and strategically important matters.

He is listed in the spotlight table for sports law in Chambers Asia-Pacific 2017 and as a recognised practitioner in TMT:Media. Martin is also listed in the 2016 Who’s Who Legal International Directory in Sports and Entertainment law and in The Best Lawyers in Australia 2019 in defamation and media law, entertainment law, and sports law.

Martin is a director of the Australian and New Zealand Sports Law Association (ANZSLA) and a founding and current member of the Law Institute’s Sports Law Committee.

Read more about Martin Ross of Hall & WilcoxEmailMartin's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
Photo of Ben Hamilton of Hall & Wilcox Ben Hamilton of Hall & Wilcox

Ben has a range of experience in intellectual property, technology, and commercial matters.

He specialises in technology and commercial contracts, branding and product labelling advice, advertising and marketing law, trade mark matters, intellectual property commercialisation, copyright advice, disputes and licensing, and competition and…

Ben has a range of experience in intellectual property, technology, and commercial matters.

He specialises in technology and commercial contracts, branding and product labelling advice, advertising and marketing law, trade mark matters, intellectual property commercialisation, copyright advice, disputes and licensing, and competition and consumer law matters.

Ben has also advised and assisted clients in drafting and negotiating procurement, technology and other commercial contracts, asserting and defending substantial copyright and trade mark infringement claims, implementing a national trade mark certification scheme, drafting agreements relating to the commercialisation of new plant varieties and patented technology.

Ben is listed in The Best Lawyers in Australia 2019 in intellectual property law.

Ben is a member of the Intellectual Property Society of Australia and New Zealand (IPSANZ) and the Licensing Executives Society of Australia and New Zealand (LESANZ).

Read more about Ben Hamilton of Hall & WilcoxEmailBen's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
Photo of James Deady of Hall & Wilcox James Deady of Hall & Wilcox

James has experience in a broad range of commercial and intellectual property matters, including intellectual property commercialisation, agreements and licensing, trade mark registrability and infringement issues.

James also has extensive experience in technology procurement, licensing and outsourcing matters. This work includes drafting and…

James has experience in a broad range of commercial and intellectual property matters, including intellectual property commercialisation, agreements and licensing, trade mark registrability and infringement issues.

James also has extensive experience in technology procurement, licensing and outsourcing matters. This work includes drafting and advising on IT contracts, including software licences, software, platform and infrastructure as a service agreements, software development agreements, IT project and implementation agreements, and IT service contracts, and drafting and advising on general commercial agreements.

James is listed in The Best Lawyers in Australia 2019 in commercial law

Read more about James Deady of Hall & WilcoxEmailJames's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
Photo of David Holland of Hall & Wilcox David Holland of Hall & Wilcox
Read more about David Holland of Hall & WilcoxEmailDavid's Linkedin Profile
Photo of Raelene Brown of Hall & Wilcox Raelene Brown of Hall & Wilcox

With over thirty years’ experience in trade mark and intellectual property law, I have assisted many national and multi-national corporations, advising in relation to all of their IP and trade mark issues. As the National IP Manager at Hall & Wilcox, I manage…

With over thirty years’ experience in trade mark and intellectual property law, I have assisted many national and multi-national corporations, advising in relation to all of their IP and trade mark issues. As the National IP Manager at Hall & Wilcox, I manage the trade mark portfolio and assist in advising clients in all of their trade mark and IP related needs.

Key areas of expertise:
– Assisting clients to protect their IP in Australia, New Zealand and around the world
– Trade Mark Searching
– Trade Mark Prosecution
– Filing Trade Marks in Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, the Pacific Islands and Internationally
– Recordal of Assignments
– Mergers and changes of names and addresses also in Australia, New Zealand and Internationally

Read more about Raelene Brown of Hall & WilcoxEmailRaelene's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Intellectual Property
  • Blog:
    ILN IP Insider
  • Organization:
    International Lawyers Network
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo