IceTV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd

“Copyright protects originality, not effort alone.”

SHORT DESCRIPTION

The judgment in IceTV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd is a landmark decision that reshaped the understanding of originality in copyright law, particularly in relation to factual compilations. The High Court of Australia rejected the traditional “sweat of the brow” doctrine and reaffirmed that copyright subsists only in works that involve independent intellectual effort and creativity. This case is especially important for media, data, and information-based industries.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd broadcast television programs and published weekly program schedules containing details such as program titles, times, and channels. IceTV Pty Ltd operated an electronic program guide service that provided television schedules to subscribers. IceTV used publicly available information, including some scheduling details that overlapped with Nine Network’s guides.

Nine Network alleged that IceTV had copied a substantial part of its copyright-protected program schedules and claimed infringement. IceTV argued that it had not copied any original expression and that the information used consisted of basic facts that are not protected by copyright.

ISSUES INVOLVED

The primary issue before the Court was whether Nine Network’s program schedules qualified as original literary works protected by copyright. The Court also examined whether the time, effort, and expense involved in compiling factual data are sufficient to establish originality, and whether IceTV’s use amounted to reproduction of a substantial part of the copyrighted work.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

Nine Network contended that significant skill, labour, and judgment went into preparing its program schedules and that IceTV had unfairly appropriated this effort. It relied on the long-standing “sweat of the brow” principle to claim copyright protection.

IceTV argued that copyright law protects original expression, not facts or data. It maintained that program times and titles are factual information and that it had independently collected and organized its data without copying any creative expression from Nine Network.

FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT

The High Court ruled in favour of IceTV and held that Nine Network’s schedules lacked the necessary originality to attract copyright protection. The Court expressly rejected the notion that labour and effort alone are sufficient. It emphasized that originality requires independent intellectual effort and creative choice.

The Court further observed that facts, such as broadcast times, are not protected by copyright and that IceTV had not copied any original arrangement or expression. As a result, there was no infringement.

SUGGESTION / PRACTICAL TAKEAWAY

This decision serves as a critical reminder that copyright protection does not extend to raw data or factual information. Businesses relying on compilations must ensure that their works demonstrate genuine originality in selection or arrangement. Those using factual data may do so freely, provided they avoid copying creative expression.

JUDGMENT

Year: 2009

The High Court of Australia held that copyright does not subsist in television program schedules lacking originality, and IceTV did not infringe Nine Network’s rights.