Introduction to Business Law

bloody shames Discount usual Relations caller-up has recently hired you as a PR consultant. bloody shame knows you put up studied occupancy law and asks your advice on the followingbloody shame operates an data service known as bloody shames PR Notes which she emails to clients who contain to her service. bloody shames PR Notes provides toleraters with abstracts of articles on public relations. The articles come from a commixture of newspapers and magazines. The abstract involves the headline of the article (unaltered) and a hornswoggle unofficial of the articles content written by iodine of bloody shames employees.Recently the editor of Puffery 4U contacted bloody shame complaining that Marys service is using his real(a). The editor was particularly touch on about how Mary single-valued functions the headlines from his articles.Advise Mary* Describe and discuss the nature of the issue and the sub judice implications* Identify the relevant area of the law referring to facts and statutes* Apply intelligent principles to the paradox or issue using the relevant law to argue the parapraxis* Include a literature review of the problem including relevant ratified citationsThroughout this essay the topic of Marys Discount Public Relations Comp both and Marys PR Notes get out be discussed and analyzed as to why Marys order whitethorn have breached well-nigh levels of copyright. Mary needs to be advised on what she whitethorn be doing wrong and how she can overcome these issues in her genuine situation regarding Puffery 4U and their complaints of how Mary is using their material and also other complications she may face in the future.Marys public relations society offers an information service titled Marys PR Notes which she emails to clients who subscribe to her service. The emails provide subscribers with abstracts if articles on public relations which come from a variety of newspapers and magazines. The abstracts include the headline of t he article, which is unaltered in any focusing, and a short abridgment of the articles content, which is then written by one of Marys employees.Recently the editor of Puffery 4U contacted Mary and is complaining that Marys service is using his material and breaching copyright. The editor is particularly concerned about how Mary uses the headlines from his articles.Copyright is a type of property that is founded on a persons creative skill and labour. It is designed to prevent the unauthorised use by others of a produce, that is, the master key form in which an idea or information has been expressed by the creator.Copyright is non a clear thing. It is made up of a bundle of exclusive economic rights to do certain acts with an original work or other copyright egress-matter. These rights include the right to copy, publish, communicate and publicly perform the copyright material.Marys situation with Puffery 4U may come under the subject of copyright assault (Copyright Act 1968 S ect 36) where someone reproduces in material form the undivided or part of a work without the consent of the owner. Examples include when a work is published, reproduced or performed in public without the copyright owners permission. This general formula is subject to a number of specific exceptions in the Copyright Act. Although Mary or Marys employees havent changed the title of Puffery 4Us articles or other articles referred to, they have however made their own compendium of the articles which may twist the viewers perception on what the subject of the articles may be about. Even though the summaries may still be completely relevant to the articles and no naughtily intentions are being made, Marys alliance is still reproducing the articles or parts of them without the consent of the owners of the original material.It is possible however that in Marys field of study her business may be able to be let off with clean-living transaction. This is where the material is an arti cle in a periodical then reproducing the livelong or part of the article may be fair dealing for research, study, criticism or review by an individual. The Copyright Act provides that copy a reasonable portion of a work for the purposes of research or study, criticism or review, news reporting or parody and openhandedinage provide be a fair dealing. As only a small part of the articles are being reproduced, Marys eccentric person may be an exception to the copyright law and no legal action will be taken save this is still non a guaranteed outcome so other measures should to taken into account.If Mary wishes to revoke legal action being taken out on her company then she can take some(prenominal) different measures. First she must seek permission from the owner of whom she wishes to take abstracts and articles from before using and fixing them to make sure they wont have an issue with Mary using documents. Secondly, if she clearly states in her emails she sends out where th e original text is from and that the summary written in fact by Marys company and non the original publisher then the owner of that text will possibly have less of an issue with the company breaching copyright violation. Thirdly, if Mary made connections with the sources she pulls the articles from she could send her summaries to them for them to approve prototypal and then once she has the eulogy she can be free to send out her emails with their articles in them.If a copyright has been infringed, the owner may sue the infringer in federal court, want an injunction against future violations of the copyrights. The owner may recover actual damages, which are losses plus the infringers profits from use of the copyrighted work. Or, any time before a court issues a final judgment, the owner can elect to receive a set amount in damages as defined in the copyright statute, in blank space of actual damages. The amount of statutory damages can range from $ two hundred to $150,000, base d on a courts de nameination of several factors, including whether the infringement was intentional.On 1 January 2007, a range of copyright enforcement measures started as a result of the Copyright Amendment Act 2006. These include the creation of a tiered system of copyright criminal offences incorporating indictable, summary and strict indebtedness offences.The strict liability offences do not contain fault elements and draw in maximum penalties of 60 penalty units ($6,600). These offences are supported by a copyright infringement notice scheme provided for under the Copyright Regulations 1969. An infringement notice penalty is 12 penalty units ($1,320). The introduction to this scheme was seduced and designed to deal specifically with lower-level copyright crime such as first time offenders, street stall or market operators.Under this scheme, an offender issued with an infringement notice by a law enforcement officer will have the option of paying a fine or risking the conject ure of prosecution in court. In addition to paying a fine, some offences will also require the offender to forfeit copyright material and/or related devices in order to avoid prosecution.In 2001, the TCN behave Nine Pty Ltd v Network cristal Ltd (Panel Case) was a case with claims that commercial broadcaster Network Ten infringed copyright in origin Nine broadcasts when re-broadcasting extracts of Nines program The Panel over the period from 10 August 1999 to 28 June 2000. The Panel is a talk show comprised of a regular card and guest panelists who discuss recent events and current issues, using television footage from a variety of sources as a basis for humorous comment and circumstantial discussion. The claim of copyright infringement related to 20 excerpts of Nine footage, ranging in length from eight seconds to 42 seconds. The excerpts were from a variety of programs including The Today Show, Who Wants to be a Millionaire, Days of Our Lives and Sale of the New Century.Nine claimed that Tens re-broadcasting of excerpts of its programs constituted an infringement of its copyright in the television broadcast as provided for in s 87(c) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (the Act). Nine also claimed that Ten had breached s 87(a) of the Act by making a cinematograph film of the programs or a copy of such films, but this latter claim has not yet been determined. This judgment relates only to Nines claim in relation to s 87(c) of the Act.On 11 April 2003 the High coquet allow Network Ten leave to appeal against the decision of the Full motor inn of the Federal Court and in September 2003 heard arguments on the movement of ss 14, 25(4) and s 87 of the Copyright Act 1968 regarding the claimed infringement. The ruling from the Federal Court was announced as fair dealing in broadcast television.This case is similar to Marys situation as Network 10 was only re-broadcasting small extracts of The Panel and did not have the intention of bad mouthing Channel Nine or putting them in a nix spotlight. It is possible to argue and win Marys case depending on the extent to whether how relevant her summaries are to the original text of the articles she is using in her emails and if she is trying to persuade people to not read them. The case may end up being ruled as fair dealing if the following situation were to occur.It would be wise for Mary to act on this current situation as soon as possible as Puffery 4U may not be the only people concerned with the way Mary is using their articles. She may see herself facing multiple lawsuits, which could create a bad reputation for not only her company but for herself as well. Although Mary and her employees may think they arent doing any disparage and are actually advertising other peoples work to a wider audience, authors of the articles may perceive this situation different and just want to claim work as their own.If Puffery 4U were to take legal action upon Mary this would cause implications for her not only in the short term but long term as well. She may face multiple fines from the magazine and newspaper companies she has been roll up articles from which would affect her financially and it would also give Mary a bad name and affect her future business dealings.Bibliographyhttp//www.rcfp.org/handbook/index.php?pg=10-1http//www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/