In a much awaited decision the Federal Court has held that use of headlines and by-lines of articles published by Fairfax Media Ltd in the Australian Financial Review, for the purpose of preparing abstracts of the articles did not infringe copyright: Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Reed International Books Australia Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 984 (7 September 2010).

Fairfax Media loses copyright battle

The respondent, Reed provides a service known as ABIX which involves the provision to subscribers of abstracts of articles published in various newspapers and magazines, including articles in the Australian Financial Review (AFR).

Abstracts of around 40-60% of articles in each edition of the AFR are provided as part of the ABIX service, early on the same day as the relevant edition.

Fairfax took the position that in the preparation of the abstracts Reed uses the following works of Fairfax over which Fairfax has copyright:

• Each individual headline in an AFR edition
• Each article, including its headline and by-line, written by journalists employed by Fairfax and published in an AFR edition (Article/Headline Combination)
• The compilation consisting of all of the articles, including their headlines and by-lines, in an AFR edition (Article Compilation)
• Each entire edition of the AFR (Edition Work)

Abstracts prepared by Reed are placed in a database located on a server which is accessible online to ABIX subscribes.

Fairfax contended that the placing of each abstract of  AFR on Reed’s database amounted to infringement of its copyright and that this conduct involves the reproduction of the relevant work or a substantial part thereof in a material form under s 31 of the Copyright Act.

The Court held that Reed’s conduct did  not involve the reproduction and communication of a substantial part of any literary work  in which copyright is owned by Fairfax.

Therefore the court did not proceed to make a decision on the defences of fair dealing  and estoppels, although it believed that Reed may be entitled to them.

It was further held that none of ten selected headlines are capable of being literary works in which copyright can subsist.

This raises the question whether it can be argued that certain headlines and by-lines are so written that they constitute separate literary works in which copyright can subsist and the use of them verbatim is infringement of that copyright.

Fairfax has indicated that it will appeal the decision.

One benefit of working in publishing is the occasional escape from Sydney for three days in country Victoria to become steeped in what is both the art and science of commercial printing.

Seven CCH’ers attended the “Communication in Print” client training seminar run by McPherson’s Printing Group, Australia’s leading book printer, in Maryborough, Victoria, in July.

The printer of all CCH book and loose-leaf products, the McPherson’s team taught us about the many facets of the printing process: requesting a quote, sending through print-ready files, web offset, sheetfed and digital printing, embellishing, binding and finishing, warehousing and mailing, along with paper production and the two global forest certification systems - FSC and PEFC.

A guided tour of McPherson’s printing factory showcased the stunning fusion of science, art, speed and precision, all fundamental to the printing process.

Having seen the printing plates for our very own Australian Master Tax Guide being made, great sheets of paper becoming books by flying seamlessly through machinery, being folded, bound and trimmed, and finally towers of paper bales which contribute to the 5,000 tonnes of paper recycled every year, I will never look at a book in the same way again.

As what can most accurately be described as an eager publishing novice, I can only imagine my unrequested exclamations - “Wow!” and “Isn’t that interesting?!” and “Did you know that?” - tried the patience of my colleagues.

But then again, perhaps that’s why I’ve been asked to write this blog.

With notes in hand and an understanding of what it takes to make a book, I am now part of the long, respected tradition of CCH publishing.

It’s just whistling in the dark to predict how much will Apple iPad diffuse into work life in Australia.

However, with exponential growth of home work arrangements and the abdication of the role of the traditional office the signs are on the wall: it will not be too long before the gizmo spreads its tentacles into every working hour of our lives.

With a memory sufficiently large at some 64 gigabytes (machines with memory as big as a black hole usually end up inside), it has the potential to become a portable and lovable workhorse. Downloading files on the go is not going to be a memory hog for this newcomer.

How does the iPad line up against the ubiquitous laptop?

For one, it is lighter: less than 2 pounds, half the weight of a laptop. For sticky–fingers (literally) typing on the pop-up keyboard is going to be a bother, but isn’t serious typing done on desktops and laptops.

Scrolling is easy as shooting fish in a barrel: just tap and drag. No more pointing and clicking.

Usefulness and popularity of tablet computers is growing and so are the number of applications for them.

It is even reported that the entire US Tax Code is available for 99 cents (U.S that is) from the Apple store.

If you want to know what CCH Australia is up to take a look at Linda’s blog CCH app delivers quick answers on tax estimates.

But now for matters financial. How does one finance an iPad? Not through salary sacrifice as we used do for laptops. After the changes of 2008 this has become almost impossible. Please see the links below

Not so cool when your iPad rebate claim comes up against fringe benefits tax

Fringe benefits tax (FBT) - exempt work-related items

Ever wondered what other people are searching for on IntelliConnect?

Is there something I’m missing?

Is there a particular search term that will reveal the answer to life, the universe and everything?

Never fear, all is revealed below with a list of the top 100 search terms in IntelliConnect this week:

Top 100 search terms in IntelliConnect (week ending 28 May 2010):

1. fbt
2. Division 7A
3. insurance
4. depreciation
5. GST
6. margin scheme
7. superannuation
8. investment allowance
9. debt forgiveness
10. Living away from home allowance
11. non-commercial losses
12. Depreciation rates
13. permanent establishment
14. managed investment trust
15. Capital Gains Tax
16. commercial debt forgiveness
17. finance lease
18. lease
19. car parking fringe benefit
20. rental property
21. stamp duty
22. annual leave
23. residency
24. long service leave
25. redundancy
26. relocation
27. motor vehicle expenses
28. depreciation rates 2010
29. effective life table
30. interest
31. otherwise deductible
32. bamford
33. caveat
34. directors
35. low income tax offset
36. payroll tax
37. minor benefit
38. small business cgt concessions
39. indemnity
40. capital works
41. resident
42. effective life
43. reportable fringe benefits
44. main residence
45. employee share scheme
46. fringe benefits tax
47. retirement exemption
48. minors
49. active asset
50. going concern
51. family law
52. cost base
53. TOFA
54. Trading stock
55. trust
56. sexual harassment
57. share buy-back
58. superannuation guarantee
59. Entertainment industry expenses
60. insider trading
61. trust losses
62. withholding tax
63. income
64. family trust election
65. penalties
66. allowance
67. partnership
68. salary sacrifice
69. thin capitalisation
70. education tax refund
71. Liquidation
72. interest deductibility
73. property
74. Condition of release
75. car parking benefit
76. assessable income
77. superannuation contributions
78. gifts
79. director
80. incurred
81. car parking
82. 40-880
83. personal services income
84. employee share schemes
85. tax rates
86. software
87. reportable fringe benefit
88. “consequential loss”
89. cabcharge gst
90. work test
91. base value
92. car
93. “section 45″
94. distributable surplus
95. deduction
96. ACL_HANDLE ca4-s.48AA
97. “work test”
98. foreign losses
99. principal place of residence
100. ohs

Australia will have a separate investment manager regime very soon.

The Federal government has released a Consultation Paper  (May 2010).

This follows recommendations made by the Board of Taxation on managed investment trusts (“MIT’s”).

The main feature of the new regime is to treat the income attributed to beneficiaries by the trustee as if it was derived directly.

This new attribution system of taxation will replace the current trust taxation rules.

After the recent High Court decision in Bamford, it is well established that if the trustee elects to treat an income (even if it was capital gain)  as income of the trust, the beneficiaries will be taxable on a proportion of it to which they are entitled to.

They may not have even been distributed with that income.

This will be detrimental to beneficiaries of fixed trusts such as a public unit trust (MIT).  

Under the system proposed by the government, beneficiaries will be taxable only on the income that is allocated to them by the trustee: the trustee will be taxed on trust income that the trustee fails to allocate within a specified period. 

This will be more like taxation in New Zealand.

Managed investment trusts set for overhaul

In a rush for a whole new regime for MIT’s and make Australia  attractive to investment capital are the recent moves too hard-charging?

Should there be a MIT specific set of rules for taxing or not taxing conduit income, such as the recently enacted Capital election rules for MIT’s?