Abstract
The ‘fixation doctrine’, which generally requires that a work be reduced to material form before copyright protection can arise, appears to have become firmly entrenched in the copyright laws of many common law jurisdictions.
However, there remains some uncertainty as to whether fixation of spontaneous oral communications, such as speeches and interviews, can be performed by a person other than the ‘author’.
By engaging in a comparative survey of the approaches to ‘fixation’ in the common law world, this article critically evaluates the extent to which Canada and Australia can learn from the experience of the UK and the USA in regulating authorship and entrepreneurial rights over initially unfixed spontaneous oral communications that are subsequently recorded by third parties.
However, there remains some uncertainty as to whether fixation of spontaneous oral communications, such as speeches and interviews, can be performed by a person other than the ‘author’.
By engaging in a comparative survey of the approaches to ‘fixation’ in the common law world, this article critically evaluates the extent to which Canada and Australia can learn from the experience of the UK and the USA in regulating authorship and entrepreneurial rights over initially unfixed spontaneous oral communications that are subsequently recorded by third parties.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 806–819 |
| Journal | Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice |
| Volume | 13 |
| Issue number | 10 |
| Early online date | 30 Apr 2018 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 01 Oct 2018 |
| Externally published | Yes |