144. _org_ Walker Books Australia
Full name: Janine Quast
If you are making this submission on behalf of an organisation, please provide the name: 
Walker Books Australia

Question 1: 
Question 2: 
Guiding principle should be to always remember that a system that provides parameters of use should not be viewed as barriers to use. Increasingly copyright protection is being seen in this way; however it is a property right and therefore the owner should always remain the arbiter of any usage and retain the right to be remunerated for usage of their property. Exceptions to copyright should be treated with extreme caution; it is access to rights-holders and streamlining of the process to get consent to usage that should instead be facilitated, especially given the increasing inter-relationship between the different creative industries of music, film, publishing etc. A way of handling that would be to set up a digital copyright exchange such as being proposed in the UK to make the process of copyright licensing easier and more effective. Increased efficiencies and hopefully more respect for copyright would result – a great many of the questions below could have their solutions in such a scheme that would not require a change to existing copyright legislation
Question 3: 
Question 4: 
No, see Q 2.
Question 5: 
Question 6: 
Question 7: 
Question 8: 
Question 9: 
Question 10: 
Question 11: 
We are seeing a lot of examples of Books being taken and read/shown on YouTube – they are therefore being shown in a public and not a private forum and so being shared without consent.
Question 12: 
No. Can the concept of private or social content be said to exist in the digital environment? Certainly we are talking about a potentially huge audience for this content.
Also, could this content not be said to be of commercial benefit to online service providers, who might attract advertisers by exploiting this “private” content?
Question 13: 
Where does one begin and the other end? Someone’s ‘private’ reading on YouTube for instance, although non-commercial, could undermine the legitimate marketing activity of the author or publisher – or certainly deminishes its impact.
Question 14: 
Question 15: 
No, see Q 2.
Question 16: 
Question 17: 
Impossible to judge – surely this must depend not only on the context of the request but is also personal to each individual copyright owner – who must always be able to set own parameters of usage. The means by which this can be facilitated is what should be addressed, not a change in the law.
Question 18: 
See Q 17 response.
Question 19: 
Question 20: 
Question 21: 
Question 22: 
Question 23: 
Question 24: 
There is certainly a case to be made for an amendment to the Act. Given that 5 - 10% of all content is estimated to be orphan works, the current situation is certainly far from ideal, being disadvantageous both for the Creators of such works and for their potential users.
After all, if the Creator of a work cannot be located, then he or she cannot be rewarded for it – surely one of the main functions of copyright.
Meanwhile potential users, such as publishers for example, expend a lot of time and energy attempting to locate individual rights holders. Where we are unsuccessful, and the rights situation remains unclear, we have to choose between opening ourselves up to potential litigation down the track, or not using the work in question. Generally we choose the latter option, replacing the work with another that is not our first choice. Likewise, if we anticipate a lengthy and ultimately unsuccessful search, we will on occasion not even try to find the rights holder and immediately go to our second choice. Both of these cases represent a loss to both Creator and Publisher.
Our preference would be for the creation of a collective licensing scheme for such works, along the lines of the Canadian system. There the Copyright Board has the right to issue a non-exclusive licence for the use of orphan works after reasonable efforts have been made to find the rights holder. Fees are then distributed among members after a certain number of years.
Whatever model is chosen, it should be based on authorisation by a formal collective licensing body rather than taking the form of an exception. Also, importantly, there should be no assumption or requirement that moral rights have been waived.
Question 25: 
Question 26: 
Question 27: 
Again, we strongly feel that changes should not be made to the law before exploring the possibilities afforded by a scheme such as a digital copyright exchange.
Question 28: 
Question 29: 
As a publishing company we derive a comparatively small but nonetheless useful income from statutory licensing schemes like PLR and ELR, and of course there is also a very welcome benefit to us in terms of reducing the number of permission requests we have to deal with.
From conversations with our authors and illustrators, we also know that these schemes represent a significant form of income for many. And this is true especially over time. In an industry where sales and therefore royalties tend to decline after a year or so, a reasonably secure source of income, such as is derived from secondary licence fees, can give much-needed stability to a creator.
The recent changes to PLR/ELR and to CAL are very welcome. Especially the introduction of CAL Direct, where payments are split at source, represents a significant saving in terms of administrative burden for publishers. Currently CAL Direct does not cover picture books, and the extension of the scheme to cover these also would be welcome.
Question 30: 
These scheme might be extended, for instance in relation to the ‘small portions’ exceptions, which are perhaps not really fair in relation to works such as picture books, or poems, where a small portion might represent a significant part of a work. These might usefully be covered by statutory licence.
Question 31: 
Question 32: 
Question 33: 
Question 34: 
Question 35: 
Question 36: 
Question 37: 
Question 38: 
Question 39: 
Question 40: 
Question 41: 
Question 42: 
As per question 24, in relation to orphan works. A statutory licensing scheme could play a significant role here in bringing together rights holders and users.
Question 43: 
Question 44: 
No, creators should be rewarded for their efforts.
Question 45: 
Question 46: 
Question 47: 
No. The current fair dealing exceptions are sufficient. 
Question 48: 
Question 49: 
The exception relating to research might usefully be amended, though not removed. We believe it should be restricted to private or individual research, as it is in the UK.
Question 50: 
Question 51: 
Question 52: 
No. Probably the best known example of a country employing a principle based on fair use is the US, and their experience suggests that it is fraught with controversy and legal challenges.
Question 53: 
Question 54: 
Question 55: 
Contracting out should not be prevented – the law needs to remain flexible enough to suit any individual commercial arrangement.
Other comments: 
File 1: 
File 2: