acct1001

1. First of all, the copy right is the legal right to prevent unauthorized copying id expression of an idea. There are three requirements for protection. First one is the creation is a “work” or “subject matter other than works”. Since Rochelle expressed his idea in the form of text which is his website, therefore, this can be recognized a s literary works. The next one is the creation is original. Obviously, in the case, Rochelle created his website by himself. The third one is the creation is expressed in a material form. And base on Donoghue v Allied Newspapers (1938): “It is not the originator of an idea who owns the copyright but the person who first expresses the idea in material form.” Rochelle presented his idea on website which can be treated as expressed in material form.

In terms of infringement, there are also three requirements. First one is a substantial part has been copied, because the color scheme, the font and the menu design should not be regarded as substantial part but the slogan, the requirement one is satisfied. Next one is objective similarity between the original and the copy. Again, Rochelle claims Johnny he has copy her website specifically in color scheme, the front and the menu design. In this way, the two website should be look similar and as a result, this requirement is satisfied. The last one is causal connection between the original and the copy. Johnny admitted he has access Rochelle’s website as references and it does no matter whether the copying was deliberate or accidental.
Johnny has infringed Rochelle’s copyright.

2. According to the discussion in problem one, because of all three requirements are satisfied, the lecture is protected by copyright and the lecturer owns the copyright since he or she is the person who express the idea in the textbook to students. Gaia should not posted on her personal website and let her fellows to download without the lecturer permission.
However, the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)