27:
93:
255:
178:
was regarding whether the reproduction of prints owned by a third party, for that third party was an act of sale which could incur sales tax. Pacific Film argued that as it had no property right in the prints, it was not selling anything to the customer which might be taxed. The High Court rejected
296:
262:
330:
315:
48:
187:
produced in the process of reproduction was owned by
Pacific Film. The sale of this chattel to the customer incurred the sales tax.
70:
289:
320:
179:
this argument saying that when
Pacific Film reproduced the customer's negatives, under authorisation from the customer, the
335:
282:
41:
35:
325:
52:
211:
135:
215:
103:
228:
184:
266:
162:, (Australia) Windeyer J defined copyright: "It is not a right in an existing thing. It is a
207:
131:
92:
166:, as it has been called, a power to prevent the making of a physical thing by copying."
163:
309:
254:
180:
114:
Pacific Film
Laboratories Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation
20:
270:
147:
142:
127:
119:
109:
99:
85:
176:Pacific Film Laboratories v. Commissioner of Tax
204:Pacific Film Laboratories v Commissioner of Tax
159:Pacific Film Laboratories v Commissioner of Tax
86:Pacific Film Laboratories v Commissioner of Tax
290:
229:"Chapter 2: Copyright – Its Birth and Nature"
8:
297:
283:
91:
82:
71:Learn how and when to remove this message
34:This article includes a list of general
16:Judgement of the High Court of Australia
196:
7:
251:
249:
269:. You can help Knowledge (XXG) by
183:was owned by the customer but the
40:it lacks sufficient corresponding
14:
253:
25:
1:
331:Australian copyright case law
316:High Court of Australia cases
352:
248:
214:154 (9 October 1970),
90:
261:This article related to
134:, (1970) 121
104:High Court of Australia
55:more precise citations.
321:1970 in Australian law
236:Intellectual Property
208:[1970] HCA 36
132:[1970] HCA 36
336:Australian law stubs
238:. Federation Press.
278:
277:
154:
153:
81:
80:
73:
343:
326:1970 in case law
299:
292:
285:
257:
250:
239:
233:
219:
201:
143:Court membership
95:
83:
76:
69:
65:
62:
56:
51:this article by
42:inline citations
29:
28:
21:
351:
350:
346:
345:
344:
342:
341:
340:
306:
305:
304:
303:
246:
231:
226:
223:
222:
202:
198:
193:
172:
77:
66:
60:
57:
47:Please help to
46:
30:
26:
17:
12:
11:
5:
349:
347:
339:
338:
333:
328:
323:
318:
308:
307:
302:
301:
294:
287:
279:
276:
275:
263:Australian law
258:
241:
240:
221:
220:
195:
194:
192:
189:
171:
168:
164:negative right
152:
151:
149:
145:
144:
140:
139:
129:
125:
124:
123:9 October 1970
121:
117:
116:
111:
110:Full case name
107:
106:
101:
97:
96:
88:
87:
79:
78:
33:
31:
24:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
348:
337:
334:
332:
329:
327:
324:
322:
319:
317:
314:
313:
311:
300:
295:
293:
288:
286:
281:
280:
274:
272:
268:
264:
259:
256:
252:
247:
244:
237:
230:
227:Reynolds, R.
225:
224:
217:
213:
210:, (1970) 121
209:
205:
200:
197:
190:
188:
186:
182:
177:
169:
167:
165:
161:
160:
150:
148:Judge sitting
146:
141:
137:
133:
130:
126:
122:
118:
115:
112:
108:
105:
102:
98:
94:
89:
84:
75:
72:
64:
61:February 2018
54:
50:
44:
43:
37:
32:
23:
22:
19:
271:expanding it
260:
245:
242:
235:
218:(Australia).
203:
199:
175:
173:
170:Case Details
158:
157:
155:
113:
67:
58:
39:
18:
53:introducing
310:Categories
216:High Court
191:References
36:references
181:copyright
138: 154
128:Citations
243:
185:chattel
120:Decided
49:improve
38:, but
265:is a
232:(PDF)
206:
100:Court
267:stub
174:The
212:CLR
156:In
136:CLR
312::
234:.
298:e
291:t
284:v
273:.
74:)
68:(
63:)
59:(
45:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
