Copyright Amendment Bill 2025

High-Level Summary

The Copyright Amendment Bill 2025 amends the Copyright Act 1968 to introduce an orphan works scheme, clarify educators’ and students’ online and hybrid use rights under section 28, and implement a range of technical and administrative updates.

It implements policies agreed at 2023 Ministerial Copyright Roundtables, modernises notification methods, simplifies tribunal appointments and ensures Crown copyright provisions remain clear and constitutionally sound.


Summary

The bill amends the Copyright Act 1968 by:

  • inserting a limited-remedies orphan works scheme (Part V, Division 2AAA) that permits good-faith use of copyright material whose owner cannot be identified or located, provided a reasonably diligent search, record-keeping and prominent notice requirements are met;
  • updating section 28 to confirm that the performance and communication exception for educational instruction applies equally in online, hybrid and community-assisted settings, broadening eligible instructors (e.g. parents, guest speakers) and audiences;
  • making technical amendments to simplify appointments of the acting President and Registrar of the Copyright Tribunal, update references to archives offices, replace references to the Government Gazette with modern notifiable instruments, and clarify the duration of Crown copyright with associated just-terms compensation safeguards.

Schedule 1 implements the orphan works scheme with mechanisms for reasonable payment or court-fixed terms if an owner later emerges. Schedule 2 clarifies digital-age educational uses without affecting existing licensing arrangements. Schedule 3 covers procedural and administrative updates across appointment, notification and Crown copyright provisions.


Argument For
Normative Bases
  1. Intellectualism
  2. Egalitarianism

Unlocking knowledge and culture: The orphan works scheme allows libraries, archives and educational institutions to make a wider range of historical, scientific and artistic works available without fear of crippling infringement claims. This will stimulate research, creative reuse and the diffusion of ideas, strengthening Australia’s intellectual ecosystem.

Promoting equal educational access: By putting beyond doubt that section 28 covers online, hybrid and community-assisted instruction, the bill removes legal ambiguity that can inhibit remote and inclusive learning. Students in rural, remote or disability-affected circumstances will gain the same rights to participate in live lessons and access teaching materials as those in traditional classrooms.

Balanced and fair treatment of rights-holders: The scheme’s diligent-search, notice and record requirements ensure that genuinely orphaned works are used responsibly, while providing a clear path for copyright owners to claim reasonable payment or negotiate continuing-use terms if they come forward. The technical amendments further streamline tribunal functions and modernise procedural rules without undermining creators’ moral or economic rights [Judgment].


Argument Against
Normative Bases
  1. Propertarianism
  2. Value-Neutral / Epistemic Objection

Undermining property rights: By capping remedies for infringing use of orphan works, the scheme weakens creators’ exclusive rights and may erode licensing markets that sustain authors, photographers and other rights-holders. The requirement to seek only “reasonable payment” when an owner is later identified risks arbitrary valuation and lost revenue for rights-holders.

Administrative complexity and deterrence: The need for a “reasonably diligent search,” detailed record-keeping, bespoke notice requirements and potential court negotiations imposes high transaction costs on users. Smaller institutions, community groups and educators may be discouraged from engaging with orphan materials, defeating the policy’s aim of increased access [Judgment].

Scope creep in educational exception: Broadly defining who may “take part” in instruction and allowing non-profitable community presenters could be read so expansively that it undermines commercial licensing arrangements and confuses boundaries between profit and non-profit instruction. This ambiguity may invite litigation and chill legitimate uses.


Date:

2025-11-05

Chamber:

House of Representatives

Status:

Before House of Representatives

Sponsor:

Unspecified

Portfolio:

Attorney-General

Categories:

Education, Science / Technology, Media / Advertising

Timeline:
05/11/2025

Comments (0)