Legal Analysis

Property
Discuss who owns the copyright of the original video and whether Don and Joe have infringed the copyright.
Issue
The main issue in this case pertained to whether the filming and the subsequent uploading of the tribute band video on YouTube by both Joe and Don amounted to copyright infringement through technology. Initially, the video was shot on mobile phone and uploaded on YouTube by Joe. Thereafter, Don remixed the video with cat appearances and uploaded it on social media pages. The main issue of this case pertains to whether Don and Joe infringed my copyright. IP law protects the original owner’s creation for a period of 70 years from the original date of publication.

Rule/applicable law
A copyright infringement occurs if a person exercises the original owner’s exclusive right to the creation without the owner’s exclusive permission. In determining whether an infringement has occurred, the owner must prove to the court that a substantial part of the work has been infringed and that there is similarity between the original creation and the copy. Additionally, James (2017， p. 479-485) noted that the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) warrants protection if there is a causal interconnection between the original works and the copy.
In order to qualify for copyright protection, the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) stipulates that the creation must be a subject manner different from the works defined under the Act, expressed in material form and that it should be original (James 2017, p. 481).
Application
For creation to warrant copyright protection, it must be the result of the original creator’s own skill and effort and should not copy from another source. As demonstrated in by James (2017, p. 473) in Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd (2002), the act does not give the copyright’s owner the right to stop other creators from modifying similar creations if there is no copying. However, if the original owner is capable of proving that a substantial part of his creation has been copied, the judicial precedent in Hawke & Son (London) Ltd v Paramount Film Service Ltd [1934] suggested that the quality of the part copied must be taken into consideration (James 2017, p. 479).
Conclusion
My analysis suggests that my original performance is protected from unauthorized copying. According to Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 35 (2), the creator of the original work is the owner of the copyright of the creation (James 2017, p. 473). Although Joe owns the copyright of the original video because he captured it on his mobile phone, Don infringed the copyright of the original work because he uploaded a similar fashion of the work with cats in it. Both works had objective similarity and causal connection to my original creation, which amounts to contract infringement. In effect, there was a direct infringement in this case since another party other than the original copyright owner exercised these exclusive rights without the creator’s exclusive permission.