White SW Computer Law
|Intellectual Property, Information Technology & Telecommunications Lawyers|
Melbourne Office - PO Box 452, COLLINS STREET WEST Victoria 8007 Australia
Sydney Office - GPO Box 2506, SYDNEY New South Wales 2001 Australia
Telephone: Melbourne Office - +61 3 9629 3709 Sydney Office - +61 2 9233 2600
Facsimile: Melbourne Office - +61 3 9629 3217 Sydney Office - +61 2 9233 3044
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Internet: http://www.computerlaw.com.au
Ordinarily, a company’s director cannot be sued directly for loss and damage arising from the actions of the company. However, accessorial liability can arise in relation to, amongst other things, copyright infringement, leaving the directors of the company exposed to a claim for damages.
In the matter of Autodesk Inc & Ors v Ginos Engineers Pty Ltd & Anor1) counsel for Autodesk submitted that accessorial liability for copyright infringement can arise in three ways:
The Federal Magistrates’ Court held that as long as a director knew of the acts himself or that it would be likely that the acts occurred, he can be liable for authorisation. It is not necessary that the director knew that the acts would infringe copyright.
Following a conversation with Ginos Engineers Pty Ltd’s (“GE”) information technology consultant and a subsequent audit of GE’s computers, an authorised reseller of Autodesk software confirmed that GE had reproduced multiple infringing copies of the Autodesk software.
The audit revealed two licensed copies of Autodesk’s software in addition to infringing copies which were reproductions of the whole or substantial parts of the Autodesk software.
The Court held that in a professional engineering practice which had expanded from operating two computers by the purchase of 11 new computers there must have been consideration of what software to use on the new computers.
Mr Ginos, GE’s director, gave evidence that he oversaw and approved all major purchases for GE.
The Court found that Mr Ginos was unable to avoid liability for authorisation and was therefore liable for infringing Autodesk’s copyright in the Autodesk software.
The Court determined that the proper measure of damages is the retail price that would have been paid to obtain the required software licences. The amount of compensatory damages, together with interest, amounted to $38,012.22.
The fact that GE had by the time of the hearing purchased software licences from an Autodesk re-seller, was held by the Court not to have addressed GE’s past use of different versions of the software over the previous 10 years.
In addition to the normal award of damages, the Copyright Act2) empowers the Court to award additional damages for copyright infringements.
When determining whether to award such damages, the court considers:
The court found that by using the infringing copies of the software to provide professional services, GE had infringed Autodesk’s copyright with the intention of obtaining a financial benefit. As a result, the court decided to exercise its discretion and awarded additional damages of $76,000 against GE, noting that there need not be any proportionality between normal damages and any additional damages.
As Mr Ginos was found to be accessorily liable for GE’s copyright infringement, Autodesk would be entitled to demand payment of the awarded damages from Mr Ginos if GE failed to pay.
Whilst it was open to the Court to find that Mr Ginos was a joint copyright tortfeasor it made no finding in this regard – probably because it was not necessary to make such a finding in this case. However, all directors should be aware that if a common design is held in relation to any wrong (including copyright infringement) then liability may be found against the directors personally as well as the company.