SUBMISSION TO THE
ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT
REVIEW OF
TECHNOLOGICAL PROTECTION
MEASURE EXCEPTIONS
MADE UNDER THE
COPYRIGHT ACT 1968
JULY 2012
Submission by Vic’s Flicks
Page 1
Submission to the Australian Law Reform Commission
"Review of Technological Protection Measure Exceptions"
This submission relates to the exemptions associated with the performance of a cinematograph film
that is provided exclusively for residents who are categorised as disadvantaged at the premises
where they reside or sleep.
This submission has been prepared by a not-for-profit organisation known as Vic’s Flicks. Its
Director Mr Vic Camilleri is seeking to obtain clarification of the Copyright Act of 1968 and a fairer
and more equitable deal for the disadvantaged.
This submission might entail a new exception, revocation of an exception or variation of an exception.
About Vic’s Flicks.
Vic’s Flicks was instigated as a not-for-profit subsidiary of Cammatech Pty Ltd. Cammatech Pty Ltd
was formed in 1998 to undertake research and development into vocational training a completely
different area to the showing of cinematograph film.
After fifteen years of successful research and development Cammatech Pty Ltd has decided to change
its direction and give something back to the community. It formed Vic’s Flicks as a subsidiary and
supports it financially in the purchase of equipment such as data projector, DVD home theatre unit and
large screen.
Vic’s Flicks simple aim is to show movies to disadvantaged groups free-of-charge. The term
“Disadvantaged” refers to any group that has difficulty in getting to a movie theatre due to their age or
disability, including those that have dementia and those in palliative care.
The Problem
To highlight the problem extracts from the Copyright Act of 1968 are shown below:
86 Nature of copyright in cinematograph films
For the purposes of this Act, unless the contrary intention appears, copyright, in relation to a
cinematograph film, is the exclusive right to do all or any of the following acts:
(a) to make a copy of the film;
(b) to cause the film, in so far as it consists of visual images, to be seen in public, or, in so far as it
consists of sounds, to be heard in public;
(c) to communicate the film to the public.
Unfortunately the Act does not state a definition of “in public” Although there are statements relating
to “public performance” the Act is still not clear. For example:
Submission by Vic’s Flicks
Page 2
46 Performance at premises where persons reside or sleep
Where a literary, dramatic or musical work, or an adaptation of such a work, is performed in
public, by the operation of reception equipment or by the use of a record, at premises where
persons reside or sleep, as part of the amenities provided exclusively for residents or inmates of
the premises or for those residents or inmates and their guests, the performance does not
constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work.
Thus can one assume that if a film is shown at ones place of residence (such as a nursing home) then
this can be considered as not a “public performance” ?
Unfortunately the Information Sheet (G031v15) to the Copyright Act of 1968, distributed by the
Australian Copyright Council, does not make this clear either:
Screening a film in a retirement village, nursing home or boarding house
In managed or communal residences there is not always a clear line between a public and a private
screening. As a practical approach, the less officially organised a screening is, the less likely it is to be
“public” and to require permission. Residents of a retirement village who buy or hire a video or DVD to
watch by themselves or with a few friends, as they would in a private home, will not normally need
permission for the screening.
On the other hand, if the management of a village house or boarding house organises a screening of a film
for residents, this is more likely to be “public”. In such situations, the DVD or video should be hired from an
outlet that can authorise “public” screening.
If videos are reticulated from a central player to several rooms, you will need to check that you get
permission covering this “communication”.
To the best of our knowledge the Act does not state clearly that one must require permission if the
screening is organised.
If our interpretation of the Act is incorrect then our recommendation is that the Act work in favour of
disadvantaged groups such as the elderly in nursing homes in that, exemptions be granted so that
permission or a licence is not required to be obtained.
The Disadvantage
The term “disadvantaged” in this case refers to those that face special problems such as physical or
mental disability. In simple terms those that are denied access to things that are easily obtained by
others.
If people who are capable want to see a movie they do so, easily. They purchase a ticket, and watch
whatever is popular at the time while gulping down a litre of coke and a bucket of pop corn.
The disadvantaged have not that pleasure even though cinemas have provided some areas for wheel
chairs.
Take an elderly person such as 92 year old Harry or 83 year old Mary both at one particular nursing
home. They can still remember movies better than what happened last week. But the movies they
want to see are not showing and although their memories are sharp their bodies are failing and they
need the assistance of others to help them get about, to assist them going to the toilet and to issue them
with vital medicine periodically.
Submission by Vic’s Flicks
Page 3
There are many people who have difficulty walking, who are incontinent and who because of their
dementia have a tendency to get up from their chair and try to leave. What about those that are in
palliative care shouldn’t they have some privileges?
The difficulties in getting the disadvantaged to a movie theatre are enormous.
So why not bring the movies to them under certain conditions. These are listed below.
The Recommendation
1. Clarify the Copyright Act of 1968 so that there is no misunderstanding that performances
at all types of premises where persons reside or sleep are deemed to be not a “public
performance” irrespective of the screening being officially organised.
2. Define the term “in public”
3. Grant exemptions to the showing of movies to disadvantaged groups who wish to
collectively view a cinematograph film without any need for a licence.
4. Define the term “disadvantaged groups” so that there is no misunderstanding and so that it
refers to those who have difficulty in getting to a movie theatre, those with dementia, those
in nursing homes, those with some form of disability or handicap that has a bearing on
their ability to attend a normal cinema.
5. Place strict conditions on the showing of the movies as stated below.
Conclusion
Vic’s Flicks is ready to show movies at various venues under strict conditions.
Such as:

There would be no payment (The movies would be free of charge),

The audience (about 15 per session) would be one that is classified as disadvantaged in
some way eg the elderly or others who are handicapped.

The movies would be those made from the 30’s to the 60’s eg. old classics, mainly
musicals.

The showing would not be for the general public, although carers of the disadvantaged
might need to be present.
Vic’s Flicks is not a large organisation. It would like to show approximately 70 movies per year at
5 to 6 different venues (around 6 movies per month).
The movies would be ones from Vic’s Flicks library purchased from Australia and overseas.
The disadvantaged like the elderly need a travelling movie show, designed especially for the
people who cannot get about, who are in wheel chairs, or who are in palliative care.
The recommendations above would go a long way in making this possible.
Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission.
Signed: Vic Camilleri, Director Vic’s Flicks
Submission by Vic’s Flicks
Page 4