Li v Leng [2014] FCA 450

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Li v Leng [2014] FCA 450 Citation: Li v Leng [2014] FCA 450

Appeal from: Application for extension of time: Li v Leng [2013] FCCA 1252

Parties: DONGGUANG LI v JINSONG LENG

File number(s): WAD 50 of 2014

Judge(s): SIOPIS J

Date of judgment: 30 April 2014

Date of hearing: 30 April 2014

Place: Perth

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: No Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 39

Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person.

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr G Provan

Solicitor for the Respondent: Watermark Intellectual Property Lawyers

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION WAD 50 of 2014

BETWEEN: DONGGUANG LI

Applicant

AND: JINSONG LENG

Respondent

JUDGE: SIOPIS J DATE OF ORDER: 30 APRIL 2014 WHERE MADE: PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application on a party-and-party basis. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION WAD 50 of 2014

BETWEEN: DONGGUANG LI

Applicant

AND: JINSONG LENG

Respondent

JUDGE: SIOPIS J DATE: 30 APRIL 2014 PLACE: PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for leave to extend time to appeal from a judgment of the primary judge, Whelan J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, who on 19 September 2013 dismissed the application made by Mr Li, the applicant. 2 The applicant's claim related to an academic article entitled "A Role-Based Cognitive Architecture for Multi-Agent Teaming" that was published as a chapter of a book entitled Agent and Multi-agent Technology for Internet and Enterprise Systems. The respondent, the applicant and three other academics were named in the book as co-authors of the chapter. At the relevant time each of the applicant and the respondent was a member of the academic of Edith Cowan University (ECU) – the respondent having joined the staff of ECU after the applicant. 3 The applicant claimed that in publishing the chapter of the book referring to the applicant as a co-author, the respondent had breached ss 193, 195AC and 195AI of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). These sections relate to an author's right of attribution of authorship, an author's right not to have authorship falsely attributed, and an author's right of integrity of authorship, respectively. Together, these rights are defined under s 189 of the Copyright Act as the "moral right" of the author. 4 In addition, the applicant also claimed that the respondent had infringed the applicant's right not to use and to disclose personal information, namely, his name and email address, without his consent under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). 5 As mentioned, the primary judge dismissed the applicant's application. At [37] of the reasons for judgment, the primary judge observed: As I am satisfied that the applicant is not an author of the work in question, any claims based on the moral rights with respect to authorship must be dismissed. 6 In relation to the application under the Privacy Act, the primary judge said at [40]: I accept that section 7B of the Privacy Act exempts an act done by an individual if the act is done other than in the course of a business carried out by the individual. 7 The primary judge went on to say that the respondent was an employee of ECU, as was the applicant, and that the respondent was not conducting a business when he named the applicant as a co-author of the chapter in the book published by Springer-Verlag.