Oracle v Google — When Code Isn’t Just Code - Ep 24

Moral Rights in Australian Copyright: McCallum v Projector Films Case - Ep 26

Copyright and Moral Rights in Australia — Why Credit Still Matters In this episode of Elise Explains IP, Elise unpacks one of the most misunderstood areas of Australian copyright law: moral rights. Most business owners understand the concept of copyright ownership — but far fewer understand that creators can retain important personal rights connected to attribution, reputation, and integrity, even when copyright itself has been assigned. Using the recent Federal Court decisions in: * McCallum v Projector Films Pty Ltd (Liability Hearing) [2026] FCA 173 * McCallum v Projector Films Pty Ltd (Liability Orders) [2026] FCA 653 Elise explains why these cases are becoming so important for filmmakers, agencies, designers, photographers, writers, and creative businesses across Australia. The episode explores: * What moral rights are under Australian copyright law * The difference between copyright ownership and attribution rights * The right of attribution, integrity, and protection against false attribution * Why “blanket” moral rights waivers may not be enforceable * How the Federal Court approached creative credit disputes in McCallum * Why attribution disputes can become major reputational and commercial problems * Practical lessons for creatives, production companies, agencies, and businesses This episode is particularly relevant for: * filmmakers and production companies * marketing and creative agencies * designers and photographers * founders working with freelancers or contractors * businesses commissioning creative work * anyone relying on template IP agreements Key Takeaways * Copyright ownership and moral rights are separate legal concepts * Creators can retain moral rights even if copyright is assigned * Proper attribution matters commercially and professionally * Generic moral rights waiver clauses may not provide complete protection * Creative roles and credits should be clearly documented from the beginning of a project * Businesses should review template agreements and attribution processes Cases Discussed * McCallum v Projector Films Pty Ltd (Liability Hearing) [2026] FCA 173 * McCallum v Projector Films Pty Ltd (Liability Orders) [2026] FCA 653 Need Advice About Copyright or Creative Contracts? If you need assistance with: * copyright ownership * licensing arrangements * creative or production agreements * moral rights issues * IP protection strategies * contractor and agency agreements you can book a strategy call via: www.elisesteegstra.com Connect with Elise Website: www.elisesteegstra.com If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe, leave a review, and share the podcast with a business owner, creative, or agency team who would benefit from understanding how moral rights actually work in Australia.

Copyright for Creatives in Australia - Ep 25

Who Actually Owns Your Work? Copyright Basics Every Creative Needs to Know Most creatives know that copyright exists — but far fewer understand how ownership, licensing, and commercial use actually work in practice. In this episode of Elise Explains IP, Elise breaks down the fundamentals of copyright law in Australia for creatives, business owners, and agencies. The episode explores who really owns creative work, why contracts matter more than most people realise, and how copyright protection can change once designs move into commercial manufacturing. Whether you’re a designer, photographer, content creator, artist, videographer, or creative agency, this episode explains the practical realities behind one of the most important forms of intellectual property. In This Episode Elise discusses: * What copyright protects in Australia * Why copyright arises automatically * The difference between ownership and permission to use work * The legal distinction between employees and contractors * Why “I paid for it” does not automatically mean ownership * The difference between assigning and licensing copyright * Common copyright mistakes creatives make with client work * How unclear agreements create long-term business risk * The overlap between copyright law and designs law * What “industrial application” means for product-based creatives * Why commercially manufactured designs may lose copyright protection * The importance of thinking strategically about IP before scaling creative work Key Takeaway Copyright is not just a legal technicality — it is a commercial asset. Understanding who owns creative work, what rights are being transferred, and when additional protection may be required can make a significant difference to the long-term value of a creative business. Need Advice About Creative IP or Ownership Structures? If you need guidance around: * copyright ownership, * licensing arrangements, * creative contracts, * design protection, * or protecting commercially valuable creative assets, you can book a strategy call via: 🌐 www.elisesteegstra.com Disclaimer This podcast provides general educational information only and does not constitute legal advice. You should obtain advice tailored to your specific circumstances before acting on any information discussed in this episode.

Oracle v Google — When Code Isn’t Just Code - Ep 24

What happens when a company copies the structure of a software system — but writes its own code? In this episode of Elise Explains IP, Elise unpacks one of the most important intellectual property cases in modern technology: Oracle v Google. The dispute centred on Google’s use of Java APIs when developing Android, and raised a major legal question: Can the structure of software systems be protected by copyright? But this episode goes beyond the legal headlines. Elise explains why this case matters for: * SaaS founders * Tech businesses * Platform operators * Advisors working with digital businesses * And any business building software products or scalable systems You’ll also learn why relying on “fair use” can be dangerous — particularly for Australian businesses operating under much narrower fair dealing rules. In This Episode ✔️ What APIs actually are (in plain English) A practical explanation of APIs and why they became central to the dispute. ✔️ What Google copied — and why it mattered The difference between: * copying code * copying structure * and replicating how a system works ✔️ Why the case lasted over 10 years A look at the commercial stakes and legal uncertainty surrounding the dispute. ✔️ The Supreme Court’s fair use decision Why Google ultimately succeeded in the US — and why that outcome doesn’t easily translate to Australia. ✔️ Fair Use vs Fair Dealing A critical distinction for Australian businesses: * US law uses broad “fair use” * Australia relies on narrow “fair dealing” exceptions ✔️ The real-world risks for businesses Including: * investor due diligence issues * forced rebuilds * licensing disputes * platform redesigns * commercial disruption Key Takeaways * Intellectual property risk in software is not limited to copied code * Structure, organisation, and system design can also become contentious * “We rewrote it ourselves” is not always a complete defence * Fair use is a US doctrine — and Australian businesses should not assume the same flexibility exists here * Licensing and early IP strategy are significantly cheaper than litigation later Practical Questions for Founders & Advisors If you’re building software or digital systems, ask yourself: * Are we modelling our product on an existing platform? * What third-party frameworks or APIs are we relying on? * Do we clearly understand the licensing terms? * Have we documented what IP actually exists in our system? * Would an investor or acquirer be comfortable with our IP position? Mentioned in This Episode * Oracle America, Inc. v Google LLC * Java APIs * Android operating system * Fair use (US) * Fair dealing (Australia) About Elise Explains IP Elise Explains IP is a practical podcast for business owners, founders, creatives, and advisors who want to better understand intellectual property and business protection. The focus is simple: 👉 helping businesses identify risk early and protect what they’re building before problems arise. Need Advice? If you’re building software, digital products, systems, or scalable platforms — and you’re unsure where your intellectual property risks sit — you can book a strategy call using the link below. www.elisesteegstra.com [https://www.elisesteegstra.com] Protecting your IP early is usually far easier than untangling it later.

Why Expanding Overseas Breaks So Many Trade Marks - Ep 23

Expanding your business internationally sounds like growth. But from a trade mark perspective, it’s often where things start to unravel. In this episode, recorded from London during the INTA Conference, Elise unpacks a common — and costly — issue: why so many businesses run into trade mark problems when they enter new markets. The key takeaway? Your brand might feel global… but legally, it isn’t. What This Episode Covers * Why trade mark rights are territorial (and what that actually means in practice) * The most common assumptions business owners make about owning a brand * How international expansion exposes hidden IP risks * Real-world scenarios where businesses lose control of their brand overseas * Why filing a trade mark is not the same as having a strategy Key Risks When Expanding Overseas 1. Someone Already Owns Your Brand You may discover that your brand is already registered in another country — even if you’ve been using it for years in your home market. In many jurisdictions, priority is based on filing date, not use. 2. You Receive a Cease & Desist Launching into a new market without clearance can trigger enforcement action from existing rights holders. This can lead to: * Forced rebranding * Legal costs * Delays to expansion 3. Your Brand Can’t Be Registered A name that works in one country may be: * Descriptive in another language * Too similar to an existing mark * Restricted under local laws This leaves you exposed without enforceable rights. 4. You Filed — But Not Strategically Common issues include: * Filing too late * Filing in the wrong entity * Incorrect or narrow specifications * Over-reliance on the Madrid Protocol without local strategy Why This Matters Trade mark issues don’t stay “legal problems.” They quickly become commercial problems, affecting: * Brand consistency * Marketing and customer trust * Distribution and partnerships * Business valuation and investment readiness Practical Takeaways If you’re planning to expand internationally: ✔️ Think Ahead Consider future markets early — even if expansion is 12–24 months away. ✔️ Clear Before You Enter Undertake trade mark searches in your target country before launching. ✔️ Prioritise Key Markets Focus protection on where you: * Sell * Manufacture * Plan to grow ✔️ Get Ownership Right Ensure the correct entity owns the IP — particularly across group structures. ✔️ Treat Trade Marks as a Business Asset This is not just a legal step — it’s part of your growth strategy. INTA Insight Attending the INTA Conference in London highlights a consistent global theme: Most trade mark disputes don’t arise because businesses act recklessly — they arise because businesses grow… without aligning their IP strategy to that growth. Key Concept: Territorial Rights Trade mark protection is granted country by country. There is no single “worldwide” trade mark. International systems like the Madrid Protocol can streamline filings — but they do not eliminate the need for jurisdiction-specific strategy. Next Steps If international expansion is on your horizon, now is the time to ask: Will your brand actually work in the markets you want to enter? Fixing issues early is strategic. Fixing them later is expensive. Work With Elise If you’d like tailored advice on protecting your brand as you scale, you can book a strategy call: 🌐 www.elisesteegstra.com Subscribe & Share If you found this episode helpful, share it with a business owner or advisor who is thinking about expanding internationally. Because the earlier this is understood, the easier it is to get right.

Who Really Owns Your Trade Mark? Lessons from Black Star Pastry v Richards - Ep 22

Who Really Owns Your Trade Mark? Lessons from Black Star Pastry v Richards Episode Summary You can build a strong brand, file a trade mark… and still not legally own it. In this episode of Elise Explains IP, Elise unpacks the recent Federal Court decision in Black Star Pastry Pty Ltd v Richards (No 2) [2026] FCA 383 — and why it highlights one of the most critical (and commonly misunderstood) issues in trade mark law: Ownership at the time of filing With a particular focus on the “Blackstar Coffee” trade mark, this episode explores what happens when a mark is filed in the name of one individual, despite being used in a broader business involving multiple parties. The takeaway is simple — but often overlooked: It’s not enough to file a trade mark. It needs to be filed in the right name. What You’ll Learn * Why trade mark ownership is determined at the time of filing * What “true owner” actually means in practice * Why filing in the wrong name can invalidate your trade mark * The risks of founders registering trade marks personally * How shared ventures and partnerships create ownership complications * Why the “Blackstar Coffee” issue is a common real-world mistake * How misaligned ownership can affect sale, licensing, and investment Key Case Insight: Black Star Coffee This case highlights a familiar scenario: * A trade mark is filed by one of two business participants * The brand is actually used in a shared business context * No clear agreement exists around ownership The result? 👉 A disconnect between legal ownership (on the register) and commercial reality (how the brand operates) This creates uncertainty, risk, and potential disputes — particularly if relationships change. Why This Matters for Business Owners Getting trade mark ownership wrong can lead to: * Invalid or vulnerable registrations * Inability to enforce your rights * Disputes between founders or partners * Problems during due diligence or business sale * Misalignment between your IP and your business structure In practical terms: Your business may not actually own its most valuable asset — its brand Practical Takeaways If you’re filing (or have filed) a trade mark, consider: 1. Who should own the trade mark? * Is it a personal brand or a business asset? * Will the business grow, take on investors, or be sold? In most cases, the company should own the trade mark. 2. Does ownership match how the brand is used? The entity that controls and commercialises the brand should typically be the registered owner. 3. Are multiple people involved? If yes: * Don’t default to one name on the application * Document ownership clearly before filing 4. Have you taken shortcuts? Quick or DIY filings often lead to ownership issues later. 5. Is your IP aligned with your broader structure? Trade marks should sit within your: * Business structure * Asset protection strategy * Long-term exit planning Key Message If the wrong entity files the trade mark, you may never have had a valid registration to begin with. Need Help? If you’re unsure whether your trade marks are owned by the right entity — or you’re setting things up properly from the start — it’s worth getting clarity early. 👉 Book a strategy call: www.elisesteegstra.com [https://www.elisesteegstra.com] Case Reference Black Star Pastry Pty Ltd v Richards (No 2) [2026] FCA 383 Share This Episode If you know a founder, creative, or advisor who’s building a brand — this is an important one to share. Because most trade mark issues don’t come from failing to file… They come from filing in the wrong name.