domainwatch.org

http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=01/11/23/191726

ING’s lawyer has claimed that:

• ING is the owner of the copyright subsisting in certain documents
  allegedly published by me on the Internet, which concerns ING; and
• I have infringed ING’s copyright in the documents by reproducing
  those documents, and communicating them to the public.

In response to this claim I have engaged the services of Maddock Lonie & Chisholm to represent me.

In the first instance, we do not believe that copyright subsists in those documents. In our view, the documents cannot properly be classified as literary or other works as required by the Copyright Act 1968.

Even if copyright is taken to subsist in those documents, and even if I am taken to have infringed the copyright ING (which I deny), we suggest that an Australian court will most likely deny copyright protection to ING on public policy grounds.