Authorisation as accessorial liability: The overlooked role of knowledge

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

2 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The concept of authorisation of an infringement of intellectual property rights has not been uniformly interpreted or applied in Australia and the United Kingdom. This article argues that authorisation is a form of accessorial liability. As such, it creates liability for wrongdoing that requires proof both of acts of involvement in the principal wrongdoer's infringement, and that such involvement is engaged in with a requisite mental element. The law of authorisation has been troubled precisely because the concept does not expressly refer either to the types of involvement that it encompasses, nor the mental state that is required. Without adequate consideration of these two factors, and particularly an express focus on the level of knowledge and the content of such knowledge that is in many contexts critical, the law will continue to be opaque and make the application of "authorisation" difficult to predict.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)146-166
Number of pages21
JournalAustralian Intellectual Property Journal
Volume24
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Fingerprint

authorization
liability
Law
level of knowledge
intellectual property
right of ownership

Cite this

@article{1d5d1d6e32854f42bff998693de88214,
title = "Authorisation as accessorial liability: The overlooked role of knowledge",
abstract = "The concept of authorisation of an infringement of intellectual property rights has not been uniformly interpreted or applied in Australia and the United Kingdom. This article argues that authorisation is a form of accessorial liability. As such, it creates liability for wrongdoing that requires proof both of acts of involvement in the principal wrongdoer's infringement, and that such involvement is engaged in with a requisite mental element. The law of authorisation has been troubled precisely because the concept does not expressly refer either to the types of involvement that it encompasses, nor the mental state that is required. Without adequate consideration of these two factors, and particularly an express focus on the level of knowledge and the content of such knowledge that is in many contexts critical, the law will continue to be opaque and make the application of {"}authorisation{"} difficult to predict.",
author = "Joachim Dietrich",
year = "2014",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
pages = "146--166",
journal = "Australian Intellectual Property Journal",
issn = "1038-1635",
publisher = "Lawbook Co.",
number = "3",

}

Authorisation as accessorial liability: The overlooked role of knowledge. / Dietrich, Joachim.

In: Australian Intellectual Property Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3, 2014, p. 146-166.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Authorisation as accessorial liability: The overlooked role of knowledge

AU - Dietrich, Joachim

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - The concept of authorisation of an infringement of intellectual property rights has not been uniformly interpreted or applied in Australia and the United Kingdom. This article argues that authorisation is a form of accessorial liability. As such, it creates liability for wrongdoing that requires proof both of acts of involvement in the principal wrongdoer's infringement, and that such involvement is engaged in with a requisite mental element. The law of authorisation has been troubled precisely because the concept does not expressly refer either to the types of involvement that it encompasses, nor the mental state that is required. Without adequate consideration of these two factors, and particularly an express focus on the level of knowledge and the content of such knowledge that is in many contexts critical, the law will continue to be opaque and make the application of "authorisation" difficult to predict.

AB - The concept of authorisation of an infringement of intellectual property rights has not been uniformly interpreted or applied in Australia and the United Kingdom. This article argues that authorisation is a form of accessorial liability. As such, it creates liability for wrongdoing that requires proof both of acts of involvement in the principal wrongdoer's infringement, and that such involvement is engaged in with a requisite mental element. The law of authorisation has been troubled precisely because the concept does not expressly refer either to the types of involvement that it encompasses, nor the mental state that is required. Without adequate consideration of these two factors, and particularly an express focus on the level of knowledge and the content of such knowledge that is in many contexts critical, the law will continue to be opaque and make the application of "authorisation" difficult to predict.

M3 - Article

VL - 24

SP - 146

EP - 166

JO - Australian Intellectual Property Journal

JF - Australian Intellectual Property Journal

SN - 1038-1635

IS - 3

ER -