A writer to the Letters to the Editor column observed after rain fell of the day of the weddings of media heirs Lachlan Murdoch and James Packer that there were some things money just could not buy.
And last week the Federal Court ruled that there was another thing that money just could not buy — the spectacle of the New Year’s Eve fireworks on the Syndey Harbour Bridge. Kerry Packer’s Nine network took actionin the Federal Court to prevent the ABC from broadcasting the event. The Nine Network argued that it had paid $450,000 in sponsorship to the City of Sydney and so should get exclusivity. It argued it had copyright in the artwork of the “”Smiley face” and the word “”Eternity” that would be depicted by the fireworks on the bridge. Failing an injunction the Nien Network demanded that the ABC give it frequent acknowledgement thtoughout the telecast.
The Nine Network will return to court for a damages action, but the court refused to prevent the ABC’s telecast.
In making the ruling Justice Donald Hill made some significant points. He said that Australians looked to the ABC as the public broadcaster for advertisement-free information on significant events. It was in the public interest for the ABC to broadcast.
Justice Hill’s ruling had to balance some competing interests. It was fairly apparent that the private interest of the Nine Network to make a profit through advertising revenue should yield to a wider public interest to broadcast public events in public places. But copyright law protects intellectual property to encourage creativity and innovation. No-one would create if they could not get a reasonable return. Without the Nine Network’s money the fireworks spectacle would not have $450,000 and be that much poorer. Certainly this week’s decision will make it very unlikely that a television network will provide large sums of money for fireowrks next year. But that is the way it should be. A public event such as fireworks on Sydney Harbour or Lake Burley Griffin should be publicly funded.
Quite simply there is no property in a spectacle. It is good that the court has confirmed that principle. It is open to owners of private property on the harbour edge to charge people entry to their property. It is open to people putting on a sporting fixture to charge people entrance to the sportsgound. But no-one can own the open airspace. If someone puts up a viewing platform that overlooks the sportsfield, it is too bad for the owners of the sportfield. They cannot stop people viewing or making a telecast through the open air.
The court’s recognition of the public element of the event was welcome. There has been too much corporate and private ownership of great sporting and other events. The almighty advertising dollar has bought too much.
With the Olympics fiasco, the highly unpopular purchase by Pura Milk of the naming rights for the Sheffield Shield and numerous other corporate raids on public sporting and cultural events it is long overdue that someone has a drawn a line in the air.
AND BRIEFLY … Treasuer Peter Costello has a naive view of competition among the banks. He suggests that if the ANZ puts up interest rates, people should move to another bank. The big end of town might get immunity from bank fees, but when the average customer moves money the banks and the government are always ready with hand out for a fee or tax. Besides, as soon as the accounts are moved, the other banks, as usual, will follow suit with high rates.