Copyright law in Australia- Copyright is a right of intellectual property allotted to the skills and labors of a person in the expression and creation of ideas that are original. Copyright laws protect the original works such as dramatic, literary, artistic and musical works (Joyce et al. 2016).
Software- Copyright law is intended to give the author of a work a protection for her/his creativity without any required formalities, so long as the criteria for the subsistence of copyright are met.
If computer programs were literary works within the Berne Conventions, Australia has obligations for the protection of them as such and ensuring that protection was in accordance with the requirement of the Conventions (Atladottír et al. 2013).
Data lists- Copyright normally extend to cover original compilation of data. However, the Courts have been careful to make clear that such protections do not cover the data itself but the particular collections of it.
Advertising themes- even the advertisements have several components that involve artistic, literary, musical and dramatic skills, which are to be protected under the classes of work, which has been mentioned in Section 13 of the Copyright Act 1957.
Piece of music- In relation to the literary and musical work, the copyright provision continues for a period of 70 years after author’s death (Bently, Lionel, and Brad Sherman 2014).
According to the case study, the issue is whether Dennis has any rights on the infringement of the copyrights for the reproduce of the substantial parts or not?
The section 36 of the Copy Right Act defines the Infringement rights on the actual work with exclusive rights. The person has the rights to get an injunction on the rights. One of the famous case on infringement is TCN Channel Nine v Network Ten  where defendant for using the applicant’s infringement rights.
Under the Copyright act in Australia the infringement defines the when the actual work of the author has an exclusive rights on the invention of the work. The defendant has alleged for the infringements on the substantial parts.
The plaintiff can get the rights of injunction and the defendant will face penalties.
Tim, the owner of the restaurant, at the time of listening to the Western Australian radio station, heard a particular classical composition, performed and written by the Australian group Class Act, and had been recorded by some other person. Tim liked the music. As a result, he recorded it with a tape recorder with an intention of replaying it as the background music in his own restaurant, at the time when the customers would have dinner. Would Tim be liable or not?
Copyright is a right of intellectual property that allotted to the labors and skills of a person in the expression and creation of ideas that are original. Copyright laws protect the original works such as dramatic, literary, artistic and musical works. A case reference of infringement of copyright is, Dallas Buyers Club LLC v ii Net Limited (No 5) .
In relation to literary and musical works, the copyright continues for a period of 70 years after the author’s death. The basic principle is that one cannot distribute or copy any music without the consent of every relevant owners of copyright, other than the exceptional cases (Butler, Desmond and Sharon 2015).
Tim would be liable for penalty. Legislations like, The Copyright Act, The Trade Marks Act and others provide strict penalty for the dealings in music, which infringes the right of artist, composer, record company, music publisher and others.
Penalty can range from damages, injunction and costs through to fines of up to $60,500 for individuals and up to $302,500 for corporations per infringement with or without up to 5 years imprisonment. The police can also issue an on-the-spot fine of $1320 and seize copyright infringing music and devices, including computers and servers used in the commission of the crime.
Moreover, copyright infringed recordings of sound as well as devices used for their formation like, CD burners or computers can be subjected to an order for their destruction.
The Issue is whether Micki has ay rights to stop FJ and Ritzy for using his work without his permission or not?
Under the Copy Right Act, an artist’s work has protected under the Section 35 of the Copyright Act 1968. Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd (No 3)  is one of the copyright cases where an artist work has infringed according to the section 36 of the copyrights rights act.
According to the case facts, the as of the organization has not mentioned to Micki for using his paintings and his exclusive rights has been infringed.
According to the section 115 of the act, the damages can be pain to the plaintiff.
Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd (No 3)  FCAFC 126 (26 September 2014)
Atladottír, Kristín, Martin Kretschmer, and Ruth Towse. "24. Artists, authors’ rights and copyright." Handbook on the Digital Creative Economy (2013): 274.
Bently, Lionel, and Brad Sherman. Intellectual property law. Oxford University Press, USA, 2014.
Butler, Desmond A., and Sharon Rodrick. Australian media law. Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited, 2015.
Dallas Buyers Club LLC v ii Net Limited (No 5)  FCA 1437
Joyce, Craig, Tyler T. Ochoa, Michael W. Carroll, Marshall A. Leaffer, and Peter Jaszi. Copyright law. Carolina Academic Press, 2016.
TCN Channel Nine v Network Ten  FCA 841