To conclude GI professionals must
take note and must begin to worry.
The tussle between the rights of GI
professionals to practise their craft
as against regulations prohibiting the
opportunity to tender for lucrative
mapping contracts may have come
to pass. GI professionals have come
to realise the importance of asserting
property ownership of the products of
their labour – maps and plans – as well
as being ever vigilant to ensure greater
accuracy to avoid litigation in the courts.
The trend seems to be that the amount
and degree of litigation involving
maps, GI professionals and other
cognate disciplines is on the rise. This
trend is reflective of GI as a maturing
system, as science and study in its
own rights; and more importantly,
as a profession in its own right.
MAPPS (2007a) ‘Special Notice to the
Membership on QBS: QBS Litigation
Update: The Parties and Issues in the
Lawsuit’ January 30, 2007 at http://
www.mapps.org/QBSlawsuit.asp.
MAPPS (2007b) ‘Special Notice to the
Membership on QBS: QBS Litigation
Update: Judge’s Decison’ June 15, 2007
at http://www.mapps.org/QBSlawsuit .asp.
Wong, M (2008) ‘When must the
Crown pay to use copyright material
for the services of the State?’ in
Deacons Legal Update February 2008
at http://www.deacons.com.au.
Yates, D & Kingston, V (2007) Copyright
Agency Limited v State of New South
Wales [2007] FCAC 80 in Allens Arthur
Robinson Intellectual Property Bulletin
– September 2007 at http://www.aar.
com.au/pubs/ip/ipbullsep07.htm#07.
.gif)
