The Bannershop International Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2010 contains both intellectual property provisions and confidential information provisions. With regard to intellectual property, the agreement states that of the thirteen journalism agreements examined, six (46.2%) had a direct link to intellectual property rights and five (38.4%) contained other minor indirect references. The remaining two agreements (15.3%) did not refer to staff training. Start by going to our document search and trying to search for a full text for agreements. Of these six directly related agreements, three contained only references to the rights not to attribute authorship to a journalist. For example, the 2010 Agreement on Journalists (ACP magazines) gives authors the right not to have their name assigned to an article for which they have been commissioned by their employer.  Information and instruments are available on the Commission`s website to support the connection to an agreement. Visit an agreement for more details. The agreement clauses we found took many forms, both of the “facilitating” or “restrictive” type and those of the “troubled center” between the two.
Our review of the FWA`s decisions in Part Four shows that many registered agreements in the “restrictive” category may contain clauses that are not admissible and therefore not applicable. Furthermore, in the light of the above analysis, these clauses should perhaps not have been authorised on the basis of the BOOT or should have been authorised only with the undertakings concerned. It is possible that, although they are aware of the existence of such clauses in the agreements, not all members of the Tribunal have been concerned about this issue, in particular because of the potential lack of application of these clauses. However, of the 35 reconsidered decisions that explicitly raised these issues, no decision resulted in the approval of “restrictive” covenants without obligations. This fact, coupled with the existence of several registered and approved agreements (which we know are linked to such clauses and without related obligations indicates that, in many cases, the subject may have simply flown “under the radar”. How many such agreements exist? For the above reasons, it is impossible to distinguish, for a simple reading, many “intermediate disorder” agreements that relate to a large number of other legal obligations, some of which do not yet exist. . . .