Hill v Lang [2012] FCA 349

Hill v Lang [2012] FCA 349

Based on findings that the respondent initiated and arranged the project, paid the appellant and other camera operators for their work, and undertook financial responsibility, the respondent was found to be the 'maker' under s 22(4) and also owner under s 98(3) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). The appellant was a paid camera operator and not entitled to copyright ownership.

Parties
Appellant: Brenton Hill; Respondent: Frank Lang
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From the Federal Magistrates Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Copyright, Ownership of Copyright, Cinematograph Films, Commissioned Works
Intellectual Property Copyright Ownership of Copyright Cinematograph Films Commissioned Works

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brenton Hill

Appellant

Frank Lang

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From the Federal Magistrates Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who is the owner of copyright in the cinematograph film of the band's performance?
  2. 2 Was the film a 'commissioned film' under s 98(3) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)?
  3. 3 Was the appellant the 'maker' of the film under s 22(4) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)?

Ratio Decidendi

Based on findings that the respondent initiated and arranged the project, paid the appellant and other camera operators for their work, and undertook financial responsibility, the respondent was found to be the 'maker' under s 22(4) and also owner under s 98(3) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). The appellant was a paid camera operator and not entitled to copyright ownership.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.