Copyright and Moral Rights in Australia: Why Giving Credit Matters

When we talk about copyright, the conversation usually starts with ownership.

Who owns the photograph? Who owns the film? Can the business reproduce the design? Can the client change the work? Can someone else use it?

But ownership is only part of the story.

Australian copyright law also recognises moral rights — personal rights that protect the relationship between a creator and their work. They can affect how a creator is credited, whether someone else can be presented as the creator, and how the work can be treated.

A significant Federal Court decision in 2026 has put those rights firmly back in the spotlight.

In McCallum v Projector Films Pty Ltd (Liability Hearing) [2026] FCA 173, the Court considered a dispute about who should receive the principal directing credit for the documentary Never Get Busted!. The case is particularly significant because the Court found that a general contractual waiver of moral rights was not supported by the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). 

The subsequent decision in McCallum v Projector Films Pty Ltd (Liability Orders) [2026] FCA 653 shows that this was not merely a technical infringement. The Court made detailed orders about how the directing credits were to appear going forward. 

For creatives — and the businesses that engage them — there are some important lessons.

What are moral rights?

Moral rights are different from the economic rights we normally associate with copyright.

Broadly, Australian copyright law gives authors three moral rights:

The right of attribution — the right to be identified as the creator of their work.

The right against false attribution — protection against someone else being falsely identified as the creator.

The right of integrity — protection against certain derogatory treatment of the work that prejudices the creator's honour or reputation.

The important point is that moral rights belong to the individual creator.

They are therefore distinct from the question of who owns copyright.

That distinction can be surprising in a commercial setting.

A photographer might assign copyright in photographs to a client. An employee may create copyright material in circumstances where their employer owns the copyright. A filmmaker may work on a production where commercial rights are held by a production company.

That does not mean moral rights simply disappear.

What happened in McCallum v Projector Films?

The dispute concerned the documentary Never Get Busted!, which had screened at Sundance and the Melbourne International Film Festival.

Stephen McCallum had been engaged to direct the documentary. A dispute subsequently arose concerning the directing credits given to McCallum and David Ngo.

That required the Federal Court to grapple with an interesting question: who was the “principal director” for the purposes of the moral rights provisions of the Copyright Act?

After examining the parties' contributions to the film in considerable detail, Justice Shariff concluded that McCallum was its sole principal director. The Court found infringements of his moral right of attribution and right against false attribution. It also found contractual breaches and misleading or deceptive conduct associated with the way the film's directorship was represented. 

That alone makes the decision interesting for filmmakers.

But another aspect of the judgment potentially has implications across the creative industries.

You cannot necessarily “waive all moral rights”

If you work with creative contracts regularly, you may have seen clauses along the lines of:

“The creator irrevocably waives all moral rights in the work.”

They have become fairly standard contractual boilerplate.

The problem is that Australian copyright legislation provides a statutory mechanism for a creator to consent to particular acts or omissions that would otherwise infringe their moral rights. It does not simply provide for creators to surrender those rights altogether.

In McCallum, the Court held that the text, context and purpose of Part IX of the Copyright Act did not support a general contractual waiver of moral rights. The agreement was therefore unenforceable to the extent that it purported to operate as such a waiver. 

That distinction between waiver and consent matters.

Rather than relying on a clause saying, in effect, “you waive everything”, agreements should carefully consider the particular conduct to which the creator is being asked to consent.

That consent needs to operate within the statutory framework.

For businesses using old templates containing broad moral rights waivers, McCallum is a good reason to have another look at them.

Credit isn't merely a courtesy

The next stage of the case makes the point particularly well.

Following the liability judgment, the Federal Court considered what should actually happen to the credits.

In McCallum v Projector Films Pty Ltd (Liability Orders) [2026] FCA 653, the Court ordered that McCallum receive the “Directed by” credit in the position carrying the greatest prominence, while Ngo could receive a separate “Director” credit in a less prominent position. 

That is significant because it demonstrates something creatives instinctively understand:

Where your name appears can matter almost as much as whether it appears at all.

Credits build careers.

A photographer's attribution can lead to another commission. A designer's portfolio can lead to another client. A filmmaker's credits establish their professional track record.

The law's concern with attribution is therefore not simply about politeness or ego. Attribution can have genuine professional and commercial consequences.

This isn't just a film industry issue

The facts of McCallum involved a documentary, but moral rights arise across a much broader range of copyright works.

Consider a business that engages a graphic designer to develop illustrations for a campaign.

Or an architect whose plans are subsequently modified.

Or a photographer whose photographs are cropped, edited and reused across different media.

Or an agency commissioning copy, video, graphics and photography from multiple freelancers for a client's campaign.

In each case there are potentially two separate questions:

Who owns the copyright?

and

What moral rights does the creator retain, and what have they validly consented to?

A well-drafted agreement should deal with both.

What should creatives do?

If you create copyright material professionally, don't focus solely on who will own the copyright.

Think about how your work will actually be used.

Will you be credited?

How will you be credited?

Can your work be edited, cropped or adapted?

Can it be incorporated into something else?

Can your name be removed?

Can another person's name appear alongside yours?

And, importantly, if you are being asked to consent to conduct that could otherwise affect your moral rights, what exactly are you consenting to?

The more important attribution is to your professional reputation, the more important it is to document those expectations at the beginning rather than arguing about them after the project succeeds.

What should businesses commissioning creative work do?

The lesson for businesses isn't that moral rights make creative work impossibly complicated.

It is that your contracts need to reflect how the work will actually be used.

When commissioning creative work, think through:

• who will own the copyright;
• what licence rights are required;
• whether the work will be altered or adapted;
• whether attribution is practical and, if so, how it will be given;
• what acts or omissions the creator needs to consent to; and
• whether existing template agreements still rely on a blanket moral rights waiver.

That last point is particularly worth reviewing following McCallum.

A contract that confidently says the creator “waives all moral rights” may provide considerably less protection than the business assumes.

The bigger lesson: ownership isn't everything

Intellectual property agreements often concentrate heavily on ownership.

Understandably so. Businesses need to know that they can use and commercialise the assets they have paid to create.

But McCallum is a useful reminder that copyright has another dimension.

A creator may have sold or assigned the commercial rights in their work while retaining a legally recognised connection with their authorship.

For creatives, that means understanding that attribution is more than a professional courtesy.

For businesses, it means making sure contracts deal properly with both copyright ownership and moral rights.

Because sometimes the most important IP question isn't simply “Who owns this?”

It is also:

“Whose work is this — and are we giving them the credit the law requires?”

Want to understand the IP risks in your business?

You can complete the free IP Risk and Ownership Audit at www.elisesteegstra.com/ip-audit to identify potential gaps in your intellectual property ownership and protection.

Disclaimer: This article is intended for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should obtain advice tailored to your circumstances before acting on any information discussed in this article.