Hardingham v RP Data Pty Limited

The case of Hardingham v RP Data Pty Limited involved the applicants, Hardingham, contesting whether RP Data Pty Limited infringed copyright in relation to photographs and floor plans. The applicants argued that RP Data, through its subsidiary REA, had uploaded their copyrighted works to the realestate.com.au platform without their permission. This case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation and scope of the licence that the applicants had granted to the real estate agencies and whether this licence extended to RP Data's use of the copyrighted works on the realestate.com.au platform.

The court examined whether the applicants had established that RP Data infringed copyright in the works. The applicants argued that the licence granted to the agencies was limited to marketing purposes and did not extend to allowing the agencies to sub-licence the works to RP Data for uploading to the realestate.com.au platform. In contrast, RP Data and REA argued that the licence was broader and included the right to sub-licence the works. The court found that it was not established that the agencies needed more than a licence to use the works, and therefore, an assignment of copyright was not necessary. Furthermore, the court concluded that the applicants had not proven that RP Data's use of the works on the realestate.com.au platform constituted an infringement of copyright.

The court's reasoning was based on the lack of evidence to support the applicants' claims that the agencies needed the right to exclude the applicants from using the work or the ability to enforce the copyright against third parties. Additionally, the court noted that the applicants did not dispute that they had granted a licence to the agencies, and the dispute was over the scope of that licence. The court concluded that the applicants had not discharged the burden of proving that RP Data had infringed copyright in relation to the works.

The court ordered that by 4.00pm on 13 December 2019, the parties file agreed minutes of order reflecting these reasons for judgment or, in the absence of agreement, competing minutes of order. In the event of failure to agree, the matter would be listed at 9.00am on 17 December 2019 for argument including as to costs.