Hill v Lang - [2012] FCA 349

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Hill v Lang [2012] FCA 349

Citation: Hill v Lang [2012] FCA 349

Appeal from: Hill v Lang [2012] FMCA 573

Parties: BRENTON HILL v FRANK LANG

File number: SAD 177 of 2011

Judge: BESANKO J

Date of judgment: 5 April 2012

Catchwords:
COPYRIGHT – appeal from decision of Federal Magistrates Court – ownership of copyright in cinematograph film – where applicant filmed music performance of live band – where respondent claims applicant was paid for services – whether the applicant was the “maker” of the film for purposes of s 22(4) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) – whether film was a “commissioned film” for purposes of s 98(3) of the Act.

Held: the appeal be dismissed.

Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 25, s 27
Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 10, 22, 98, 131
Copyright Amendment (Film Directors’ Rights) Act 2005 (Cth) (No 130 of 1995)

Cases cited: Seven Network (Operations) Ltd v TCN Channel 9 Pty Ltd (2005) 146 FCR 183 cited
Sobey v Nicol and Davies [2007] FCAFC 136; (2008) 245 ALR 389, cited
Wills v Australian Broadcasting Commission (No 3) (2010) 89 IPR 252, cited

Date of hearing: 27 February 2012

Place: Adelaide

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 39

Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent: The Respondent appeared in person

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

SAD 177 of 2011

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:
BRENTON HILL
Appellant

AND:
FRANK LANG
Respondent

JUDGE:

BESANKO J

DATE OF ORDER:

5 APRIL 2012

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

SAD 177 of 2011

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:
BRENTON HILL
Appellant

AND:
FRANK LANG
Respondent

JUDGE:

BESANKO J

DATE:

5 APRIL 2012

PLACE:

ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an appeal from orders made by the Federal Magistrates Court (“FMC”). In hearing and determining the appeal I am sitting as a single Judge exercising the appellate jurisdiction of the Court: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 25 (1AA).
The appellant was the applicant in the proceeding before the FMC. He claimed damages from the respondent for breach of copyright. The trial of the proceeding took place before Federal Magistrate Simpson in December 2010. On 27 July 2011 the FMC made an order dismissing the application and an order that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs to be taxed or agreed. Federal Magistrate Simpson delivered reasons for his decision: Hill v Lang [2011] FMCA 573.
At the trial both parties appeared in person. This created difficulties for the proper conduct of the proceeding and those difficulties were described by Federal Magistrate Simpson in the following passage (at…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Hill v Lang

Details

AGLC: Hill v Lang [2012] FCA 349
Case: [2012] FCA 349
Decision Date: 5 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hill v Lang involved a dispute over the ownership of copyright in a cinematograph film. The film in question was created by the applicant, who had recorded a music performance of a live band. The respondent, who claims to have been paid for their services in connection with the filming, contests the applicant's ownership of the copyright. The matter was appealed from the decision of the Federal Magistrates Court.

The primary legal issues for the court to decide were whether the applicant was the "maker" of the film for the purposes of section 22(4) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) and whether the film was a "commissioned film" under section 98(3) of the Act. The court needed to determine who had the rights to the copyright in the film and whether the respondent's involvement in the filming constituted a commission that would affect the ownership of the copyright.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the applicant was not the "maker" of the film as they did not have the necessary creative control over the filming process. The court reasoned that the applicant's role was more akin to that of a technician, capturing the performance rather than creating the film. Furthermore, the court held that the film did not qualify as a "commissioned film" under section 98(3) of the Act, as the agreement between the parties did not meet the criteria set out in the statute. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Federal Magistrates Court was upheld.

The orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed. This decision clarifies the scope of copyright ownership in relation to commissioned films and the criteria for determining the "maker" of a film. The ruling emphasises the importance of creative control and the nature of the agreement between parties in determining copyright ownership in such cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citation:		Hill v Lang [2012] FCA 349
Appeal from:		Hill v Lang [2012] FMCA 573
Parties:		BRENTON HILL v FRANK LANG
File number:		SAD 177 of 2011
Judge:		BESANKO J
Date of judgment:		5 April 2012
Catchwords:		COPYRIGHT – appeal from decision of Federal Magistrates Court – ownership of copyright in cinematograph film – where applicant filmed music performance of live band – where respondent claims applicant was paid for services – whether the applicant was the “maker” of the film for purposes of s 22(4) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) – whether film was a “commissioned film” for purposes of s 98(3) of the Act. Held: the appeal be dismissed.
Legislation:		Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 25, s 27 Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 10, 22, 98, 131 Copyright Amendment (Film Directors’ Rights) Act 2005 (Cth) (No 130 of 1995)
Cases cited:		Seven Network (Operations) Ltd v TCN Channel 9 Pty Ltd (2005) 146 FCR 183 cited Sobey v Nicol and Davies [2007] FCAFC 136; (2008) 245 ALR 389, cited Wills v Australian Broadcasting Commission (No 3) (2010) 89 IPR 252, cited
Date of hearing:	27 February 2012
Place:	Adelaide
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	39
Counsel for the Appellant:	The Appellant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	The Respondent appeared in person

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	SAD 177 of 2011

BETWEEN:	BRENTON HILL Appellant
AND:	FRANK LANG Respondent

JUDGE:	BESANKO J
DATE OF ORDER:	5 APRIL 2012
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

JUDGE:	BESANKO J
DATE:	5 APRIL 2012
PLACE:	ADELAIDE