Whitsunday Aerial Solutions Professionals Pty Ltd v Emprja Pty Ltd

Whitsunday Aerial Solutions Professionals Pty Ltd (WASP) brought proceedings against Emprja Pty Ltd (APM) concerning the copyright and licensing of aerial footage captured during the 2016 Clipper Race stopover at Airlie Beach. WASP, a drone operator, alleged that APM had infringed its copyright by using footage it had provided for purposes beyond the scope of any agreed licence. APM, in turn, contended that its use of the footage was authorised under an agreement with Project 64, which had engaged WASP to capture the footage. The matter came before Baird J.

The court was required to determine several key issues. These included whether WASP or Project 64 owned the copyright in the 2016 Clipper footage. Further, the court had to ascertain the terms of the oral agreement between WASP and Project 64, specifically whether copyright was to be owned by WASP and if Project 64 was granted a limited licence to use the footage for promoting its HeliTaxi business and for APM to produce a promotional video of the event. If copyright was not found to be owned by WASP as a matter of law, the court needed to consider whether Project 64 had granted an unrestricted licence to APM. Finally, the court had to determine the scope of the licence granted by Project 64 to APM, specifically whether it was limited to producing a video promoting the 2016 Clipper Race or permitted broader promotional use without restriction.

Baird J considered the evidence presented by the parties, including witness statements and oral testimony, noting discrepancies in accounts regarding the agreements and conversations. The court examined the nature of the sponsorship agreement between Mr Burfitt (representing Project 64) and APM, and the subsequent engagement of WASP to capture specific footage. The judge analysed the conflicting evidence regarding the terms of the agreement for the footage, particularly concerning any alleged restrictions on its use. The court rejected WASP's characterisation of APM's position as asserting an unrestricted perpetual licence, finding it to be a mischaracterisation of the evidence and a confusion of non-exclusive rights with exclusivity.

The court's final orders and the specific findings on ownership and the scope of the licence were not detailed in the provided text. However, the issues framed indicate that the court was tasked with resolving the dispute over copyright ownership and the extent of APM's licence to use the footage, which would ultimately determine whether any infringement had occurred.