McCallum v Projector Films Pty Ltd (Liability Hearing) [2026] FCA 173

This Federal Court case is about a documentary film that had already achieved major festival exposure before a credit dispute overtook the project. The film, “Never Get Busted!”, examined the life of Barry Cooper, a former Texan narcotics officer. It had taken more than five years to complete, had screened at Sundance in the United States, had its Australian premiere at the Melbourne International Film Festival, and had also screened elsewhere. The court noted that potential streaming offers were waiting. Commercially, the project was at the point where accurate credits, clean approvals and coordinated public messaging mattered a great deal.

Instead, the production became tied up in a dispute over who should be recognised as the documentary’s principal director. Stephen McCallum said he was the principal director and that his contractual entitlement to the credit “Directed by Stephen McCallum” had not been honoured. Projector Films Pty Ltd was the production company and the contractual counterparty. David Ngo, the second respondent, had a distinctive role in the project because it was common ground that he and Erin Williams-Weir created the idea for the documentary, and that he was also a producer and the principal writer.

The respondents’ position shifted. They initially argued that Mr Ngo alone was the principal director, relying in part on a claim that from January 2022 Mr McCallum would not perform editing and post-production work and that Mr Ngo then carried out that work. By the liability hearing, they no longer maintained that Mr Ngo alone was the principal director. Instead, they argued that both men were principal directors. Even then, the court recorded that the respondents still treated Mr Ngo as the main one and gave him an enhanced credit relative to Mr McCallum.

That shift is important for business readers because it shows how a role dispute can evolve as a project develops. A business may start with one internal narrative about who did what, but if the contract, the credits, the approval process and the public materials do not all line up, the dispute can spread quickly into several legal claims at once.

The court said the central dispute was who was the “principal director” of the documentary. That was not just a label. The judgment explains that under Part IX of the Copyright Act, where more than one individual is involved in directing a cinematograph film, the legislation gives special significance to the “principal director” for moral rights attribution purposes. So the court first had to work out the meaning of “director” and “principal director” in this statutory setting, and then decide whether Mr McCallum alone held that status or whether Mr Ngo did as well.

The court described these as novel legal issues under Australian law. It also had to decide whether clause 6.2 of the Director’s Agreement could operate as a lawful general waiver of Mr McCallum’s moral rights, or alternatively as a general consent to the infringements alleged. That issue matters commercially because many production agreements use broad rights language in an attempt to avoid later disputes about edits, credits or release decisions.

Beyond the moral rights questions, the court had to determine a series of contract and ACL issues. On the contract side, the issues included whether Projector Films breached clause 9.1 by failing to give Mr McCallum the credit “Directed by Stephen McCallum”, whether it breached clause 9.2 by failing to seek his agreement about the inclusion or positioning of credits for Mr Ngo as a director, whether it failed to pay two invoices, and whether it failed to provide cuts and edits for approval. On the ACL side, the court had to consider whether certain IMDb representations, festival-related representations, and communications with Screen Australia were misleading and deceptive.

The respondents also brought cross-claims. They alleged that Mr McCallum had failed to discharge his duties as a director, had brought adverse publicity or notoriety to the documentary or Projector Films, and had engaged in misleading conduct in relation to directorship claims. So this was not a narrow copyright ownership case. It was a broad commercial dispute about role definition, project control, public messaging and contractual performance.

At the liability stage, the court found strongly in Mr McCallum’s favour on most issues. In the summary findings, the judge said that having regard to the totality of the facts, and on the proper construction of the words “director” and “principal director”, Mr McCallum was the sole principal director of the documentary for the purposes of the Copyright Act. The court was satisfied that Mr Ngo was a director of the documentary, but not a principal director.

The court also held that the text, context and purpose of Part IX of the Copyright Act did not support a general waiver of the moral rights recognised by that Part. As a result, clause 6.2 of the Director’s Agreement was not enforceable to the extent it sought to operate as a general waiver of Mr McCallum’s moral rights. The court further held that the clause, properly construed, did not amount to a general consent to the infringements claimed in the proceeding.

On infringement, the court found that Projector Films infringed Mr McCallum’s moral right of attribution by failing to attribute him as the principal director of the documentary by not giving him the credit “Directed by Stephen McCallum”, having regard to the specific context of the opening and end credits. The court also found that Projector Films infringed his moral right against false attribution by conveying that Mr Ngo was the sole principal director in the specific context of those opening and end credits. The court further found that Mr Ngo also infringed Mr McCallum’s moral rights.

On contract, the court found that Projector Films breached the Director’s Agreement by failing to give Mr McCallum the agreed credit, failing to seek his agreement as to the positioning of credits attributing Mr Ngo as a director, failing to pay two invoices, and failing to provide various cuts and edits for approval. On the ACL claims, the court found that Projector Films engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by making or causing to be made certain IMDb representations, certain Sundance website and Sundance version director representations, and a first MIFF representation.

As to the cross-claim, the court rejected most of it. It was not satisfied that Mr McCallum had failed to discharge his duties as a director, and it rejected the misleading conduct allegations against him. However, the court did find one breach in one respect relating to bringing notoriety to Projector Films.

One of the most useful features of this case for business readers is that it links legal outcomes to ordinary production documents and conduct. The judgment refers to a Crew Agreement, a Director’s Agreement, a deed of variation, invoice obligations, approval obligations, opening and end credits, IMDb entries, festival materials and communications with third parties. In other words, the dispute was not confined to abstract legal principles. It was built out of the same kinds of documents and release steps that many businesses use every day.

The contract side of the case is especially practical. Clause 9.1 mattered because it specified the credit Mr McCallum was entitled to receive if he fulfilled his obligations. Clause 9.2 mattered because it required his agreement in relation to the positioning of credits for Mr Ngo as a director. Clause 3 mattered because it dealt with payment of fees, and clause 5 mattered because it dealt with providing cuts and edits for approval. The court found breaches across all of those areas. That is a reminder that credit disputes often expose broader process failures. If a business is not paying invoices, not circulating cuts for approval, and not documenting credit decisions carefully, the dispute becomes easier to frame as a pattern of contractual non-compliance.

The ACL findings are also commercially important. The court found misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to certain IMDb, Sundance and MIFF representations. The exact wording of each defined representation is not set out here, so businesses should check the full judgment if they need the precise statements. Even without that detail, the message is clear. Public-facing role descriptions can be representations made in trade or commerce. If a business makes them, authorises them, or causes them to be made, they can create consumer law exposure alongside copyright and contract risk.

The judgment also shows that wording and context matter. The court specifically addressed the difference between the credit “Directed by” and the credit “Director” where more than one director is involved. Businesses sometimes assume those distinctions are stylistic. This case shows they can carry legal significance when the issue is whether a person is being presented as the principal director or merely one director among others.

Although the case sits in the film industry, the practical lessons travel well beyond feature documentaries. Many Australian businesses now commission founder stories, customer documentaries, campaign films, social video series and branded content. Those projects often involve overlapping roles across producers, directors, writers, editors, agencies and in-house teams. If the business treats credits as a late-stage marketing issue rather than a legal and contractual issue, it can create avoidable risk.

The first lesson is to define roles carefully at the start. If one person is engaged as the director under the contract, but another person later takes on substantial editing or post-production work, the business should not assume the legal position updates itself. Role changes should be documented, and any impact on credits should be expressly agreed. The second lesson is to separate ownership and exploitation rights from moral rights and attribution issues. A broad rights clause may not do the work the business expects if the dispute is really about attribution and false attribution.

The third lesson is to treat public listings as legal communications. IMDb entries, festival catalogues, screening versions, websites and funding communications can all become evidence. If different teams are handling legal, production and marketing tasks separately, someone should still be responsible for checking that all public-facing descriptions of creative roles are consistent. The fourth lesson is process discipline. If your agreement requires approvals, invoice payments or consultation about credits, those obligations need to be followed in practice, not just drafted neatly on paper.

Finally, businesses should remember the commercial cost of getting this wrong. The court described a project that had already reached major festivals and had potential streaming opportunities waiting. A public dispute over credits at that stage can affect rollout, relationships, investor confidence, partner confidence and the value of the project itself. The legal issues in this case are specific, but the operational lesson is broad: attribution should be managed as part of release governance, not left to the end.

The judgment was delivered by Shariff J in the Federal Court of Australia on 27 February 2026. It was a liability hearing only. The court ordered the parties to confer by 6 March 2026 and provide consent or competing short minutes of order either to give effect to the reasons or to progress the matter to a hearing on relief, remedies and other orders including costs.

That means this decision should be read as establishing liability findings, not the final practical consequences. Businesses looking at this case should distinguish between what the court had already decided, such as principal director status, moral rights infringement, contract breaches and certain ACL contraventions, and what still remained to be determined later, such as relief and remedies.

Some detailed factual and evidentiary matters are not reproduced in this page, including the exact wording of each defined representation found misleading. If your business needs to rely on the case for a detailed point about credits, waiver drafting, or a particular representation, the full judgment should be checked carefully.