This is a rich creative-business case. It is not just about a film credit. It is about how contracts, credits, authorship, moral rights, public databases and promotional claims can collide when a creative relationship breaks down.
The Court had to work through who did what on the documentary, what the contracts said, what the Copyright Act means by director and principal director, whether a broad waiver can operate as consent to moral rights infringement, and whether attribution statements were misleading. The Court directed the parties to prepare orders or progress to a remedies hearing after the liability reasons.
For production companies, agencies, founders and creatives, the practical lesson is to write credit and moral-rights clauses with precision. If the project has multiple creative leads, the contract should say who gets which credit, what happens if roles change, who can update IMDb or public listings, and what specific moral-rights consents are being given. Generic waiver language may leave too much room for a fight.