McCallum v Projector Films Pty Ltd (Liability Orders) [2026] FCA 653

McCallum v Projector Films Pty Ltd (Liability Orders) [2026] FCA 653 is a Federal Court decision about the orders made after an earlier liability ruling in a dispute over documentary credits. The Court was not starting from scratch. It had already made findings in February 2026 about moral rights and contractual breaches, and this later judgment worked out the declarations, injunctions and other orders that should follow.

The case is commercially important because one disagreement about who should be credited as director led to findings across three legal areas at once: copyright moral rights, misleading or deceptive conduct under the ACL, and breach of contract. The Court then made detailed orders about how the documentary and related promotional material could be presented going forward.

The parties were Stephen McCallum as applicant, and Projector Films Pty Ltd and David Anthony Ngo as respondents. The dispute concerned the documentary Never Get Busted!. The orders judgment refers back to an earlier liability judgment and does not retell the full factual history, but it does reveal the commercial shape of the dispute clearly enough.

McCallum had a Director's Agreement with Projector Films dated 24 February 2020 and amended in March 2023. The documentary was then presented in different versions, including a Sundance Version screened in January 2025 and a Feature Version prepared for MIFF in August 2025. The conflict was about how directing credit was given and whether the way the documentary and related materials were presented conveyed that Ngo, rather than McCallum, was the principal director.

The Court's declarations show that the issue was not confined to one title card. In the documentary itself, McCallum was credited as "Director" while Ngo was credited as "Directed by" or "Written and Directed By", and the order of those credits mattered. Outside the documentary, the Court found Projector Films caused changes to the IMDb entry, caused Sundance website material to identify Ngo as director and describe the documentary as his directorial debut, and caused MIFF promotional material to state that the documentary was directed by Ngo with no reference to McCallum.

That matters for business readers because it shows how a credit dispute can spread across the whole release ecosystem. The legal risk did not arise only from the film itself. It also arose from metadata, festival copy, posters and promotional channels controlled or influenced by the production company.

This judgment is best read as the second stage of the case. Shariff J explained that on 27 February 2026 the Court had already published reasons making findings about infringement of McCallum's moral rights and breaches of the Director's Agreement, including one breach by McCallum. Because the relief sought was significant, the parties were ordered to confer and try to agree on the orders that should give effect to those findings.

They could not agree on everything. So the issue in this later judgment was what orders should now be made. The judge said the reasons assumed familiarity with the earlier liability judgment and did not repeat all findings except where necessary. That is why some factual and reasoning detail is not repeated here. The orders judgment is mainly about the form of declarations, injunctions and practical credit requirements.

For business readers, that procedural point matters. A party can win on liability but still have to argue carefully about the exact wording of declarations and the scope of injunctions. Courts do not simply grant every corrective step a successful party asks for. The final orders depend on what was actually found, what evidence supports future risk, and whether the proposed relief is precise and justified.

The case involved three separate legal mechanisms.

First, moral rights under the Copyright Act 1968. The Court dealt with McCallum's right of attribution and his right not to have his role falsely attributed. The declarations show that the problem was not just that different words were used. It was that the credits, taken as a whole, conveyed that Ngo was the principal director and McCallum was not.

Secondly, section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law. The Court declared that Projector Films engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by causing changes to the IMDb entry, causing Sundance website material to identify Ngo as director and describe the documentary as his directorial debut, using the disputed credits in the Sundance Version itself, and causing MIFF promotional material to state that the documentary was directed by Ngo with no reference to McCallum. The Court also declared a threatened contravention in relation to a version prepared for MIFF containing disputed credits.

Thirdly, contract. The Director's Agreement dealt with directing credit, additional directors, payment and approval rights over cuts. The Court declared breaches by Projector Films for failing to give the agreed credit, failing to obtain agreement to add Ngo as a director in a mutually agreed position, failing to pay $25,000, and failing to provide papercuts, assemblies, rough cuts, fine cuts and final cuts for approval.

For a business owner, the key point is that the same conduct can trigger multiple claims at once. A mismatch between the contract, the work itself and the public marketing story can create overlapping exposure rather than a single isolated dispute.

The Court made declarations that the first and second respondents had infringed and threatened to continue to infringe McCallum's right of attribution in respect of the Sundance Version and Feature Version by making copies, threatening to exhibit them, and threatening to communicate them to the public using credits that gave McCallum the label "Director" while using "Directed by" for Ngo and by the manner in which the credits were ordered.

The Court also declared that the respondents had infringed and threatened to continue to infringe McCallum's right not to have the Sundance Version and Feature Version falsely attributed by affixing or inserting, or authorising the insertion or affixing of, Ngo's name so as to convey that Ngo was the principal director and McCallum was not.

On the ACL claim, the Court declared that Projector Films engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by causing the IMDb directing credits to be changed, causing a poster on the IMDb page to contain the text "written and directed by David Ngo" and "Director Stephen McCallum", causing the Sundance website entry to omit directing credits from the list of credits while naming Ngo under "Director(s)" and describing the documentary as his directorial debut, causing the Sundance Version to contain the disputed opening and end credits, and causing MIFF promotional materials to state "Directed By" Ngo with no reference to McCallum. The Court also declared that Projector Films threatened to engage in misleading or deceptive conduct by preparing a version for MIFF containing credits referring to the documentary being "Directed by David Anthony Ngo" and "Director Stephen McCallum".

On contract, the Court declared that Projector Films breached clause 9.1 by failing to attribute McCallum with the credit "Directed by Stephen McCallum" in the credits of the Sundance Version and Feature Version, breached clause 9.2 by failing to obtain his agreement to add a credit line for Ngo as a director in a position that was mutually agreed, breached clause 3 by failing to pay $25,000, and breached clause 5 by failing to provide papercuts, assemblies, rough cuts, fine cuts and final cuts for approval. The Court also declared that McCallum breached clause 7.1(c)(iv) by causing his agent to communicate to a third party that Projector Films had been responsible for removing his name altogether from the IMDb entry.

The practical heart of the judgment is the forward-looking orders. The Court permanently restrained the respondents from infringing McCallum's right of attribution and his right not to have his role as principal director falsely attributed in Australia.

The Court also permanently restrained Projector Films from representing in trade or commerce that McCallum is not the sole principal director of the documentary, and from representing in trade or commerce that Ngo is the principal director, or a principal director, of the documentary.

The Court then prescribed how credits must appear on copies of the documentary within the respondents' control. They must not identify Ngo as a principal director on copies of the documentary, but may identify him with the term "director" provided McCallum is credited in the required way. They must apply to all copies within their control a credit reading "Directed by Stephen McCallum" in the opening credits on the last directing credit card before the title, and in the closing credits on the first directing credit card after the fade-out. In each case the credit card must be a single person credit card, in font no smaller than any other single-person credit card, and on screen for no less screen time than any other single-person credit card. For the closing credits, the card must also be in the same position on the screen as any other single-person credit card.

The Court also made orders about advertising and promotional material. Projector Films must not identify Ngo as a principal director of the documentary in advertising and promotional material, but may identify him with the term "director" provided McCallum is credited in the required way. Projector Films must ensure that all advertising and promotional material for the documentary which includes credits of any kind and is published, or caused or authorised to be published, by it includes the words "Directed by Stephen McCallum", except where the material only contains credits for executive producers. Where a credit block appears, those words must constitute the last directing credit and be in font no smaller than any other director or producer credit, other than executive producer, or any other credit of Ngo.

This judgment is also useful because it shows the Court carefully limiting relief to what the findings and evidence supported.

One dispute concerned the definition of the Feature Version. McCallum wanted wording added to say it was the version prepared for screening at MIFF in August 2025, "amongst other festivals". The respondents opposed that addition, and the Court accepted their position because it had not made findings about whether the MIFF version was the one shown at other festivals. The extra words were omitted.

Another dispute concerned the form of the contractual declarations. On clause 9.1, the Court rejected wording that would have referred to promotional material because, although such a case had been pleaded, the findings in the liability judgment were limited to the documentary credits rather than promotional materials in the contractual context. The Court also rejected the respondents' proposed use of the word "some" promotional material because declarations should not be opaque. The final declaration was confined to failure to give the agreed credit in the credits of the Sundance Version and Feature Version.

On clause 9.2, the Court rejected both sides' proposed wording and instead used wording that matched the actual finding: Projector Films failed to obtain McCallum's agreement to add a credit line for Ngo as a director in a position that was mutually agreed with McCallum.

The respondents also sought an injunction restraining McCallum from breaching a contractual clause against bringing adverse publicity or notoriety to Projector Films. The Court refused that injunction. The judge accepted that the earlier breach arose in unique circumstances involving a communication by McCallum's agent about IMDb during a period of heightened dispute. There was no evidence of a present threat or risk of further breach, so the injunction lacked an evidentiary foundation and was refused.

The catchwords also state that an order requiring correction of existing copies of the documentary was not granted. That is important in practice. Even after liability is established, a court may prefer targeted future-facing orders over broader correction orders affecting all existing copies.

This case is not only about documentaries. The same issues can arise in branded content, podcasts, online video, advertising campaigns, software products with credited creators, and any project where a business commissions work from founders, contractors, agencies or collaborators.

The first lesson is to treat credits as a governed process. Someone in the business should own the credit matrix across the contract, the work itself and all external channels. If the contract says one person must receive a particular credit, the business should not allow a later marketing or festival team to improvise different wording or hierarchy.

The second lesson is to control third-party and semi-third-party channels. The declarations in this case covered IMDb and festival website material. Even if a platform is external, a business can still face legal consequences if it causes or authorises the relevant content.

The third lesson is to document approval rights and follow them. Here, the Court declared that Projector Films breached the agreement by failing to provide papercuts, assemblies, rough cuts, fine cuts and final cuts for approval. Approval rights are only useful if the business has a process for delivering versions, recording comments and tracking sign-off.

The fourth lesson is to think about hierarchy, not just labels. The Court's orders and declarations show that the legal issue was not solved by saying both people were directors in some form. The overall presentation, including ordering, prominence, screen time and placement, mattered.

The fifth lesson is to separate principal credit from other contributions carefully. The Court allowed the term "director" to be used for Ngo in some circumstances, but prohibited identifying him as a principal director and required McCallum to receive the specified "Directed by Stephen McCallum" credit. Businesses should be careful not to let broad or prestige-oriented wording imply a principal role that the contract or actual findings do not support.

The orders in this case create a practical checklist for any business commissioning creative work.

The orders judgment was delivered on 26 May 2026. It followed the earlier liability judgment delivered on 27 February 2026. The Court also set a timetable for further evidence and submissions on the balance of the relief sought and on costs, with case management listed for 11 August 2026. That means this judgment resolved important liability-related orders, but it also contemplated further steps in the proceeding.

This page is based on the Federal Court's orders judgment in McCallum v Projector Films Pty Ltd (Liability Orders) [2026] FCA 653. The judgment expressly refers back to McCallum v Projector Films Pty Ltd (Liability Hearing) [2026] FCA 173 and assumes familiarity with it. Because this later judgment focuses on the form of declarations and orders, it does not restate the full factual chronology or all reasoning from the earlier liability decision.

Where the reasons discuss contested wording for proposed orders, this page follows the declarations and orders actually made. It does not go beyond what the judgment clearly supports.