The Game Meats Company of Australia Pty Ltd v Farm Transparency International Ltd

The Game Meats Company of Australia Pty Ltd v Farm Transparency International Ltd [2025] FCAFC 104 is a Full Federal Court decision about footage obtained at a business premises through trespass and who should control the copyright in that footage. The Court allowed the business's appeal, declared that the respondent held the copyright in the relevant images on trust for the business, ordered a written assignment of that copyright, permanently restrained publication except for a limited government disclosure, and ordered deletion of relevant images.

For business owners, the significance is practical and immediate. The case shows that unauthorised filming on private premises can trigger a mix of property, equity, copyright and injunctive issues. It also shows that a court may be prepared to go beyond damages for wrongful entry and make orders aimed at stopping ongoing possession, use and circulation of the footage.

The published court material identifies the parties, the premises, the relevant period and the broad conduct that led to the dispute. The appellant, The Game Meats Company of Australia Pty Ltd, conducted its business undertaking at 319 Hughes Lane, Eurobin, Victoria. The respondent was Farm Transparency International Ltd. Between 9 January 2024 and 13 April 2024, images were obtained or captured at the premises. The orders specifically refer to cameras placed in the premises by persons who entered the premises on behalf of the respondent.

The catchwords state that the images were obtained and created through trespass. That matters because the dispute was not only about the physical act of entering private premises. Once footage existed, the commercial problem became larger. The footage could be held, copied, shared, published or used in ways that might continue to affect the business after the entry itself had ended.

The orders show that the Court was dealing with that ongoing problem. The respondent was restrained from publishing the images, ordered to assign copyright, required to delete relevant images in its possession or control, and required to identify the people or entities to whom the images had been provided. That combination of orders shows a dispute about control, not just entry. The business was seeking to stop the continuing consequences of the footage being in circulation or available for circulation.

The material also shows that there had already been a first instance decision in 2024 and that some orders made on 19 December 2024 were set aside on appeal. The Full Court therefore did not start from scratch. It reviewed the earlier outcome and replaced parts of it with stronger relief in favour of the business.

The central legal issue was whether a constructive trust should be imposed over copyright in video images obtained and created through trespass. That is a significant issue because copyright usually belongs to the maker of the footage, or is otherwise determined under copyright law. The catchwords show that the Court considered whether, in circumstances involving an invasion of the appellant's legal or equitable rights, it would be inequitable and against good conscience for the maker to assert ownership against the appellant.

The published material also shows that the Court addressed a point that often matters in equity: there was no pre-existing relationship between the parties and the asset had not previously been owned by the claimant. Even so, the catchwords record that the Court concluded the copyright in the video images should be held on trust for the appellant. That makes the case notable because it indicates that equitable intervention was not confined to a conventional pre-existing fiduciary or trust relationship.

A related issue was injunctive relief. The Court had to consider whether the appellant was entitled to orders restraining publication of the images. The catchwords say that possession and use of the images may be capable of causing ongoing damage. The Court also considered whether the constructive trust was sufficient to address the ongoing consequences of the trespass. In addition, the respondent cross-appealed on the quantification of exemplary damages, arguing they were manifestly excessive.

For businesses, the legal structure matters because it shows how several doctrines can overlap. Wrongful entry may create the factual basis. Equity may then affect who can assert rights in the resulting footage. Injunctions may be used to stop publication or further use. Copyright is therefore not always just a creator's right. In some cases it becomes part of the remedy for wrongful conduct.

The Full Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal. It declared that the respondent held the copyright in the relevant images and copies on trust for the appellant. The declaration covered images obtained or captured by the respondent between 9 January 2024 and 13 April 2024 at the appellant's business undertaking at the Eurobin premises, including the 14-minute footage referred to in the reasons.

The Court then made orders to give practical effect to that declaration. Within 7 days, the respondent was required to execute a written assignment of the copyright to the appellant. If the respondent defaulted, the Registrar was authorised to execute the transfer on the respondent's behalf under the Federal Court Rules. This is an important commercial feature of the case because it did not leave the business with only a declaration. It created a mechanism to transfer legal control of the copyright.

The Court also permanently restrained the respondent from publishing the relevant images, other than to the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. It ordered the respondent to permanently delete all images of the appellant's business undertaking in its possession or control that had been obtained or captured from the cameras placed in the premises by the persons who entered on behalf of the respondent during the relevant period.

To support enforcement, the Court required an affidavit within 14 days attesting to the permanent deletion of those images and identifying all persons or entities to whom the images had been provided, including the date, time and means of provision. The Court also made confidentiality orders over specified exhibits and any video or images on the court file depicting events at the premises during the relevant period, subject to limited disclosure to the parties' legal representatives and the appellant.

On damages, the Court ordered pre-judgment interest of $2,010.86 on the $30,000 awarded as general damages for the period from 1 March 2024 to 19 December 2024. The respondent's cross-appeal on exemplary damages was dismissed. The question of costs, both at first instance and on appeal, was left for written submissions.

Businesses should read this case as a reminder that unauthorised recording on private premises can create a chain of legal risks. The first event may be a trespass, but the commercial harm often comes later through copying, publication, reputational damage, customer concern, regulatory attention or loss of control over sensitive operational material. The Court's orders show a willingness to address that chain directly.

The case is especially relevant where a business operates from a physical site and has restricted areas, confidential processes, sensitive supplier or customer relationships, or a realistic risk of covert recording. That includes manufacturing, food processing, warehousing, logistics, healthcare, laboratories, hospitality back-of-house operations and any site where footage could be used to pressure the business publicly or commercially.

It is also a warning for organisations that receive or use footage gathered from another business's premises. The fact that footage exists, or that a person was involved in creating it, does not necessarily mean it can safely be published or retained. If the footage was obtained through trespass and the circumstances are serious enough, a court may intervene in a way that affects ownership, publication and possession all at once.

From a practical perspective, businesses should think in layers. Site security still matters. So do visitor controls, contractor rules, staff training and incident reporting. But this case suggests that legal strategy should also focus on the footage itself: what was captured, who has it, where it has gone, whether it has been published, and what urgent orders may be needed to stop further spread.

This decision also highlights the value of operational documents and disciplined evidence collection. If a business later needs urgent court relief, it helps to show clearly that the premises were private, access was restricted or conditional, and the recording was unauthorised. Visitor terms, contractor conditions, induction materials, confidentiality obligations, access maps, signage and internal policies may all help establish the business's position.

Conduct after discovery of the recording can also matter. Delay may allow footage to spread. A business that quickly secures evidence, identifies recipients, preserves online links and sends prompt legal correspondence is usually in a stronger position than one that treats the issue as only a security incident. The orders in this case show how important it can be to identify not just the footage itself, but also who received it and how it was transmitted.

Businesses should also be realistic about overlap with other legal issues. Depending on the facts, a covert recording incident may involve trespass, confidentiality, privacy-related concerns, employment issues, data handling issues, defamation risk, regulatory reporting and intellectual property questions. This case does not resolve every one of those areas, but it shows that copyright and equity can become central parts of the response.

Does this case create a general rule that all covert footage belongs to the business filmed? No. The published material supports a narrower proposition. The Court imposed a constructive trust over copyright in the circumstances before it, where the images were obtained and created through trespass and it was inequitable and against good conscience for the maker to assert ownership against the appellant.

Can a business seek both damages and control of the footage? Yes, at least on the face of these orders. The Court dealt with general damages and pre-judgment interest, while also making proprietary, injunctive and deletion orders aimed at the footage itself.

What if the footage has already been shared widely? The orders in this case show that courts can require a respondent to identify recipients and the means by which images were provided. That can be important for tracing dissemination and considering further steps.

Does the case only concern publication to the public? No. The orders addressed publication, deletion, assignment and disclosure of recipients. The Court also carved out a specific exception allowing publication to the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

Should businesses update internal processes because of this case? In many cases, yes. Businesses with site access risks should review visitor controls, contractor terms, incident escalation procedures, evidence preservation steps and legal response pathways for unauthorised recording.

The appeal was heard on 1 August 2025 and judgment and orders were dated 13 August 2025. The published material identifies the Full Court bench as Burley, Jackman and Horan JJ. Burley J recorded agreement with the reasons of Jackman J and the proposed orders.

The case should presently be read with some care as a public explainer because the published material available here clearly establishes the issues, orders and broad legal conclusions, but does not provide the full factual detail that would usually appear in a complete case note. The first instance decision is The Game Meats Company of Australia Pty Ltd v Farm Transparency International Ltd [2024] FCA 1455.