The moral of the story

With thanks to Penelope Bates, Arts Law secondee

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

At Arts Law, we are often talking to film directors and other artists about their moral rights.

McCallum v Projector Films Pty Ltd (Liability Orders) [2026] FCA 653 (orders) marks another important step in the development of Australian moral rights jurisprudence. This judgment bolsters existing recognition of the significance of moral rights. These orders follow the earlier liability hearing (McCallum v Projector Films Pty Ltd (Liability Hearing) [2026] FCA 173), in which the Court found that the moral rights of documentary filmmaker Stephen McCallum were infringed, and his director’s agreement breached. See our previous update here.

The dispute relates to the documentary Never Get Busted!, which screened at the Sundance Film Festival in January 2025 and at the Melbourne International Film Festival (MIFF) in August 2025. McCallum (the applicant) directed the documentary under an agreement with Projector Films Pty Ltd (the first respondent). The second respondent, David Anthony Ngo, was also involved as a director. At the heart of the dispute was the way the two men were credited, with Ngo receiving a “Written and Directed By” credit in a superior position, while McCallum was attributed only as “Director” in an inferior position.

The parties could not agree on the form of orders to give effect to the liability findings, requiring the Court to resolve several contested issues.

Key Findings and Orders

Moral rights – right of attribution and false attribution

The Court declared that both respondents had infringed McCallum’s right of attribution and his right not to have his work falsely attributed under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). The credits as structured – giving Ngo the “Directed by” credit in a superior position – conveyed that Ngo was the principal director and McCallum was not. As the earlier liability judgment held, the correct approach is not to fixate on the grammatical form of a credit in isolation, but to consider the credits overall including their structure and placement.

Form of credits on the documentary

The Court ordered that all copies of the documentary within the respondents’ control must carry the credit “Directed by Stephen McCallum” as a single-person card, in the final directing position in the opening credits (before the title) and the first directing position in the closing credits (after the fade-out). Ngo may be credited as “Director” but must not be identified as a principal director.

The Court declined McCallum’s request to require the word “Subsidiary Director” for Ngo, finding the reversal of credit positioning sufficient to convey the distinction between a principal director and a director.

Correction of existing copies

McCallum sought orders requiring the respondents to provide corrected copies to all known holders and recall uncorrected copies. The Court declined, finding no evidence of any present or prospective threat that previously screened versions would be screened again, and concluding the existing orders were sufficient.

Advertising and promotional materials

The Court ordered Projector Films to ensure all advertising and promotional materials that include any credits must carry the words “Directed by Stephen McCallum” – with a limited carve-out where the material only includes credits for executive producers. Where a credit block appears, McCallum’s directing credit must be the last directing credit and in a font no smaller than any other director or producer credit.

Breach of contract declarations

The Court declared that Projector Films breached multiple clauses of the Director’s Agreement, including by:

  • failing to credit McCallum as “Directed by Stephen McCallum” in the documentary’s credits;
  • failing to obtain McCallum’s agreement to add Ngo’s credit in a mutually agreed position;
  • failing to pay McCallum $25,000; and
  • failing to provide cuts of the documentary for McCallum’s approval.

The Court ordered Projector Films to pay McCallum $25,000 within 21 days of the orders being made. The Court also declared that McCallum breached one clause of the Director’s Agreement, by causing his agent to communicate a false allegation that Projector Films had removed his name from the IMDb entry.

Misleading and deceptive conduct

The Court declared Projector Films engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law through a series of acts, including:

  • manipulating the IMDb entry to change the directing credit;
  • causing the Sundance Film Festival website to attribute the directorial debut to Ngo;
  • causing the documentary itself to carry credits that conveyed Ngo as the principal director; and
  • causing MIFF promotional materials to carry no reference to McCallum.

Injunction against McCallum rejected

The respondents sought a permanent injunction restraining McCallum from breaching a negative covenant in his agreement against bringing adverse publicity to Projector Films. The Court rejected this, finding no evidence of any present or ongoing threat of such conduct, noting the original breach arose in specific circumstances that had since been addressed by the litigation itself.

Procedural directions

The Court declined to bifurcate the remaining issues, setting a timetable for the outstanding claims (including damages, costs, apology and corrective advertising) to be determined together, with submissions due through to August 2026 and a case management hearing on 11 August 2026.

Significance

Again, the case is a notable application of the moral rights provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) in the context of the Australian film industry. It illustrates that courts will look beyond the grammatical form of credits to their overall structure and placement when assessing whether an author has been attributed as the principal creator of a work – and will grant injunctive relief to reverse false attribution. The whole event illustrates the importance of artists and parties dealing with them understanding moral rights (and obligations) and in particular, that the notion of a broad waiver is insufficient as a form of consent from the artist about their moral rights being infringed.