Trespassing Activists Lost Their Copyright: What the Game Meats Case Means for Businesses

Imagine this: someone breaks onto your property, films what they're doing, and then publishes the footage claiming it shows wrongdoing. They say they're exposing the truth. You say they stole your property and are profiting from their illegal actions.

Who owns the copyright to that footage?

You might think it's the person who filmed it — after all, they created the work. But a recent Full Federal Court decision says that's not always the case.

This is the story of Game Meats Company of Australia v Farm Transparency International Ltd [2025] FCAFC 104 — and it has significant implications for every business in Australia.

What Actually Happened

Game Meats Company of Australia operates a halal abattoir in Australia. Farm Transparency International Ltd is an animal rights advocacy group known for conducting undercover investigations at agricultural facilities.

Here's what Farm Transparency did:

1. Trespassed onto Game Meats' property on multiple occasions
2. Filmed activities taking place on the premises
3. Published and distributed the footage, claiming it showed animal cruelty
4. Refused to stop when Game Meats asked them to

Game Meats Company of Australia took legal action. They didn't just sue for trespass — they made a more unusual claim: they argued that Farm Transparency International Ltd should hold the copyright to the footage on trust for them.

The Court Decisions: What Happened at Each Level

The Trial Court (Federal Court)

The trial judge ruled:

• ✅ Damages awarded: $30,000 general damages + $100,000 exemplary damages for trespass
• ❌ No injunction: Refused to stop Farm Transparency from publishing the footage
• ❌ No constructive trust: Declined to impose a trust over the copyright

The judge was clearly angry about Farm Transparency's conduct. He described it as intentional wrongdoing with "contumelious disregard" for Game Meats' property rights. But he stopped short of the more dramatic remedies.

The Full Federal Court (Appeal)

Game Meats Company of Australia appealed, and the Full Federal Court changed the outcome significantly:

• ✅ Damages upheld: The original damages award was confirmed
• ✅ Injunction granted: Farm Transparency is now restrained from publishing the footage
• ✅ Constructive trust imposed: The copyright in the footage is held on trust for Game Meats
• ✅ Orders for deletion: Farm Transparency must assign the copyright to Game Meats and permanently delete the footage

This is a major victory for Game Meats Company of Australia — and a warning to anyone who thinks they can break the law, create something valuable, and keep the rights to it.

What Is a "Constructive Trust"?

This is a legal concept that might be unfamiliar, so let's explain it in plain English.

A trust is a legal arrangement where one person (the trustee) holds property for the benefit of someone else (the beneficiary). Think of it like holding money in an account for someone else.

A constructive trust is different. It's not something the parties agreed to. It's imposed by the court when it would be unfair or unjust for someone to keep property that they shouldn't have.

A Simple Example

If you steal someone's laptop and sell it, a court might impose a constructive trust on the sale proceeds. Even though you sold the laptop, the court says: "You shouldn't keep that money. Hold it on trust for the person you stole from."

How It Applies Here

The Full Federal Court said:

• Farm Transparency International Ltd obtained the footage through trespass (illegal entry onto private property)
• It would be unfair for Farm Transparency International Ltd to keep the copyright to footage obtained this way
• Therefore, the copyright should be held on trust for Game Meats Company of Australia

Where Did This Idea Come From?

The Full Federal Court relied on comments made by four High Court judges in a 2001 case called Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199 — yes, the same company name — not a coincidence.

In that case, the High Court suggested that a constructive trust could be imposed when a film is made by invading someone's legal or equitable rights. The Full Federal Court in Game Meats Company of Australia v Farm Transparency International Ltd said: "This is exactly that kind of situation."

Why This Decision Matters for Businesses

1. You Have a New Tool to Protect Your Property

If someone trespasses on your property and records something, you're not limited to claiming damages. You can now argue for:

• An injunction to prevent them from publishing the footage
• A constructive trust over the copyright
• An order for them to delete the footage
• An order for them to transfer the copyright to you

This is a much stronger position than just claiming damages for trespass.

2. Activists and Investigators Need to Think Carefully

If you're an activist, investigative journalist, or whistleblower, this decision sends a clear message: filming on private property without permission carries significant legal risk.

Even if what you're filming exposes genuine wrongdoing, you may:

• Lose the copyright to your footage
• Be ordered to delete it
• Be restrained from publishing it
• Face substantial damages

The "public interest" defence is not automatic. Courts will weigh competing rights — your right to expose wrongdoing versus the property owner's right to control their land.

3. The New Tort of Privacy Comes Into Play

Australia now has a statutory tort of privacy under the Privacy Act 1988. This case shows how copyright remedies can work alongside privacy claims.

If someone invades your privacy and records you, you may have multiple claims:

• Trespass (if they entered your property)
• Privacy tort (if they recorded private activities)
• Copyright claims (if they create footage you can claim rights over)
• Breach of confidence (if they had access to confidential information)

Having multiple claims gives you more options and stronger leverage.

4. Media Organisations Need to Be Careful

If you're a media organisation that receives footage from external sources, you need to be very careful about:

• Where the footage came from
• Whether it was obtained legally
• Whether the creator has the right to share it

Footage obtained illegally may be subject to injunctions and constructive trusts. Publishing it could make you a party to legal proceedings.

What Should Your Business Do?

If You Run a Business with Physical Premises

1. Secure your property. Make sure access is controlled and monitored.
2. Have a clear trespass policy. Know what to do if someone enters without permission.
3. Document everything. If someone trespasses and records, document the incident immediately.
4. Get legal advice quickly. The sooner you act, the more likely you are to get an injunction before footage is published.
5. Consider insurance. Check whether your insurance covers legal costs for trespass and privacy claims.

If You Work in Agriculture or Food Production

The Game Meats case is particularly relevant for agricultural businesses, which are frequent targets of activist investigations:

1. Review your security measures.
2. Train your staff on how to respond to unauthorised entry.
3. Consider CCTV as both a deterrent and evidence.
4. Build relationships with local law enforcement.
5. Have a communications strategy in case footage is published.

If You're an Activist or Investigator

1. Don't trespass. The legal risks are significant and growing.
2. Get permission. If you need access to a property, ask for it.
3. Understand the law. Know your rights and limitations.
4. Get legal advice before conducting investigations.
5. Consider alternative methods of gathering information that don't involve trespass.

What's Next?

ETA Farm Transparency International Ltd has been granted special leave to appeal to the High Court. This means the High Court will decide whether the Full Federal Court was right to impose a constructive trust.

If the High Court upholds the decision, this will become a leading authority on the intersection of copyright, property rights, and equitable remedies. If it reverses the decision, the law may revert to the trial court's approach.

Either way, this case highlights an important principle: Australian courts are willing to use creative legal tools to prevent wrongdoers from benefiting from their own misconduct.

The Bottom Line

The Game Meats case sends a clear message to anyone thinking about trespassing on private property to gather evidence: you may not get to keep what you create.

For businesses, this is a powerful new tool in the fight against unauthorised filming and surveillance. For activists and investigators, it's a warning to think carefully about the legal risks.

The High Court appeal will determine how far this principle extends. But for now, the message is clear: if you break the law to create something, the court may take it away from you.

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have questions about copyright, property rights, or trespass for your business, consult a qualified lawyer.