The law behind the lens: A look at a recent copyright claim
In this exclusive feature, Sharon Givoni— an intellectual property lawyer who has worked with artists and photographers across Australia—takes you inside a real-life copyright dispute with valuable lessons for the photographic community.
Her client, documentary photographer John Napper, recently succeeded in a copyright infringement claim in the Federal Court—reinforcing a key principle every photographer should understand: your images are your property, and Australian law provides mechanisms to protect them.
So, why is this relevant to you?
Whether you're an amateur snapping shots on weekends, a professional making a living from your images, or somewhere in between, understanding your rights can be the difference between protecting your art—or watching someone else profit from it.
So, what happened?
John Napper is a Queensland-based photographer known for his powerful protest photography.
In early 2022, he captured a suite of striking portraits during the Convoy to Canberra protests—a large-scale grassroots demonstration that drew attention from across the country.
But what began as a creative collaboration between Napper and a journalist-publisher to produce a book documenting the event soon unravelled into a legal dispute.
The publisher took the photos, added them to a book alongside his own narrative and other contributors’ images, and published it on Amazon— without Napper’s approval.
And while Napper was credited in some places, his name was mis-spelt and the credit was inconsistent.
That led to legal proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court, which hears copyright disputes.
On 2 May 2025, the judge handed down judgment in Napper v The Publisher [2025] FedCFamC2G 626.
The result? A decisive win for Napper—and for photographers everywhere.
We'll come to what the Court decided in more detail, but first, let’s take a moment to understand the legal foundation that supports all of this.
The Law in Focus: Copyright and Moral Rights
In Australia, photographers automatically own the copyright in their original images from the moment they are created. No registration is required.
Copyright protects you from having your photos reproduced, published, or communicated to the public without permission. These exclusive rights are set out in the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), and can only be used by others with your express licence (that is, legal permission to use your work).
Section 36(1) of the Act puts it plainly:
"The copyright in a work is infringed by a person who, without the licence of the copyright owner, does in Australia any act comprised in the copyright."
That’s exactly what happened here.
The judge found that Napper had never granted a clear, valid licence to the publisher.
As the judge noted, the collaboration between them did not include any agreement that allowed the publisher to reproduce the photographs in the book and publish or sell them without Napper’s approval (para [54] of the judgment).
The publisher continued using the images on blogs and Facebook even after the dispute had begun.
Then there’s the matter of moral rights.
Under Australian law, all creators have moral rights. These include the right to be attributed as the author of your work, the right not to have your authorship falsely attributed to someone else, and the right not to have your work treated in a derogatory way (such as being altered or used in a way that damages your reputation).
They exist to preserve the integrity and authorship of creative works—even after copyright has been licensed or assigned (unless the photographer has clearly agreed in writing to give up those rights).
Put simply, moral rights are about respect: respect for the creator and the identity woven into each image.
In this case, Napper wasn’t properly credited. The images were used in ways he had not approved.
Let's look now at what the Court actually decided—and why it matters to photographers.
The Court awarded Napper:
$192.02 in profit share. This figure was calculated based on the number of books sold and the portion of those profits attributable to Napper’s photographs.
While the sum was small, it sent a big message—the publisher had commercially benefited from Napper’s work, and Napper had a right to that income.
More importantly, the judge ordered the publisher to pay $12,000 in additional damages under section 115(4) of the Copyright Act.
These additional damages are not based on lost profits. They’re intended to penalise behaviour the Court considers particularly serious or unfair.
The Judge took into account the:
- unauthorised use of the images;
- publisher’s failure to credit Napper;
- continued use of the images even after the dispute began;
- publisher’s evasive and inconsistent evidence.
The Court also made an order for an injunction (a court order to stop doing something), permanently stopping the publisher from using Napper’s photographs. They’re intended to penalise behaviour the Court considers particularly serious or unfair.
From the court’s perspective, photographers’ rights matter.
Framing the Bigger Picture
This case is about more than money.
It’s about setting boundaries and affirming that photographers control how their work is used. As the French photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson once reflected, the first 10,000 photographs are about learning—but after that, photographers need both confidence and legal awareness to protect their work.
Similarly, West Australian photojournalist David Dare Parker has noted that the real power of photography lies in shifting the focus away from the photographer and toward the subject—giving others a voice.
Respecting how images are used and credited is not just a legal formality; it’s part of a responsibility to both the subject and the storyteller. Every photograph you take tells a story—and copyright law ensures the right to tell that story remains with you as the photographer.
To our Australian Photography readers: Whether you're capturing landscapes, weddings, portraits, or protests—your copyright is automatic.
You don’t have to register it. And if someone uses your work without permission, you can take legal action.
The best approach?
Document your agreements, save your emails, and be clear about how your images can and can’t be used. If someone says, “just send me the files,” remember—that’s not the same as permission, and it’s important to put usage terms in writing.
If you want your work respected, protect it—so when pictures speak, the law listens.
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and is not intended as legal advice. Every situation is different, and the law may change over time. If you have specific questions about copyright, AI, or your photography practice, you should seek advice from a qualified lawyer.
About John Napper
John Napper is a Queensland-based photographer and the founder of Action in Focus Photography. His work is shared across independent media and was described by the Court in Napper v The Publisher as “artistic, highly stylised, and emotionally charged” (see [54]).
About the Author
Sharon Givoni is a Melbourne-based lawyer who works closely with creatives—from photographers and illustrators to designers and filmmakers.
Through her firm, Sharon Givoni Consulting, she helps clients protect their rights, draft clear agreements, sort out disputes, and take action when their work is used without permission.
Whether it’s about licensing, copyright, moral rights or getting properly credited, her team is there to help creatives get the respect—and legal backing—they deserve. The firm’s motto? Turning Legalese into Legal Ease®.
Sharon also drafts custom terms and conditions for photographers. E info@iplegal.com.au Phone 0410 557 907
You can learn more at: