Mixed results in defamation and copyright

News and the public interest: defamation, copyright and public comment  | Issue 15/2025

Media law and ethics are in the spotlight this fortnight – with mixed results for press freedom.

Last week, there was the Federal Court hearing of Bruce Lehrmann’s appeal against Justice Lee’s headline-making rejection of Lehrmann’s defamation claim against Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson. Reports of the appeal hearing noted some sceptical comments from the Bench. Lehrmann – who is already facing enormous costs in the matter – was represented only by a solicitor, while the media respondents had specialist defamation barristers, Matt Collins and Sue Chrisanthou. Referencing Justice Lee’s previous quip about Lehrmann and the lion’s den, the Gazette of Law and Journalism observed, ‘Lehrmann has another shot at his hat’. 

Then yesterday, former Defence Minister Linda Reynolds learned she had been successful in her defamation action in the WA Supreme Court. This case did not involve a media defendant – instead, Reyolds brought an action against Brittany Higgins for social media posts she made in 2022 and 2023. Reynolds was awarded damages of $135,000 for one tweet and $180,000 for another. From a report in The Australian, it appears that Higgins successfully defended other tweets.

Also in the past fortnight we’ve seen the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in The Game Meats Company of Australia v Farm Transparency International. Farm Transparency is an animal rights group who wanted to publish a video, acquired by trespassing, of alleged animal cruelty at an abattoir owned by Game Meats. Farm Transparency sent the video to a local government department, then gave the footage to Channel Seven. Seven – on notice from Game Meat’s lawyers – ran a story but declined to show the footage.  As Media Watch showed last week, this is a decision that raises real concerns for public interest journalism. The Full Court ruled in favour of Game Meats, issuing an order preventing publication of the video and also requiring that Farm Transparency destroy its copies. Additionally – and this is the staggering part – Farm Transparency is required to assign copyright in the video to Game Meats. Below, copyright and media law specialist, Dr Sarah Hook, explains the decision and how it breaks new ground – not for the better.

An even more remarkable outcome – this time in a good way – was seen in the judgment in favour of Nine Entertainment in its defence against the defamation claim from surgeon Mujad Al Munderis. Below, I look at the difference between the application of the new(ish) public interest defence in this matter and in the action brought by Heston Russell against the ABC. Whereas the ABC failed on public interest as its only defence, Nine succeeded in its defences of contextual truth and public interest.

Also this week, Monica considers the ABC’s new guidelines that will govern public comments by staff. She observes that while they make the internal complaints process clearer, it’s hard to see how they help to manage different views on the place of impartiality at the national broadcaster. And finally, Chris Hall tells us about his recent exchange with Google’s Gemini in which the AI assistant made a startling admission about quality control of its own free and subscription offers. 

Read the newsletter.