- Home
- Commercial Law
- Copyright Law
Copyright Lawyers in Melbourne
For businesses that own, license and enforce copyright: brands and logos, websites and software, photography, product design, manuals and marketing material. We advise on who actually owns what, we act when someone copies it, and we defend businesses accused of copying.
Copyright as a business asset
Most copyright problems that reach us are not about art. They are about a business discovering, usually at an inconvenient moment, that it does not own something it has been using for years, or that someone else is using something it does.
We act for businesses. Enforcing copyright against a competitor or a former contractor, defending a business accused of infringement, and getting ownership and licensing right in the first place so the question never arises. Copyright in Australia is governed by the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), which is federal and applies the same way in every state.
One thing to clear up immediately, because it causes a surprising amount of confusion and wasted money. There is no copyright registration in Australia. Copyright arises automatically under section 32 when an original work is made. There is no register, no application, and no fee. Anyone offering to register your copyright in Australia is offering you something that does not exist.
Who owns what you commissioned.
The line that decides it.
Letting others use it, on your terms.
When someone copies your work.
When you are the one accused.
Proving you own what you are selling.
You paid for it. That does not mean you own it.
A business commissions a logo, a website, a software build, a set of product photographs. It pays the invoice. It uses the work for years. It assumes it owns it.
Usually it does not.
Section 35(2) of the Copyright Act says the author of a work is the owner of the copyright in it. The person who made it, not the person who paid for it. There are exceptions, and they are narrower than almost anyone expects.
Employees are covered. Section 35(6) gives the copyright to the employer where the work was made in pursuance of the terms of the author's employment under a contract of service. That is an employment relationship. A contractor works under a contract for services, and the exception does not reach them.
Commissioning is barely covered. Section 35(5) does hand ownership to the person who paid, but only for a photograph taken for a private or domestic purpose, the painting or drawing of a portrait, or the making of an engraving. Section 35(7) spells out that a private or domestic purpose includes a portrait of family members, a wedding party or children. It says nothing about a logo, a website, an app or a commercial product shoot.
Unless someone signed something, your freelancer owns your logo, your agency owns your website and your developer owns your software.
And it has to be in writing. Section 196(3) is blunt: an assignment of copyright does not have effect unless it is in writing signed by or on behalf of the assignor. An invoice does not do it. An email saying "all yours" does not reliably do it. A verbal understanding certainly does not.
There is one further layer that even well-drafted contracts miss. Moral rights cannot be assigned at all. Under section 195AN(3) a moral right is not transmissible by assignment, by will, or by operation of law. They stay with the individual who created the work, which means the correct commercial mechanism is a written consent from the author, not an assignment.
The author owns it
Section 35(2) makes the creator the first owner. Paying for the work does not change that, and neither does the work being made specifically for you.
Employees, not contractors
Section 35(6) covers work made under a contract of service. Contractors sit outside it, which is where most businesses are exposed.
Writing, signed
Section 196(3) means an assignment has no effect unless it is in writing and signed by the assignor. Moral rights need a separate written consent under Part IX.
Establish ownership, then act
Work out who actually owns it
Before anything is enforced or defended, the chain has to be established: who created each asset, in what capacity, and whether anything was ever signed. This is often the whole answer, and it is frequently uncomfortable.
Fix what can still be fixed
Where ownership sits with a former contractor or agency, it can usually be resolved by agreement, and the negotiating position is far better before there is a dispute than after. Where the assets are current, we put proper assignments and moral rights consents in place.
Enforce it, or answer it
Where someone is copying, the priority is usually stopping it quickly, and section 115(2) makes an injunction the primary remedy. Where you have been accused, the questions are whether the work is protected, whether what you did is actually an exercise of the copyright, and whether an exception applies.
Three moments businesses discover the problem
Ownership questions rarely surface on their own. They surface because something else is happening, and by then the timing is bad.
When you rebrand or change agencies
The outgoing designer or developer still owns the work, and suddenly has leverage over files, source code and the brand itself.
Business lawWhen you sell the business
A buyer's due diligence asks you to prove you own the brand, the website and the software. If you cannot, it becomes a warranty problem, a price problem, or both.
Business salesWhen a competitor copies you
You go to enforce, and the first question is whether you own the thing you are enforcing. If the answer is your former freelancer, the claim is theirs to bring, not yours.
Urgent injunctionsFind out what you own
An early review of your key assets and the contracts behind them will tell you what you own, what you only have a licence to use, and what needs fixing while it is still easy.
Book a consultationThe cease and desist can make you the defendant
Firing off a letter accusing someone of copyright infringement feels like the free, obvious first move. It is neither. Under section 202(1) of the Copyright Act, where a person threatens another with proceedings for copyright infringement, the person threatened may bring an action against the threatener for a declaration that the threats are unjustifiable, an injunction restraining them, and damages, unless the threatener satisfies the court that the acts complained of actually were an infringement. It applies whether or not the person making the threat owns the copyright at all.
Two things soften it. Section 202(2) provides that mere notification of the existence of a copyright is not a threat, which is why the wording of a first letter matters so much. And section 202(3) provides that a solicitor acting in a professional capacity on behalf of a client is not liable under the section. The exposure under section 202(1) still sits with the person making the threat, so the work that matters is the assessment done before anything is sent.
What the answer usually turns on
Being on the receiving end is not the weak position it feels like. The questions are whether copyright subsists in the work at all, whether the claimant actually owns it, whether what you did is an act comprised in the copyright, and whether a fair dealing or other exception applies.
Two provisions are worth knowing. Section 115(3) means that where the infringement is established but you were not aware and had no reasonable grounds for suspecting that what you were doing infringed, damages are not available against you, although an account of profits still is. And section 115(4) allows a court to award additional damages having regard to the flagrancy of the infringement, the need to deter, and expressly the conduct of the defendant after being informed of the allegation. How a business responds to the first letter is itself a factor in what it ultimately pays, which is a reason to take advice before replying rather than after.
Trusted on the matters that mattered most
From my very first phone call, I knew I was in good hands. The team handled my matter promptly and with the utmost professionalism. Their excellent communication and consistent updates gave me complete confidence throughout the process.
Highly professional, compassionate staff with a high level of knowledge and competence. Reliable, reassuring and there when you need them. Highly recommend.
From the moment I contacted Pentana Stanton Lawyers, I was under significant stress and needed clarity about my case. Their prompt and professional response stood out immediately, especially compared to other firms I had reached out to.
Questions businesses ask first
Last reviewed August 2026. Statutory references are current to the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) Compilation No. 65, in force 2 April 2026. This page is general information, not legal advice.
Find out what you actually own.
If your business relies on a brand, a website, software or content, it is worth knowing whether you own it or merely use it. Arrange a consultation and we will work through your key assets and the contracts behind them.
See also: Business Law, Business Sales & Acquisitions, Urgent Injunctions, Commercial Litigation.