The Legal Light Justin Stack Legal battle over who owns animal cruelty video A legal battle is taking place in court to block animal rights activists from publicly sharing covertly recorded video they made of alleged animal cruel- ty in an abattoir. The activist group Farm Transparency Project, cam- paigning against animal exploitation and suffering at farms and abattoirs, had secretly placed video cameras in a halal abattoir that processes goat meat for export. The Game Meats Company operates legally under licence and has an abattoir in Eurobin, Victoria. In 2023 activists secretly broke into the premises seven times to install video cameras and record the slaughter of goats. The activists admit they trespassed, but claim the videos recorded animal cruelty. They sent the footage to authorities and a local TV station, and posted some of the footage on their website. Game Meats took successful court action to block the vid- eo from being broadcast, arguing it would amount to ongoing trespass. In 2025 the Full Court of the Federal Court ordered the activists not to publish any of the footage and, in a controversial move, ruled the activists did not have copyright of the footage, but held it in trust for Game Meats. The court ordered the activist group pay Game Meats $130,000 in damages. The matter is now proceeding to the High Court. Anneka Frayne at Stacks Law Firm says until this decision, the copyright owner was generally held to be the person who created the footage, image, text or invention. "It is illegal to trespass and take videos or photos of someone on private property. But the question of who owns rights to the footage that was secretly and illegally recorded at the abattoir could have ramifications for copyright in much wider terms," Ms Frayne said. "Awarding copyright to Game Meats means the footage alleging animal cruelty is now owned by the company. Does that decision mean any leaked CCTV footage of cruelty, or worse, in prisons or police stations could also be barred from public broadcast, because the owner of the premises could claim copyright?" Human Rights Law Centre legal director Kieran Pender said the decision broke whistleblower laws and could enable wrongdoers to hide corruption. "The law should not permit perpetrators of wrong- doing to use copyright law and equity to keep evidence of wrongdoing hidden, nor prevent third parties, including the media, reporting on it," Mr Pender said. Game Meats argued authorities regularly inspected the abattoir and found no wrongdoing, and the footage had been acquired illegally through trespass. In their submissions to the High Court, the abattoir's lawyers argued the repeated trespass infringed its fundamental right to "exclude others from viewing or exposing what occurred therein". STACKS LAW FIRM Tim Stack Commercial Lawyer 02 6592 6592 taree.stacklaw.com.au Partners in life The Legal Light Justin Stack Legal battle over who owns animal cruelty video A legal battle is taking place in court to block animal rights activists from publicly sharing covertly recorded video they made of alleged animal cruel- ty in an abattoir . The activist group Farm Transparency Project , cam- paigning against animal exploitation and suffering at farms and abattoirs , had secretly placed video cameras in a halal abattoir that processes goat meat for export . The Game Meats Company operates legally under licence and has an abattoir in Eurobin , Victoria . In 2023 activists secretly broke into the premises seven times to install video cameras and record the slaughter of goats . The activists admit they trespassed , but claim the videos recorded animal cruelty . They sent the footage to authorities and a local TV station , and posted some of the footage on their website . Game Meats took successful court action to block the vid- eo from being broadcast , arguing it would amount to ongoing trespass . In 2025 the Full Court of the Federal Court ordered the activists not to publish any of the footage and , in a controversial move , ruled the activists did not have copyright of the footage , but held it in trust for Game Meats . The court ordered the activist group pay Game Meats $ 130,000 in damages . The matter is now proceeding to the High Court . Anneka Frayne at Stacks Law Firm says until this decision , the copyright owner was generally held to be the person who created the footage , image , text or invention . " It is illegal to trespass and take videos or photos of someone on private property . But the question of who owns rights to the footage that was secretly and illegally recorded at the abattoir could have ramifications for copyright in much wider terms , " Ms Frayne said . " Awarding copyright to Game Meats means the footage alleging animal cruelty is now owned by the company . Does that decision mean any leaked CCTV footage of cruelty , or worse , in prisons or police stations could also be barred from public broadcast , because the owner of the premises could claim copyright ? " Human Rights Law Centre legal director Kieran Pender said the decision broke whistleblower laws and could enable wrongdoers to hide corruption . " The law should not permit perpetrators of wrong- doing to use copyright law and equity to keep evidence of wrongdoing hidden , nor prevent third parties , including the media , reporting on it , " Mr Pender said . Game Meats argued authorities regularly inspected the abattoir and found no wrongdoing , and the footage had been acquired illegally through trespass . In their submissions to the High Court , the abattoir's lawyers argued the repeated trespass infringed its fundamental right to " exclude others from viewing or exposing what occurred therein " . STACKS LAW FIRM Tim Stack Commercial Lawyer 02 6592 6592 taree.stacklaw.com.au Partners in life