Website Content and Copyright Lawyers Adelaide: Copy, Photos, Stock Images, AI Content and Licences
Website content and copyright in South Australia
Most businesses assume they own the words and pictures on their website because they paid for them. Copyright law usually says otherwise, unless the right document was signed. Talon Legal drafts content supply agreements, assignments, licences and moral rights consents for Adelaide businesses, and acts when their content is copied. Book a same-day free 30-minute consultation or call (08) 7094 2021.
Website copyright key facts
| Issue | Position in South Australia |
|---|---|
| What copyright protects | Original literary works (copy, code) and artistic works (photographs, graphics), without registration (Copyright Act section 32). |
| The owner's rights | Literary works: reproduce, publish, perform, communicate to the public and adapt. Artistic works: reproduce, publish and communicate to the public (section 31(1)). |
| Who owns it | The author, unless the author made it as an employee under a contract of service (section 35(2) and (6)). |
| Commissioned photographs | The commissioning party owns them only if taken for a private or domestic purpose, or for portraits and engravings (section 35(5)). Business photography stays with the photographer unless assigned. |
| Assignments | No effect unless in writing and signed by or on behalf of the assignor (section 196(3)). Future copyright can be assigned before the work exists (section 197(1)). |
| Exclusive licences | Must be in writing and signed by or on behalf of the owner (section 10(1), definition of exclusive licence). |
| Moral rights | Attribution and integrity (sections 193 and 195AI). Not assignable (section 195AN(3)). A genuine written consent for specified acts and works removes infringement (section 195AWA). |
| AI and computer-generated content | Copyright needs human authorship. Material produced by a program, without a person directing its form, was held not to be an original work (Acohs v Ucorp at [57] to [58]). |
| Infringement | Doing an act comprised in the copyright without a licence (section 36(1)). Remedies: injunction and damages or an account of profits, and additional damages in flagrant cases (section 115). |
| First step | Same-day free 30-minute consultation. Call (08) 7094 2021. |
Need a website copyright lawyer in Adelaide?
Our website copyright lawyers in Adelaide act for businesses commissioning copy, photography, video and design, for the copywriters, photographers and agencies that create it, and for owners whose content has been copied. A content supply agreement settles what will be created, what the business may do with it, and who owns it. The Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) decides ownership wherever the agreement is silent. This page states the law current to 24 October 2026.
This guide is part of our online business and e-commerce practice. Related guides cover website development agreements, web and digital contractor agreements, website terms of use and technology IP and IT disputes.
For campaign creative, influencer content and customer photos, see our guides to marketing agency agreements, influencer agreements and testimonial and image consents.
Photographers and course creators can also see our guides to photography terms and conditions and online course terms and disclaimers.
For content written or illustrated with AI tools, see our guide to AI-generated content and copyright.
Free Consultation. Send us the brief, the quote or the copied page. Book a same-day free 30-minute consultation or call (08) 7094 2021.
On this page
- What rights does copyright give over website content?
- Who owns copy, photos and graphics a business pays for?
- Should a business take an assignment or a licence?
- What are moral rights and how are they managed?
- Can a business use stock images and images found online?
- Who owns AI-generated content?
- What should a content supply agreement cover?
- What happens if a business's content is copied?
- How similar matters tend to play out
- How we act on website content and copyright
- Case law
- Frequently asked questions
What rights does copyright give over website content?
Exclusive control of copying and online communication. Copyright subsists in an original literary or artistic work whose author was a qualified person, or that was first published in Australia, without any registration (Copyright Act section 32). Website copy and code are literary works. Photographs, illustrations, logos and graphics are artistic works.
For a literary work, copyright is the exclusive right to reproduce it in a material form, publish it, perform it in public, communicate it to the public and make an adaptation of it (section 31(1)(a)). For an artistic work, it is the exclusive right to reproduce, publish and communicate it to the public (section 31(1)(b)). Putting content on a website is both reproduction and communication to the public.
Anyone who does one of those acts without the owner’s licence infringes, and so does anyone who authorises it (section 36(1)). That is why the chain of ownership, or a written licence, matters for everything on a site.
Who owns copy, photos and graphics a business pays for?
The person who created them, in most cases. The author of a literary or artistic work owns the copyright (Copyright Act section 35(2)). If the author created it as an employee under a contract of service, the employer owns it (section 35(6)). A freelance copywriter, photographer or designer is not an employee, so paying them does not transfer the copyright.
There is a narrow exception for commissioned photographs. Where a person agrees, for valuable consideration, to have a photograph taken for a private or domestic purpose, or a portrait painted or drawn, or an engraving made, the person who commissioned it owns the copyright (section 35(5)). Product photography, team photos and other images for a business website are not taken for a private or domestic purpose, so the exception does not apply to them.
Ownership moves only in writing. An assignment of copyright has no effect unless it is in writing and signed by or on behalf of the assignor (section 196(3)). An agreement signed before the work is made can assign the future copyright, which then vests in the business when the work comes into existence (section 197(1)).
Should a business take an assignment or a licence?
That depends on how the content will be used and what the creator will accept. An assignment transfers ownership, so the business can use, adapt and enforce the copyright as it likes. A licence is permission to use the work on stated terms, while the creator keeps ownership.
Licences come in two kinds. An exclusive licence authorises the licensee to the exclusion of all others, and must be in writing and signed by or on behalf of the owner (section 10(1), definition of exclusive licence). A non-exclusive licence leaves the creator free to license the same work to others, which may not matter for a blog photo and may matter a great deal for a brand image.
Photographers and illustrators often prefer to license, because their business is reusing their archive. A licence can work well if it covers the right media, territory and period, allows cropping and editing, permits use by the business’s agencies and successors, and cannot be ended for a minor breach. A website copyright lawyer will match the scope of the rights to how the business actually uses its content.
What are moral rights and how are they managed?
Personal rights the author keeps even after selling the copyright. The author of a work has a right of attribution, to be identified as the author when the work is used (Copyright Act section 193), and a right of integrity, not to have the work subjected to derogatory treatment (section 195AI).
Moral rights cannot be assigned. A moral right in respect of a work is not transmissible by assignment, by will, or by devolution by operation of law (section 195AN(3)). An assignment of copyright therefore leaves the creator’s moral rights in place.
The solution is a written consent. It is not an infringement of a moral right to do something within the scope of a written consent genuinely given by the author (section 195AWA(2)). The consent must relate to specified acts or classes of acts, and to specified works or works of a particular description, which can include works not yet made (section 195AWA(3)). A content supply agreement should include one that covers editing, cropping, combining and publishing without attribution where that is how the business works.
Can a business use stock images and images found online?
Stock images, yes, within the licence. Images found through a search engine, generally no. A photograph published online is still protected by copyright, because copyright arises without registration (section 32) and gives the owner the exclusive right to reproduce and communicate it (section 31(1)(b)).
Stock licences vary: some exclude logos and trade marks, some limit print runs or audience size, some prohibit use with sensitive subjects, and many are personal to the licensee. A business should keep a record of each licence with the image, because the licence is its defence if a rights holder writes to it.
Infringing use can be expensive. In an action for infringement, the court may grant an injunction and either damages or an account of profits (section 115(2)). It may also award additional damages, having regard to the flagrancy of the infringement, the need to deter similar infringements, the infringer’s conduct after being told, and any benefit to the infringer (section 115(4)). An infringer who did not know and had no reasonable grounds to suspect infringement is not liable for damages, but can still be ordered to account for profits (section 115(3)).
Who owns AI-generated content?
Possibly nobody, if no person shaped the result. Copyright protects works that originate from human authors. In Telstra Corporation Ltd v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd [2010] FCAFC 149, directories compiled largely by computer processes were held not to attract copyright. Perram J said that where a computer performs the functions ordinarily performed by human authors, and no person controls the material form, copyright does not subsist ([118]). Yates J treated it as a question of fact and degree ([169]).
In Acohs Pty Ltd v Ucorp Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 16, HTML source code produced by the operation of a program on data entered into it did not emanate from authors and was not an original work ([57] to [58]).
Text or images generated by an AI tool, with little human input into their form, may therefore not be protected, and a competitor may be free to copy them. Content a person substantially writes or edits, using a tool, is more likely to be protected. A content supply agreement should require the supplier to disclose AI use and promise that the business will get the rights it is paying for.
What should a content supply agreement cover?
The brief, the rights and the promises. The agreement should describe the deliverables and the approval process, the number of revisions, and the fee. It should then deal with ownership: an assignment of the copyright, or a licence with a defined scope, plus a moral rights consent.
The supplier should promise that the content is original or properly licensed, that it does not infringe anyone’s rights, and that any third-party material, such as stock images, music or fonts, is identified with its licence terms. The business usually wants an indemnity if that promise proves wrong. The supplier will want the business to promise that material it supplies, such as logos and product photos, is its to use.
Practical terms matter too: delivery of source files and full-resolution images, credit lines where the creator wants them, and what happens to unused material. Our contractor agreements guide covers the broader engagement terms.
What happens if a business’s content is copied?
The business can act, if it owns the copyright or holds an exclusive licence. The owner of a copyright may bring an action for infringement (Copyright Act section 115(1)), and an exclusive licensee has concurrent rights of action against anyone other than the owner (section 119). Reproducing or communicating the content without a licence infringes (section 36(1)).
Most cases resolve with a letter. A letter of demand that identifies the work, proves ownership, and asks for removal and an undertaking usually works, because the remedies available to a court include an injunction, damages or an account of profits, and additional damages for flagrant infringement (section 115(2) and (4)). A business that cannot show it owns the content, because it never took an assignment, may have to bring the creator in first.
Copying on a large platform can often be dealt with through the platform’s own copyright complaint process, which is quicker than a court. The same ownership evidence is needed.
How similar matters tend to play out
Three illustrations of how the law on this page combines on ordinary facts. They are not predictions. Outcome depends on the documents, the evidence and the court.
Lower range. A boutique pays a photographer for product shots and later uses them in a print catalogue. The photographer objects that the agreement only covered the website. Business photography is not within section 35(5), so the photographer owns the copyright, and the scope of the licence decides the catalogue use. A short licence extension usually settles it.
Middle range. A rival copies a winery’s product descriptions and tasting notes onto its own site. The winery’s copywriter was a freelancer who never assigned the copyright. To enforce, the winery needs a written assignment from the copywriter (section 196(3)) before sending a demand.
Upper range. A marketing agency uses an AI image tool to create a campaign for a client and assigns “all copyright” to the client. A competitor reuses the images. If no person shaped their form, copyright may not subsist (Telstra v Phone Directories at [118]; Acohs at [57] to [58]), and the client’s remedy may lie against the agency under the agreement rather than against the competitor.
How we act on website content and copyright
We act for businesses commissioning content and for the creators and agencies who supply it. For a business, the aim is clear ownership or a licence that fits its use, a moral rights consent, and protection against infringement claims. For a creator, it is terms that protect its archive and get it paid.
| Stage | What happens | What we do |
|---|---|---|
| Brief | The business plans the content and chooses a supplier. | Decide between assignment and licence for each kind of content. |
| Drafting | The content supply agreement is prepared or reviewed. | Draft the rights, moral rights consent, warranties, AI disclosure and indemnity. |
| Clean up | Existing content has unclear ownership. | Obtain assignments, licences and consents from past creators. |
| Copying | Someone copies the business's content. | Prove ownership, send demands and advise on remedies. |
| Claim | A rights holder accuses the business of infringement. | Check licences, assess exposure and negotiate. |
We cannot promise an outcome, and no lawyer can. We can make sure the business can prove it owns, or is licensed to use, what is on its site.
Every hour matters. Book a same-day free 30-minute consultation, or call (08) 7094 2021 now.
Website copyright case law
Both decisions concern whether material produced with heavy computer involvement has a human author, which is the question AI-generated website content now raises.
| Case | Court | Principle | Pinpoint |
|---|---|---|---|
| Telstra Corporation Ltd v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd [2010] FCAFC 149 | Full Federal Court | Computer-generated works need a human author | [118], [169] |
| Acohs Pty Ltd v Ucorp Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 16 | Full Federal Court | Program-generated source code not an original work | [57], [58] |
Case notes
Telstra Corporation Ltd v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd [2010] FCAFC 149
The Full Court dismissed the appeal, so copyright did not subsist in the directories (orders). Perram J said that where a computer performs the functions ordinarily performed by human authors, and the operator does not control the material form, copyright does not subsist ([118]). Yates J treated originality as a question of fact and degree, and held the computerised process so significant that the compilations did not originate from authors ([169]).
Acohs Pty Ltd v Ucorp Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 16
The Full Court held that HTML source code produced by the operation of a program on data entered into it did not emanate from human authors and was not an original work, agreeing with the primary judge ([57] to [58]).
Frequently asked questions
Who owns website copy written by a freelance copywriter?
The copywriter, unless the copyright is assigned in writing and signed (Copyright Act sections 35(2) and 196(3)). Only work by an employee under a contract of service belongs to the employer automatically (section 35(6)).
Does a business own photos it paid a photographer to take?
Usually not. The commissioning party owns commissioned photographs only if they were taken for a private or domestic purpose (section 35(5)). Business photography belongs to the photographer unless assigned.
What is the difference between an assignment and a licence?
An assignment transfers ownership of the copyright. A licence is permission to use the work on stated terms while the creator keeps ownership.
Does an exclusive licence need to be in writing?
Yes. An exclusive licence is a licence in writing, signed by or on behalf of the owner, authorising the licensee to the exclusion of all others (Copyright Act section 10(1)).
What are moral rights?
The author’s rights to be attributed and not to have the work subjected to derogatory treatment (sections 193 and 195AI). They stay with the author even after the copyright is sold (section 195AN(3)).
Can moral rights be waived?
A written consent genuinely given by the author, covering specified acts and works, means those acts do not infringe (section 195AWA). It can cover works not yet made.
Can a business use images found on Google?
Not without a licence. Copyright arises without registration (section 32), and reproducing or communicating an image without the owner’s licence infringes (sections 31 and 36).
Is AI-generated content protected by copyright?
Possibly not, if no person shaped its form. Computer-generated material without human authorship was held not to attract copyright in Telstra v Phone Directories ([118]) and Acohs v Ucorp ([57] to [58]).
What should a content supply agreement include?
The brief and deliverables, approvals and revisions, the fee, an assignment or a defined licence, a moral rights consent, originality and non-infringement promises, identification of third-party material, and an indemnity.
What can a business do if its website content is copied?
If it owns the copyright, demand removal and, if needed, sue. The court can grant an injunction and damages or an account of profits, with additional damages for flagrant infringement (section 115).
Do I need a website copyright lawyer?
If the business commissions content or has had content copied, yes. A website copyright lawyer can secure ownership and consents before they are needed. A free 30-minute consultation will tell you where you stand.
Related online business guides
Related guides
- Online business and e-commerce lawyers Adelaide
- Website development agreements
- Web and digital contractor agreements
- Website terms of use
- Online sales terms and consumer law
- Technology IP and IT disputes
- Information technology lawyers Adelaide
- Script options and adaptation rights
- Music licensing, sync and composer agreements
- Startups