Copyright and the News

Credit : Getty Images

Copyright and the News

When Can the Media Use Your Content?

Copyright and news reporting collide every day. A breaking story runs with a social-media photo; a news site embeds a video; a TV bulletin uses a portrait sourced “from the internet”. For creators, the real question is simple: when can the media use my work without asking, and when is it copyright infringement?

In Australia, the answer sits in the Copyright Act’s “fair dealing” rules. These aren’t a free pass for news outlets. They’re narrow exceptions, with real limits. Understanding them helps creators, photographers and small businesses work out if a broadcaster or newspaper has crossed the line – and what to do about it.

Copyright protects original works such as photographs, articles, designs, music, films and more. You don’t need to register; it arises automatically when you create something original in material form. Using someone else’s work without permission – for example, reproducing a whole photograph in a TV news story – is usually infringement unless a specific exception applies.

One of the most important exceptions for media is fair dealing for the purpose of reporting news. This has two key parts. First, the use must genuinely be for reporting news or a current event – not just to decorate a story or promote a program. Second, the use must be “fair” in all the circumstances. For some kinds of use (for example in newspapers, magazines and similar publications) the law also requires “sufficient acknowledgment”, which in plain English means proper credit for the creator and the work.

“News” is interpreted broadly. It covers breaking stories, updates in ongoing matters, political and public-interest reporting, and coverage of events like awards nights and major sporting fixtures. But not every mention of a public figure automatically counts. A soft lifestyle feature or a long-running tribute page is more about entertainment than news. The law looks at the dominant purpose of the use: is the content really informing the audience about something newsworthy, or just adding colour and filling airtime?

Even if the purpose is news reporting, the dealing must also be fair. Fairness is judged by looking at the whole picture. Has the outlet used the whole work or just a small part? Is there a real commercial impact on the creator – for example, is there a clear market where that creator routinely licenses photos to media for a set fee? Could the outlet easily have licensed appropriate material instead of taking it? Is the work being used in a commercial, ratings-driven context, or briefly in a genuinely public-interest story? And did the outlet act in good faith, or did it simply ignore standard licensing processes?

Attribution matters too. Separate from copyright, creators have “moral rights”, including the right to be named as the author where it’s reasonable to do so. If a broadcaster repeatedly uses a photographer’s images with no credit, that can undermine any fair dealing argument and raise moral rights claims in its own right. In practice, a pattern of unlicensed, uncredited, commercial use is legally and reputationally risky for the outlet.

Take a typical scenario

Scenario 1 – Breaking news photo

A news website runs several articles over a few days about a major accident at a music festival. It lifts a striking crowd photo from a freelance photographer’s Instagram and uses it full-frame in multiple stories and social media posts, without permission or credit. Later, the outlet offers a small lump sum to “cover” all uses once the photographer complains. Whether this is covered by fair dealing for reporting news depends on a range of factors – including purpose, fairness and impact on the photographer’s licensing market – and is something that really needs to be assessed by a lawyer with experience in copyright and media.

Scenario 2 – Awards-night

A TV network produces a glossy montage for an annual awards night showing past red-carpet moments. It includes several professional red-carpet shots taken by a freelance photographer years earlier, sourced from online copies and used without any licence or on-screen credit. The images are played during the live broadcast and re-used in promos for the event. Again, whether this falls within any fair dealing exception is highly fact-specific and turns on details like how the images were used, how often, and what commercial market they affect. These are judgment calls best made by lawyers who regularly deal with copyright and news-media disputes.

Online news– there goes my photo online again!

Online news sites face similar issues.

A timely article on a breaking event may well meet the “news” purpose requirement, but a long-running gallery, “10 best looks” or generic biography page is much harder to justify under a news reporting exception. And because it’s easy to add “Photo: [Photographer’s Name]” on a website, failure to do so is difficult to defend. That can harm both the fair dealing defence and the outlet’s position on moral rights.

Things look particularly bad for a media group that uses a photographer’s work systematically across TV, web and print without permission. At that point, it’s hard to characterise the situation as a series of isolated fair dealings. It looks more like a deliberate business practice of acquiring premium content for free. The cumulative commercial harm to the creator is greater, and the risk of additional damages for “flagrant” infringement increases.

For creators, the practical steps are straightforward, even if the law is nuanced. Keep a record of any media use of your work: screenshots, dates, URLs, program names, and whether you were credited. Keep your licensing history and rate card handy, so you can show that there is a real market and what it’s worth. Try to distinguish between truly news-driven, time-limited uses and longer-term, feature-style or promotional uses. And remember that lack of attribution can be a separate moral rights issue, even if the outlet tries to argue fair dealing.

For news organisations the message is clear

For news organisations, the message is equally clear. Fair dealing is a narrow exception, not a blanket licence to lift content from social media, agency sites or Google Images. If you’re relying on fair dealing, you need to be sure the use is genuinely for reporting news, limited to what is reasonably necessary, and consistent with industry good faith. Where a creator is identifiable, attribution is both courteous and legally safer. Where the use goes beyond the immediate news cycle or clearly replaces a paid licence, the safer path is almost always to seek permission and pay for what you use.

Ultimately, copyright and news reporting are about balance. The law recognises the public interest in timely information, but it also protects the work and livelihoods of creators. Understanding where that line sits helps both sides – media and makers alike – stay on the right side of the law.

Why use a lawyer?

Copyright and media law can look deceptively simple in articles, but the real battles are fought in the details: what was actually used, how often, in what context, and what the outlet’s defences and internal documents might say. A lawyer can help you work out which uses are genuinely worth pursuing, translate your evidence into strong, legally coherent claims (including copyright, moral rights and contract issues), and negotiate from a position of strength so you’re not pushed into low “nuisance” offers. They can also coordinate strategy across multiple outlets and countries, so that one settlement doesn’t accidentally undermine another case, and shield you from the stress of dealing directly with large media legal teams.

Please note the above article is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice.

Please email us info@iplegal.com.au if you need legal advice about your brand or another legal matter in this area generally.