Copyright and permissions when using real people or events

Navigating copyright and permissions when using real people or events is a core publishing responsibility. A compelling interview may contain original writing, photographs, audio, private correspondence and social media posts that cannot automatically be reproduced. The people depicted may also have concerns about privacy, reputation and whether their participation is being used in a way they did not expect or approve.

Australia’s legal framework separates several of these issues. Copyright generally protects original expression rather than facts, while privacy and defamation laws address the consequences of publishing personal information or harmful statements. Moral rights, contractual obligations and the terms attached to an event ticket or online account can create further restrictions. Each layer needs a different check.

A sound rights-clearance process should therefore happen before a manuscript, podcast, video or promotional campaign enters production. Identifying sources early makes it easier to obtain suitable permission, avoid expensive substitutions and preserve the trust of contributors. Keeping written records also helps editors explain later why a particular image, quotation or identifying detail was included.

Why factual stories can still carry legal risk

Facts are generally free for another publisher to report, but the way those facts are expressed may be protected. An eyewitness account of a community event might contain details that are not copyrightable, while a polished transcript, annotated photograph, edited recording or commissioned illustration can be. A short interview may receive thin copyright protection if it consists mainly of facts and routine questions, but that should not be assumed without considering how it was created.

The status of a person’s story also differs from the status of the material recording it. A participant does not necessarily own the copyright in an interviewer’s questions, an editor’s notes or footage made by a third party. Likewise, ownership of a photograph does not remove the need to consider the privacy of the person shown, the permission of a property owner or restrictions attached to the original commission.

Allegations require particular care because a statement may be truthful in isolation yet misleading when shortened or placed beside another statement. Context, corroboration and the opportunity to respond can matter as much as the underlying words. Editors should distinguish verified fact, attributed claim, opinion and unresolved allegation, preserving the qualifications that give each statement its meaning.

Copyright, privacy and defamation do different work

The Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) protects categories such as literary and dramatic works, photographs, sound recordings and broadcasts. Ownership usually starts with the creator, subject to employment and commissioning arrangements. Australia has specific fair-dealing exceptions, but no broad fair-use exception that automatically covers every helpful or newsworthy use. A licence, written permission or a clearly applicable statutory exception must therefore support the proposed use.

Privacy is a separate concern. The federal Privacy Act 1988 generally applies to government agencies and organisations with annual turnover of $3 million or more, subject to exceptions and current thresholds. It does not automatically govern every small publisher, household or independent creator. State and territory law may still protect confidential information or an unreasonable intrusion into private affairs. Australia also has no broad standalone publicity right, although passing-off, misleading-conduct, contract and privacy issues can arise when a person’s image is used to create a false impression of endorsement.

Defamation laws operate mainly at state and territory level and can apply to websites, social posts, broadcasts and printed material. Potentially defamatory material may be actionable when it identifies a person and causes or threatens serious harm to reputation. Available defences include truth, honest opinion, public interest and responsible publication in an appropriate context, but their requirements differ between jurisdictions. A legal review is especially valuable for allegations involving abuse, negligence, criminal conduct or professional misconduct.

Turning an interview into usable permission

Permission should be discussed while the interview is being arranged, rather than requested after the material has been commissioned, edited or scheduled for publication. An oral agreement may be understandable at the time, but a written record provides a much clearer basis for later editorial, commercial and promotional use. Contributors should be told that their words, voice and images may appear in a book, website, social campaign, audio edition or related media.

A release should identify the material and explain the intended use. Useful details include permitted edits, publication channels, duration, territory, exclusivity, payment or commission, attribution preferences and any sensitive material the contributor wants reconsidered. A participant should understand that agreeing to a story is not the same as allowing their name or likeness to advertise an unrelated product. Consent to one edition or campaign should not silently expand into every future use.

Children and vulnerable contributors need additional safeguards. For a minor, publishers may need consent from a parent or legal guardian as well as age-appropriate agreement from the child. Consent should be voluntary, and payment must not be presented as a condition that overrides refusal. Editors should also consider whether the subject can understand the publication’s likely audience, how identifiable they will be and whether sensitive details could expose them to harm or long-term stigma.

Clearing archives and social media material

Archive and stock collections can provide valuable historical images, but a visible image is not necessarily available for commercial republication. The photographer, estate, archive or collecting institution may own the copyright or impose conditions on access and reuse. Collections such as Trove, the National Library of Australia and state libraries can hold material with different licence terms, while commercial agencies may require payment and provide only limited uses unless a broader licence is purchased.

Social media creates another common source of uncertainty. A public post may carry a limited platform licence, but that does not necessarily grant permission for a commercial book, advertisement or merchandise campaign. Screenshots can also capture several protected elements, including the original image, a caption, another person’s words and a distinctive design. Private messages, closed groups and comments may not be public at all, even when an account itself can be viewed. Direct contact is usually more reliable than assuming a “share” button authorises unrestricted reuse.

Permissions should be stored with the relevant source information rather than scattered across email inboxes. Editors should record who granted authority, what they approved, when the approval expires and which file or asset it covers. Proof stages provide a final opportunity to catch missing credits, altered captions or details that make a formerly anonymous participant identifiable. A clear complaints and takedown process lets the publisher respond when a contributor changes position or a rights holder raises a concern.

Covering real events and organisations

A public event is open to reporting, but that does not place every photograph, recording or performance in the public domain. Event tickets may contain conditions about photography, recording and commercial use. Venues can also publish rules concerning signs, drones, backstage areas, private performances or the collection of children’s images. Organisers may own footage commissioned for the event even though attendees took their own photographs and shared them online after leaving.

This distinction is familiar at major cultural events such as the Sydney Festival and Melbourne International Arts Festival, as well as at Brisbane community arts programs, local football matches, school performances and neighbourhood fundraisers. It is ordinary for Australian audiences to photograph a performer, teacher or sporting event and post the image to social media, yet a publisher republishing it in a book or campaign needs a separate basis. Music, branding and merchandise may also require clearance from rights holders, publishers, collecting societies such as APRA AMCOS and relevant record companies.

An organisation’s approval of a quotation does not transfer copyright in the information supplied. Spokespeople can provide statements, answer questions or supply documents, while the copyright in a submission may remain with its author. A logo or organisation name should be used accurately and proportionately, without suggesting that the organisation endorses the publication unless it has expressly agreed. If a story criticises an organisation, a clear right of reply and a fair account of its position can reduce both reputational and legal risk.

A rights process that fits an Australian publication

Start each project with a short rights assessment. Identify the contributor, source and owner of every photograph, recording, transcript and substantial quotation, then note any personal information, allegations, event restrictions or commercial uses. Material can be grouped into low-risk material, such as independently verified public facts; medium-risk material, such as consented interviews or licensed photographs; and high-risk material requiring specialist advice before publication.

A single source file should hold releases, licence records, fact-checking notes and the final approved wording of sensitive quotations. Editors should compare the manuscript against those records and check that edits have not created a new meaning. Names, occupations and locations can identify someone even when a first name or photograph is removed, so pseudonymisation should be tested by asking whether another person could recognise the subject.

National distribution also makes consistency important. Sydney and Melbourne are major centres for publishers, agencies, authors and screen and audio production, while finished publications often reach readers across the country. Federal copyright rules apply alongside state and territory defamation and privacy laws, and agreements may need to cover online use, overseas editions and future formats. A documented review by a qualified Australian legal adviser is prudent when the project includes serious allegations, extensive use of children’s images, confidential material or a significant commercial campaign.

Before commissioning a real-life story, build rights clearance into the brief and give contributors a clear explanation of how their material will be used. Early participation produces better records, more accurate expectations and fewer late-stage obstacles.

GODZ Child Productions produces and promotes publications while supporting authors, readers and the wider publishing market. Authors, rights holders and organisations can use the website’s contact details to discuss a publication, pre-order, product or new project, with copyright, consent and permissions considered from the outset.