The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has recently released their decision on the appeal of the 2024 case Australian News Channel Pty Ltd v Isentia Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 363. To read more about the original decision, see our article here.

The 2025 appeal has been dismissed with costs after the Australian News Channel Pty Ltd (Australian News) attempted to argue that the primary judge’s interpretation of section 183(1) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) was too broad, leading to Isentia Pty Ltd (Isentia), a media monitoring service, incorrectly being able to claim the section 183(1) exception to Australian News’ allegation of copyright infringement.

Section 183(1) provides that copyright in a work, recording, film or broadcast is not infringed by the Commonwealth or a State, or a person authorised in writing by either, doing any acts comprised in the copyright if the acts are done for the services of the Commonwealth or State.

Australian News attempted to argue on appeal that an act will only fall within the scope of section 183(1) if ‘there is a direct connection between the act comprised in copyright and the provision of a governmental service to the citizenry’¹, that is, that the scope of section 183(1) is limited to direct uses of copyright material in the provision of services to members of the public by the Commonwealth, State or authorised third party.

Australian News attempted to argue its position using the legislative history, the application of particular principles of statutory construction, and the statutory text and context itself. The court did not agree with Australian News’ interpretation and instead held that the legislative history and context ‘intended to confer a broad permission to use copyright material, for any purposes of the Crown, subject to an obligation to pay reasonable compensation’.²

At a factual level, Australian News attempted to argue that Isentia should not have the benefit of the section 183(1) exception because Isentia’s media monitoring services were not used in the provision of outward-facing services and that Isentia unnecessarily copied a large amount of Australian News’ copyright material. The court found that the court’s construction of section 183(1) meant that services for the Commonwealth or State did not have to be outward facing to meet the legislative requirements and that the redundant copying still satisfied the statutory test of section 183(1) as the copying was the means by which the contracted service was provided to the Commonwealth or State.

Overall, the attempted appeal has confirmed that the operation of section 183(1) remains broad and includes acts done for the purpose of benefitting ‘the Government entity by assisting its employees or officers in the performance of their functions’.³

HWL Ebsworth’s IP, Technology & Media team has extensive experience advising both businesses and consumers on the implications of, and protections available under, copyright law. If you have any questions or concerns about how your actions may interact with current and emerging copyright laws, please do not hesitate to contact us.

This article was written by Luke Dale, Partner, Michelle Betschart, Special Counsel and Bellarose Watts, Law Graduate.

¹ Australian News Channel Pty Ltd v Isentia Pty Limited [2025] FCAFC 49 at [6].

² Australian News Channel Pty Ltd v Isentia Pty Limited [2025] FCAFC 49 at [32].

³ Australian News Channel Pty Ltd v Isentia Pty Limited [2024] FCA 363 at [76].