Who controls trespass footage? Here’s what the High Court’s answer means for animals – and press freedom

The High Court of Australia's decision in a recent case regarding an abattoir's attempt to control the circulation of video footage allegedly depicting animal cruelty has significant implications beyond animal welfare concerns. The court ruled that an abattoir cannot use copyright law to restrict who sees the footage, but the activists who trespassed to film the video were ordered to destroy their copies.

This case highlights the existing inadequacies in farmed animal welfare regulation in Australia, which is primarily driven by industry bodies. The court's judgment emphasizes the importance of the public's ability to access truthful information for assessing such practices, as inadequate regulation allows scandals such as live export and greyhound live-baiting to go unaddressed.

While the decision protects the free speech of journalists and whistleblowers, it underscores the need for a broader debate on how accurate information on matters of public interest should be treated, especially when it may harm a business by altering consumer behavior.