Intellectual property protection

Employee or contractor – impact on intellectual property

HomePrivate: BlogCommercial lawEmployment law for employersEmployee or contractor – impact on intellectual property

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

We are often asked to advise whether an individual engaged by an organisation is an employee or contractor.  The answer to this question can have profound implications for commercialisation of intellectual property.

The answer to this question is often not straightforward as the law needs to be examined in the context of all the facts.

Test under the Fair Work Act

Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Fair Work Act) reference to an employee is taken to have its ordinary meaning.  Section 15 of the Fair Work Act states an employee with its ordinary meaning includes a person who is usually such an employee, except for a person on a vocational placement.

Determining what the ordinary meaning of an employee is can be a challenge, especially with society constantly evolving and new workplace relations developing over time.

Level of control

This question of employee vs contractor used to be answered by considering the level of control the organisation had over the worker.  The less control there was, the more likely it would be that a worker is an independent contractor, rather than an employee.  Although this may still be the case, looking at the level of control alone is not sufficient to answer this question.

Multi-factor test for employee vs contractor

In the case of Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16, Mason J said:

“the existence of control, whilst significant, is not the sole criterion by which to gauge whether a relationship is one for employment.  The approach of this Court has been to regard it merely as one of a number of indicia which much be considered in the determination of that question…”

Mason J subsequently set out a number of other matters to be considered when determining whether a person is an employee or a contractor.  These include, but are not limited to:

  •                the mode of remuneration;
  •                the provision and maintenance of equipment;
  •                the obligation to work;
  •                the hours of work and provision for holidays;
  •                the deduction of income tax; and
  •                the delegation of work by the putative employee.

In Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (Victoria) (1997) 37 ATR 528, the Court said that the question involves identifying:

“factors or indicia that are capable of pointing in one direction or another… and weighing or balancing them in order to reach a conclusion.” 

Parties’ intentions

The fact a person calls themself an employee or a contractor is not decisive of their status.  Although it may be relevant, cases such as Young & Woods Ltd v West [1980] IRLR 201 have well established that the intention of the parties’ or the labels which they put on themselves cannot alter or decide their true legal relationship.

Contract – “for Services” vs “of Service”

The contractual relationship between an employer and employee is often referred to as a Contract of Service.  In contrast, the contractual relationship between an organisation and independent contractor is referred to as a Contract for Services.

Some indications that a person is engaged under a Contract for Services include:

  • they provide their own materials, plant and equipment;
  • they have the power to delegate work to others;
  • they get paid by an agreed contract price once a particular result is produced or a particular project is completed;
  • they work on one off occasions rather than on a regular basis;
  • they can work for others without the organisation’s permission; and
  • they are personally responsible for the defects in their work.

In contrast, when taking into account other factors, indications that a person is employed under a Contract of Service include:

  • their employer has a right to exercise control over the them;
  • they are required to wear a uniform;
  • they work set hours; and
  • they receive paid leave, such as annual leave, sick leave and long service leave.

Implications for intellectual property

It is important to distinguish between an employee and an independent contractor when it comes to intellectual property rights.

Generally, where there is a Contract of Service, any intellectual property created by the employee will belong to their employer.  In contrast, it would be difficult for an organisation to claim ownership over intellectual property created by an independent contractor.

An example is copyright.  Copyright is a type of intellectual property created immediately upon the creation of a work protected by copyright.

Under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Copyright Act), the creators of works are the owners of the copyright.  However, section 35(6) of the Copyright Act provides that where such works are created under a Contract of Service, then the employer is the owner of the copyright in those works.

In contrast, if there was no Contract of Service, then the creator would retain copyright provided there is no contrary agreement.

There is a similar provision under section 13 of the Designs Act 2003 (Cth) in relation to ownership of a design.  Generally, an employer will be the registered owner of a design created by an employee during their employment unless there is an agreement to the contrary.

Assigning intellectual property

Intellectual property can be assigned between an organisation and its workers.  An agreement to assign intellectual property should be in writing.  Assignment of copyright does not have legal effect unless it is in writing and signed pursuant to section 196(3) of the Copyright Act.

Part 10 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) provides that trade marks should be assigned in writing and recorded with the Registrar of Trade Marks.

Section 14(a) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) also provides that an assignment of a patent must be in writing and signed.

To ensure intellectual property is properly assigned and recorded, the agreement should always be in writing and signed by the assignor and assignee.

The need to distinguish

For these reasons, it should be evident why a strict determination of whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor is necessary.  Not only will it assist in determining who will own the copyright or other intellectual property, but it will also clarify the rights and obligations of an individual, depending on the nature of the relationship they have with the organisation.

It is always best to put any kind agreement in writing, especially an agreement regarding who will own intellectual property rights that may arise during a project or length of employment.

Further information

If you’re unsure of the relationship with your workers or if you have concerns regarding your intellectual property rights, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:


Related insights about Intellectual Property Protection

  • White-Anting: An employer’s lawful termination guide

    White-Anting: An employer’s lawful termination guide

    Employees who use White Anting tactics to deliberately undermine management or disrupt workplace harmony may be summarily dismissed, provided the relevant legal conditions are met and a proper process is followed.  Following our 28 April 2026 article “White Anting: serious misconduct?“, this article provides practical “how to” steps for employers to lawfully dismiss employees who…

    Read more …

  • White Anting: serious misconduct?

    White Anting: serious misconduct?

    White Anting is an Australian term meaning to sabotage, undermine, or destroy an organisation, project, or person from within.  White Anting in the workplace often involves the quiet, insidious undermining of a colleague or superior through gossip, withholding information, exclusion, or spreading doubt.  White Anting  has been recognised by psychologists as a psychosocial hazard and…

    Read more …

  • Designer wins High Court case over Katy Perry trade mark dispute

    Designer wins High Court case over Katy Perry trade mark dispute

    On 11 March 2026, the High Court of Australia (High Court) delivered its judgment in the case of Taylor v Killer Queen, LLC [2026] HCA 5 (Taylor v Killer Queen), ending the seventeen (17) year trade mark dispute between pop star Katy Perry and Australian fashion designer Katie Jane Taylor. In a 3:2 majority decision,…

    Read more …

  • Full Court clarifies confidentiality of supplier and contact info

    Full Court clarifies confidentiality of supplier and contact info

    On 10 May 2023, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) delivered its judgment in the case of New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung [2023] FCAFC 67 (New Aim v Leung), allowing an appeal concerning alleged misuse of confidential supplier information by a former senior employee. The decision provides guidance on:…

    Read more …

  • Proposed changes to copyright for orphan works

    Proposed changes to copyright for orphan works

    On 5 November 2025, the Copyright Amendment Bill 2025 (Cth)(Bill) was introduced to the Federal Parliament to amend the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)(Copyright Act).  The media release to the Bill explained that it proposed two (2) reforms to the Copyright Act by establishing Australia’s first statutory “orphan works” scheme and clarifying the permitted use of…

    Read more …

  • Bill to allow victims of AI deepfakes to sue for emotional damages

    Bill to allow victims of AI deepfakes to sue for emotional damages

    On 24 November 2025, Senator David Pocock introduced a private Senator’s bill, the Online Safety and Other Legislation Amendment (My Face, My Rights) Bill 2025 (Cth) (Bill) to amend the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth) (Online Safety Act) and the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Privacy Act). 

    Read more …

  • OAIC publishes new guidance for under-16s social media ban

    OAIC publishes new guidance for under-16s social media ban

    On 10 October 2025, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC), led by Privacy Commissioner, Ms Carly Kind, released a twenty-nine (29) page Privacy Guidance on Part 4A (Social Media Minimum Age) of the Online Safety Act 2021 (New Guidance).  This New Guidance details the privacy obligations for Age-Restricted Social Media Platforms (Restricted Platforms)…

    Read more …

  • Australians soon facing age checks when viewing adult websites

    Australians soon facing age checks when viewing adult websites

    On 9 September 2025, the eSafety Commissioner, Mrs Julie Inman Grant (Commissioner), registered six (6) new codes (New Codes) under the Online Safety Act 2021(Cth) (Online Safety Act) aimed at protecting children from the “clear and present” dangers of harmful AI chatbots and other online adult content.  On 9 March 2026, these New Codes will…

    Read more …

  • Productivity Commission recommends AI copyright exception

    Productivity Commission recommends AI copyright exception

    The Australian Government Productivity Commission (Commission) released an interim report on 5 August 2025 titled ‘harnessing data and digital technology’ (Report).  The Report  was in response to Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ request for the Commission to identify priority reforms related to “the Government’s productivity growth agenda”.[1]  The Report stated that the Government’s focus should be on…

    Read more …

Send this to a friend