Artist Richard Bell in his Brisbane studio. Credit:Paul Harris However, after Bell returned to Australia, Steele claimed she owned the copyright to the film and forced Vimeo to remove it from public exhibition. Bell launched Federal Court action against Steele last October to establish that he owned the copyright to the film, and sought damages for financial losses suffered due to her threats. The court agreed with Mr Bell's claims: "It is clear the client made groundless threats against both the applicant and his agent, Mr Milani." The artist's solicitor, John Swinson of King & Wood Mallesons, said the court had set an important precedent.

A still from the trailer for Richard Bell's film The Blackfella's Guide to New York. "This is the first time damages have been awarded where a third party had content removed from the internet without legal justification," he said. "Even though the Vimeo file was hosted outside of Australia, its improper removal caused Mr Bell significant damage in Australia. The court compensated Mr Bell for this loss." Mr Swinson said the case could affect anyone who tried to get a photograph or footage of themselves removed from the internet. "This decision will have an effect in relation to photos on Facebook pages," he said. "You might not like the photo of you, but you can't improperly say to Facebook that you own the photo to have it taken down. The person who takes the photo owns the copyright in most circumstances, not the person in the photo."

He said wrongly telling a file-sharing website like Facebook, YouTube or Vimeo that you own an image could amount to an unjustifiable threat. In most circumstances it would not lead to financial loss, Mr Swinson said. "The fact that Tanya Steele failed to appear in court is extremely relevant, because it shows that the threats were unjustified. This is what makes the case even more unique. It is a precedent about a person who makes threats and does not go to court to back them up." "Tanya was not actually the filmmaker. She was a director or co-director at best. She did not hold any cameras. [However] Richard has agreements signed by the two cameramen assigning copyright to Richard," Mr Swinson said. However, a Sydney-based intellectual property lawyer, Tim Somerville, said he doubted the case would be regarded as an important legal precedent as the American filmmaker failed to appear in court.

Mr Somerville said artists often fall victim to a principle of copyright law that few would be aware of - namely, if an artist hires a freelance filmmaker or photographer, the artist does not have ownership of the material unless he makes the freelancer sign a contract before or after shooting. It is "extremely rare" for an artist to be awarded damages after being threatened for breach of copyright, Mr Somerville said. However, the removal of the trailer for Bell's film caused him to lose sales. Bell estimates he has spent more than $80,000 on the legal action to recover his film footage. He has hired a US lawyer to enforce the judgment against Steele, who still has his computer, hard drive and 18-hours of sound-matched footage he shot in New York.

"I've spent a fortune on this bloody thing, this film," he told The Sun-Herald. Loading Despite his court win, Bell said he doubted whether he would ever recover his property. "I'll just go back and shoot it again and this time get some Aussies to help me," he said.