FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN OLYMPIC COMMITTEE INC v THE BIG FIGHTS INC

[1999] FCA 1042

NG 41 of 1997

NG 481 of 1998

SUMMARY

Introduction

In accordance with the practice of the Federal Court in certain cases of public interest, I have prepared a brief summary to accompany the reasons for judgment that are being delivered today. But the only authoritative pronouncement of my reasons is that contained in the full reasons for judgment. This summary is necessarily incomplete.

Summary of Judgment

Between 22 November and 8 December 1956, the sixteenth modern Olympic Games were held in Melbourne. The main issue in this case is the present ownership of the copyright in certain films of those Games. There is also a dispute over the present ownership of certain copies of those films which are being held in safe storage pending this decision. In both respects, I decide that the Australian Olympic Committee, or the AOC, succeeds.

The case has involved facts extending over some forty years and many complex issues - too many to relate here. What follows is a summary of some of the issues and my conclusions on them.

In 1956, the Australian Olympic Federation, or AOF, was the National Olympic Committee for Australia, recognised by the International Olympic Committee, or IOC. Organisation of the Games was entrusted to a company formed for the purpose called the "Organising Committee for the Games of the XVIth Olympiad Melbourne 1956", known as "OCOG". OCOG established an "Official Film Unit" and appointed Reginald Peter Whitchurch, known as Peter Whitchurch, as its director.

Cameramen in the Official Film Unit shot a large quantity of footage during the Games. The rules of the IOC required that certain edited films of the Games be produced. OCOG engaged Peter Whitchurch to produce those edited films from the unedited ones.

This case has concerned the unedited films shot by the Official Film Unit, the edited films subsequently produced by Peter Whitchurch, and certain newsreel type films which OCOG permitted two private companies to produce, using their own cameramen.

In 1960, OCOG granted certain rights in respect of the edited films to Peter Whitchurch in return for payment by him of £100. This was done, not by way of a professionally prepared legal document, but by an exchange of letters between OCOG and Peter Whitchurch. The letters have given rise to this question in the case: Did OCOG assign the copyright in the edited films to Peter Whitchurch or did it give him only a non-exclusive right to reprint and sell copies of them?

The main protagonists in these proceedings are the AOC on the one hand, and The Big Fights Incorporated on the other. The AOC is the successor to the AOF. The business of The Big Fights was the building up and commercial exploitation of extensive libraries of films of sporting events, in particular, boxing films and films of Olympic Games. Part of its business involved the licensing of others, such as television broadcasters, to use its films.

The AOC is supported in the proceedings by Mr John Whitchurch, the son of the late Peter Whitchurch. The Big Fights is supported by Mrs Lynette Benson and Mrs Diane Talbot, daughters of the late Peter Whitchurch and sisters of John. The Big Fights is also supported by ESPN Enterprises Inc which purchased The Big Fights' film libraries, including its Olympic Library, after the proceedings began.

The AOC claims that OCOG originally owned the copyright in all the films as well as the copies of them that are in storage, and that in one of two possible ways, the AOC is now the owner. One way is this. Following the dissolution of OCOG on 30 April 1974, OCOG's remaining assets passed under companies legislation, eventually to the Australian Securities Commission, or the ASC. On 20 October 1997 the ASC executed a deed assigning to the AOC all the interest in the films and the copyright in them which OCOG had upon its dissolution in 1974.

The Big Fights, on the other hand, claims that in one of various possible ways it is now the owner of the copyright in the edited films and of the copies of them in storage. It claims either that Peter Whitchurch was the original owner of the edited films and of the copyright in them once he completed his editing work, or that OCOG assigned both to him in 1960. Alternatively, The Big Fights claims that the AOC is now prevented from asserting that it owns the films and the copyright, because Peter Whitchurch, a company established by him and his wife, and his three children, dealt with the films for many years as though they owned the copyright in them, without protest by the AOF or the AOC. It is true that it was not until 1996, some forty years after the Games, that the AOC became active in asserting its rights. Mr Coates, the President of the AOC, gave evidence in relation to the delay.

The Big Fights claims that the films and the copyright were sold to it by Peter Whitchurch's company. At the time, Mrs Benson and Mrs Talbot constituted a majority of the board of directors, and Mr John Whitchurch, a minority. In substance, the sale was effected by the majority.

I will now summarise my conclusions:

· OCOG was the owner of the copyright in the films as well as the copies of those films now held in storage;

· OCOG did not assign to Peter Whitchurch the copyright in the edited films, nor did it sell to him the copies of the edited films now held in storage;

· in 1960, OCOG granted to Peter Whitchurch, for the duration of the copyright, a non-exclusive right to reprint and sell copies of the edited films, and, for that purpose, the right to possess the copies of the edited films now held in storage;

· OCOG's copyright in the films and the copies of the films now held in storage are transferred to the AOC pursuant to a deed between the AOC and the ASC dated 20 October 1997;

· the AOC therefore now owns the copyright in the films as well as the copies held in storage;

· the AOC is not prevented from asserting its copyright or its ownership of the copies;

· the AOC is not, however, entitled to terminate the 1960 contract between OCOG and Peter Whitchurch;

· the rights of reprinting and selling the edited films granted by OCOG to Peter Whitchurch passed through his estate and that of his wife to their three children in equal shares;

· Mr John Whitchurch has transferred his one third interest in those rights to the AOC;

· Mr Whitchurch and Mrs Benson, who were the executors of the will of Mrs Whitchurch, now hold those rights on trust for Mrs Benson, Mrs Talbot and the AOC in three equal shares;

· the AOC has not at this stage shown that any of the respondents have infringed its copyright or are threatening to do so.

I will now proceed to make the formal orders of the Court.

LINDGREN J

3 AUGUST 1999

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Australian Olympic Committee Inc v The Big Fights Inc [1999] FCA 1042

COPYRIGHT - cinematograph films - whether films of sporting events made before enactment of Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) original dramatic works or only artistic works consisting of individual photographs constituting films - ownership of copyright - whether copyright in edited films owned by person who owned material on which photographs comprising films taken or person who edited films - whether copyright assigned to producer of edited films or whether producer simply licensed to reprint and sell copies of edited films - whether producer's estate has repudiated agreement.

ESTOPPEL - whether owner of copyright estopped from asserting copyright by reason of representations and silence in face of competing assertion of ownership - whether representations or silence relied upon - whether detriment suffered in reliance upon representations or silence - whether successor in title entitled to rely on estoppel - whether delay by owner of films amounted to laches or abandonment - whether proceedings for delivery up of films barred by statute of limitations.

ADMINISTRATION OF DECEASED ESTATES - whether estate fully administered - whether one co-trustee has power to bind other co-trustees and those beneficially entitled.

Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) ss 31, 35, 204, 207, 208, 213, 221, 222

Copyright Act 1912 (Cth) s 8

Copyright Act 1911 (UK) ss 1(2), 35(1)

Companies Act 1961 (Vic) ss 264, 308, 310

Companies (Application of Laws) Act 1981 (Vic) s 23

Companies (Victoria) Code ss 460 - 464

Australian Securities Commission Act 1989 (Cth) ss 253 - 257

Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) s 65

Berne Convention for Protection of Literary and Other Artistic Works art 14(2)

Nordisk Films Co Ltd v Onda [1917-1923] MCC 337, referred to

Canadian Admiral Corporation Ltd v Rediffusion Inc (1954) 20 CPR 75, considered

Empirnall Holdings Pty Ltd v Machon Paull Partners Pty Ltd (1988) 14 NSWLR 523, applied

Helstan Securities Ltd v Hertfordshire County Council [1978] 3 All ER 262, applied

United Dominions Trust (Commercial) Ltd v Parkway Motors Ltd [1955] 1 WLR 719, referred to

Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd [1994] 1 AC 85, referred to

Re Turner Corp Ltd (in liq) (1995) 17 ACSR 761, referred to

Don King Productions Inc v Warren [1998] 2 All ER 608, referred to

Westgold Resources NL v St George Bank Ltd (1998) 29 ACSR 396, referred to

Liverpool and District Hospital for Diseases of the Heart v Attorney-General [1981] Ch 193, considered

Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387, applied

Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394, applied

Thompson v Palmer (1933) 49 CLR 507, applied

Grundt v Great Boulder Proprietary Gold Mines Ltd (1937) 59 CLR 641, applied

Hamilton v Geraghty (1901) 1 SR (NSW) (Eq) 81, applied

Willmott v Barber (1880) 15 Ch D 96, considered

Svenson v Payne (1945) 71 CLR 531, followed

Re Vandervell's Trusts; White v Vandervell Trustees Ltd [1974] 1 All ER 47, referred to

Taylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd [1982] 1 QB 133, considered

Horn v Cole (1871) 51 NH 287; 12 Am Rep 111, considered

Vine Products Ltd v Mackenzie & Co Ltd [1969] RPC 1, considered

Australian Provincial Assurance Co Ltd v Coroneo (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 700, referred to

Johnstone & Wilmot Pty Ltd v Kaine (1928) 23 Tas LR 43, considered

Moorhouse v Angus and Robertson (No 1) Pty Ltd [1981] 1 NSWLR 700, applied

Cook v Saroukas (1989) 97 FLR 33, applied

Orr v Ford (1989) 167 CLR 316, applied

Masterton Homes Pty Ltd v LED Builders Pty Ltd (1996) 33 IPR 417, referred to

Union Bank of Australia v Harrison (1910) 11 CLR 492, applied

Luke v South Kensington Hotel Co (1879) 11 Ch D 121, applied

Sky v Body (1970) 92 WN(NSW) 934, applied

In the estate of Dunn, deceased [1963] VR 165, applied

Re Ponder [1921] 2 Ch 59, considered

Stokes v Churchill (1994) NSW ConvR ¶55-694, considered

AUSTRALIAN OLYMPIC COMMITTEE INC v THE BIG FIGHTS INC

NG 49 of 1997

NG 481 of 1998

LINDGREN J

3 AUGUST 1999

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG 49 OF 1997

NG 481 OF 1998

BETWEEN:	AUSTRALIAN OLYMPIC COMMITTEE INC First Applicant JOHN PETER ELLIOTT WHITCHURCH Second Applicant
AND:	THE BIG FIGHTS INC First Respondent PETER WHITCHURCH PRODUCTIONS PTY LTD ACN 000 213 258 Second Respondent BECK HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 000 166 594 Third Respondent FILMWORLD PTY LTD ACN 008 565 222 Fourth Respondent LYNETTE JUNE BENSON Fifth Respondent DIANE YVONNE TALBOT Sixth Respondent AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION Seventh Respondent ESPN ENTERPRISES INC Eighth Respondent
JUDGE:	LINDGREN J
DATE OF ORDER:	3 AUGUST 1999
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

IN EACH PROCEEDING

THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

1. As at the date of the dissolution of The Organising Committee for the XVIth Olympiad Melbourne 1956 ("OCOG") on 30 April 1974, copyright in the films described in the First Schedule below ("the Films") and the general property in the copies of the Films now held by Comcopy Pty Ltd were vested in OCOG.

2. The deed expressed to be made between the applicants on or about 20 October 1997 is void and of no effect.

3. The second applicant and the fifth respondent hold, as trustees for the first applicant and the fifth and sixth respondents in three equal undivided shares, the rights granted on or about 23 November 1960 by OCOG to Peter Whitchurch in respect of the edited films described in the Second Schedule below.

4. The first applicant is the owner of copyright in the photographs of which the Films consist.

5. The first applicant is the owner of the copies of the Films currently held by Comcopy Pty Ltd.

THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

1. The proceedings be stood over to 9.30am on 11 August 1999 for the making of directions and orders as may be appropriate.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

FIRST SCHEDULE

SECOND SCHEDULE

The films numbered 1 to 90 (inclusive), 92 to 120 (inclusive) and 122 to 176 (inclusive) in the First Schedule.

AUSTRALIAN OLYMPIC COMMITTEE INC v THE BIG FIGHTS INC....................................................................... 2

INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................................................... 2

THE FIRST OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHT IN THE FILMS....................................................................................... 10

Subsistence and nature of copyright in respect of cinematograph films........................ 10

Who owned the copyright in the photographs comprised in the Unedited Films and the Edited Films? 167

Who owned the copyright in the photographs comprised in the Newsreels and the Sports TV Films? 25

THE AGREEMENT OF 23 NOVEMBER 1960................................................................................................................. 28

Events from the end of the Games on 8 December 1956 to the dealings between OCOG and Peter Whitchurch in 1960................................................................................................................................................................................. 28

OCOG's transaction with Peter Whitchurch......................................................................................... 34

THE PASSING OF COPYRIGHT FROM OCOG TO THE AOC.................................................................................. 50

ESTOPPEL............................................................................................................................................................................. 56

Factual background............................................................................................................................................ 56

The case of estoppel as pleaded................................................................................................................. 1012

The first pleaded estoppel case.................................................................................................................. 1023

The second pleaded estoppel case............................................................................................................... 104

1. Did the Whitchurch interests make or maintain the assumption in question?................................ 1067

2. The AOC's role in relation to the making or maintenance of the relevant assumption by the Whitchurch interests 10910

3. Did the AOC know that the Whitchurch interests would act or refrain from acting in reliance on the assumption or intend them to do so?......................................................................................................................................................... 1145

4. The Whitchurch interests' reliance upon the assumption; and........................................................ 11920

5. The suffering of detriment by reason of reliance upon the assumption........................................... 11920

6. In all the circumstances, would it be unconscientious for the AOC to depart from the

assumption?............................................................................................................................................................ 1212

the limitation ACT 1969 (NSW), abandonment AND LACHES........................................................... 1289

Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)................................................................................................................................ 12930

Abandonment......................................................................................................................................................... 1312

Laches.......................................................................................................................................................................... 1334

THE CROSS CLAIM BY BENSON AND TALBOT.................................................................................................. 1367

Was John Whitchurch entitled as surviving executor of the will of Peter Whitchurch to enter into the deed of assignment to the AOC dated 20 October 1997?................................................................ 1389

Was John Whitchurch entitled to enter into the deed of assignment to the AOC dated 20 October 1997 as a co-executor of the will of Elsie Whitchurch?............................................................................... 140

REPUDIATION OF THE 23 NOVEMBER 1960 AGREEMENT............................................................................... 1445

INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT BY TBF, ESPN, BENSON AND TALBOT................................................... 1478

CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................................................. 1478

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG 49 OF 1997

NG 481 of 1998

BETWEEN:

AUSTRALIAN OLYMPIC COMMITTEE INC

First Applicant

JOHN PETER ELLIOTT WHITCHURCH

Second Applicant

AND:

THE BIG FIGHTS INC

First Respondent

PETER WHITCHURCH PRODUCTIONS PTY LTD

ACN 000 213 258

Second Respondent

BECK HOLDINGS PTY LTD

ACN 000 166 594

Third Respondent

FILMWORLD PTY LTD

ACN 008 565 222

Fourth Respondent

LYNETTE JUNE BENSON

Fifth Respondent

DIANE YVONNE TALBOT

Sixth Respondent

AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION

Seventh Respondent

ESPN ENTERPRISES INC

Eighth Respondent

JUDGE:	LINDGREN J
DATE:	3 AUGUST 1999
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1 In the year 776 BC a cook called Koroibos (or Coroebus) from the city of Elis in Greece won a foot race 192 metres long which was held in the city of Olympia as part of a festival in honour of Zeus, the father of the Greek gods and goddesses. He is the first known champion of a festival that was held every four years afterwards and became known as the "Olympic Games". Over the centuries, events were added and competitors were attracted from further afield. There were many famous competitors such as Milo of Kroton who won the wrestling competition five times between 532 and 516 BC and Leonidas of Rhodes who won three foot races in each of four Games between 164 and 152 BC. The ancient Olympic Games were also host to scandal and political controversy. In the second century BC, following the conquest of Greece by the Roman Empire, the Games lost their religious significance and contestants became interested only in winning money. The Olympic Games of the ancient world were ended in 393 AD by the Roman Emperor Theodosius I because of a decline in quality.

2 National Olympic Games were held in Greece on four occasions between 1859 and 1889. Then, in 1894, Baron Pierre de Coubertin proposed resurrecting the quadrennial festival and involving athletes from around the world. His suggestion was well received and the first modern Olympic Games were held in Athens in 1896. Since then, the Games have been held every four years except in 1918, 1940 and 1944, although, unlike their ancient counterparts, they are not held in the same city each time. Since 1924, separate Winter Olympic Games have also been held.

3 The present case concerns a contest over claims to ownership in respect of certain films of the Olympic Games held in Melbourne in 1956 (after this, "the 1956 Games" or simply "the Games"). There are, in substance, two claimants. One is the first applicant ("the AOC") which is supported by the second applicant ("John Whitchurch"), the son of the late Reginald Peter Whitchurch ("Peter Whitchurch" - as he was known and will be called). Peter Whitchurch was the Director of the Official Film Unit of The Organising Committee for the XVIth Olympiad Melbourne 1956 (which was referred to by the parties and to which I will refer as "OCOG") which was responsible for the filming of the Games. The opposing claimant is the first respondent ("TBF"), a corporation incorporated in the United States of America. TBF is supported by the second respondent ("PWP"), an Australian company which was originally under the control of Peter Whitchurch, and by the fifth and sixth respondents (respectively "Benson" and "Talbot") who are the daughters of Peter Whitchurch, sisters of John Whitchurch and a majority of the directors of PWP. In fact, by the time the present proceedings were heard, TBF had purported to assign its interest in the films to the eighth respondent ("ESPN") which also supports TBF. The third respondent ("Beck") also at one stage asserted ownership of the property in question but apparently no longer does so.

4 Resolution of the dispute has called for an investigation of facts spanning some forty years. Three features of the case deserve to be noted at once. First, in the early years following the Games, OCOG dealt with the matters of ownership of the films in question and of the copyright in them and of the granting of rights in respect of them to Peter Whitchurch, in what can only be described as a relatively informal and amateurish way. There was evidence before me that "amateurishness" was characteristic of sports administration at the time. Second, neither the AOC nor its predecessor body did anything to assert any claim in respect of the films until after, and as a response to, the commencement of a proceeding in 1996 by TBF against the fourth respondent Filmworld Pty Ltd ("Filmworld"). By that proceeding TBF asserted that it was entitled to possession of the films, which were at that time in the possession of Filmworld as bailee. Third, unfortunately the children of the late Peter Whitchurch and of his widow the late Elsie Mavis Whitchurch ("Elsie Whitchurch") are divided over the present dispute. As I noted above, John Whitchurch supports the AOC while Benson and Talbot support TBF. Accordingly, the proceeding has involved the unseemly spectacle of a funding of John Whitchurch's stance in a family dispute by the AOC and a funding of Benson's and Talbot's stance in that dispute by TBF.

5 The modern Olympic Games are conducted under the auspices of the International Olympic Committee ("the IOC"). The IOC is based in Lausanne, Switzerland. It has governed the modern Olympic movement since its formation in 1894 and has directed and controlled the summer Olympic Games since 1896 and the winter Olympic Games since 1924. The IOC recognises "National Olympic Committees". When the IOC decides that the Olympic Games are to be held in a particular city, it entrusts the organisation of them to the National Olympic Committee of the country in which that city is located.

6 In 1914, the "Olympic Federation of Australia and New Zealand", an unincorporated association, was constituted as the National Olympic Committee for Australia and New Zealand. In 1920 the Australian and New Zealand contingents separated, the Federation was dissolved, and a committee called the "Australian Olympic Council" took its place in respect of Australia. That body changed its name to the Australian Olympic Federation ("the AOF") in 1923. The AOF was the National Olympic Committee of Australia recognised by the IOC from 1923 until 24 April 1985 - a period of sixty two years. That period embraced the period 1956-1960 in which the Games were held and in which certain dealings between OCOG and Peter Whitchurch in 1960, which are the genesis of the present proceeding, took place.

7 The AOF was a non-profit unincorporated association. On 24 April 1985, it became incorporated under the Associations Incorporation Act 1981 (Vic) under the name Australian Olympic Federation Inc ("the AOF Inc") and replaced the AOF as the National Olympic Committee for Australia. The AOF Inc later resolved to change its name to its present name, "Australian Olympic Committee Inc". Apparently the resolution for the change of name was passed on 25 June 1990 but it was not registered until 17 February 1994. Accordingly, the incorporated entity that is the AOC has been the National Olympic Committee of Australia since 24 April 1985, although it has been incorporated under its present name only since 17 February 1994. Although I will refer to "the AOF", "the AOF Inc" and "the AOC" it must be remembered that the last two references are to the same legal entity. Accordingly, it will be correct to refer to the AOF as the predecessor (unincorporated body) of the AOC (and also of the AOF Inc), but incorrect to refer to the AOF Inc as the predecessor of the AOC.

8 At its 43^rd Session, in April 1949, the IOC awarded the right to host the 1956 Games to the City of Melbourne. It was therefore the responsibility of the AOF to organise the Games. The AOF established as the organising committee for the Games, OCOG, which was incorporated as a company limited by guarantee under the Companies Act 1938 (Vic) on 17 September 1951.

9 Rule 49 of the Rules and Regulations of the IOC ("IOC Rule 49") provided as follows:

"The Organizing Committee [OCOG in this case] must make the necessary arrangements for the production of a complete moving picture of the Games including shots of at least the final of each sport without interfering with the conduct of the events. It shall have the exclusive commercial rights to this film until one year after the close of the Games. At that time [one year after the Games] a copy of this complete record must be given to the International Olympic Committee for its museum without charge. National Olympic Committees and International Federations are allowed to purchase copies at a reasonable price. Immediately after the Games, a thirty minute 16 mm. film covering the highlights of the Games must be provided [by the Organising Committee] at cost for National Olympic Committees and International Federations, for their own non-commercial use only.

International Federations are permitted to take 16 mm. technical films of the events in their sports for non-commercial use only. News reel coverage available at a reasonable cost must be arranged by the Organising Committee." (emphasis supplied)

10 Accordingly, OCOG was required by IOC Rule 49 to produce a "record" film (including at least shots of the final of each sport) and a "highlights" film. IOC Rule 49 said little about commercial exploitation. It provided that OCOG was to have the right, to the exclusion of all others, to exploit the record film commercially for one year after the Games but otherwise its terms were silent on the subject. The intention seems to have been that after the year following the Games OCOG would no longer have a right of commercial exploitation to the exclusion of all others, or, perhaps, even at all.

11 On 28 March 1956, OCOG placed advertisements in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age newspapers seeking tenders for the filming of the Games in the following terms:

"Olympic Games Organising Committee

Filming of Games

The Organising Committee recently decided to throw the film and television rights to the Olympic Games open to World Wide tender. That invitation is still open to all organisations likely to be interested, but tenders should be submitted by April 21 next.

At the same time the Organising Committee is considering the more likely alternative of accepting a quotation from an organisation whose facilities are considering competent to handle the job. Under this arrangement the Committee would itself market the film footage.

Invitations to Quote

Quotations are invited, on or before April 21, 1956, for the production of a black and white film in either 35mm or 16mm of the finals of the Olympic games. This covers the filming of day and night events, processing, assembling and editing as required, supply and delivery to the Committee of the master negative and one print. Additional fine grain and standard prints will be needed to a strict time-table for use in Australia and for air despatch overseas, and the price of such prints and time of delivery should be quoted. Footage of each day's filming should be assembled in sequence, but not finally edited.

The negative and all rights in all footage shot will be the property of the Olympic Organising Committee.

A firm quoting must indicate its capacity in terms of cameras, trained manpower, and other facilities, to film events spread over eight to ten venues and also state the time required to process and assemble each day's filming for delivery, with adequate dope-sheets, ready for despatch within Australia and overseas. Normally each day's footage will need to be available for censoring and despatch overseas on the morning of the following day.

In addition, quotes will be required for a film edited from the footage shot with commentary, music, sound effects and titles is to be supplied, of a total approximate length of 45 minutes.

Particulars of the extent to which individual events are to be filmed, the number and time of the events to be covered, and other information required will be supplied on application to the Organising Committee for the Games, Post Office Building, Elizabeth Street, Melbourne. The lowest or any quotation will not necessarily be accepted." (emphasis supplied)