Clive Palmer loses to Twisted Sister, ordered to pay $1.5m

“He gave false evidence, including concocting a story to exculpate himself, indicating that the need for both punishment and deterrence is high.”

A spokesman for Mr Palmer said his lawyers were reviewing the judgment and would consider an appeal.

Justice Katzmann said Mr Palmer show flagrant disregard for Universal Music’s rights.

Mr Palmer had showed a “flagrant” disregard for Universal Music’s rights, and his conduct was “contemptuous”, she wrote.

Mr Palmer had claimed in court that he believed in January 2019 that the words in the ad were not subject to copyright because they had been used in the 1976 film Network and The Who’s rock opera Tommy, and that the music was not subject to copyright because the melody came from the Christmas carol O Come All Ye Faithful.

“But I do not accept that Mr Palmer honestly believed at any relevant time that his use of the copyright works was lawful,” Justice Katzmann wrote.

“To the contrary, the objective evidence demonstrates that Mr Palmer actually believed that Universal held the copyright in the works, that he needed a licence to use them, and that he decided to go ahead without one because he was not prepared to agree to Universal’s terms. Mr Palmer’s conduct was high-handed and contemptuous.”

Adam Simpson, of Simpson Solicitors, which represented Universal Music, said the court’s decision would send a strong message about copyright infringement of music and that Mr Palmer’s conduct was blatant and unacceptable.

“Using songs in advertising, particularly in politics, without permission is an affront to songwriters,” he said in a statement.

“UMP works closely with its writers to carefully match advertising opportunities with artistic integrity, ethics and commercial values. Mr Palmer acted unilaterally and denied that from Dee Snider, the band and UMP. Today’s decision rights that wrong. It also sends a wider message that no matter who you are, copyright cannot be ignored.”

He said the $1 million damages award was one of highest for copyright infringement in Australia and was “a saulutary warning for those who throw caution to the wind”.

“The decision is also a welcome clarification of the ‘parody or satire’ defence. Put simply, the defence will only apply if the purpose of the use was for parody or satire and it must also be ‘fair’. Clive Palmer’s use was for a political campaign and was anything but fair,” he said.