Intellectual Property

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) raises serious concerns about the use of artists' work without their knowledge, permission or payment.

The Australian Government is considering how copyright law should apply to AI training. NAVA opposes changes that would allow AI companies to use copyright-protected work without first obtaining permission.

NAVA is calling for:

• Consent: Artists must be able to decide whether their work is used to train AI systems.
• Payment: AI companies must obtain licences and pay artists for the use of their work.
• Transparency: AI companies must disclose what copyright-protected material has been used to train their systems.
• Protection of moral rights: Artists' rights to attribution and integrity must be respected.
• Protection of ICIP: First Nations artists and communities must have control over the use of their culture and knowledge, including in AI systems.
• Accountability: Artists need accessible ways to enforce their rights when their work is used without permission.

NAVA's 2025 survey of more than 890 visual artists found that more than 80% believed AI posed risks to their income, practice and moral rights. Almost three-quarters supported compensation when creative work is used to train AI.

Take action: write to your MP

Artists' work should not be used to train AI systems without permission or payment. NAVA is calling on artists, craft practitioners, designers and arts workers to contact their local MPs and ask them to protect artists' rights as the Government develops its approach to AI.

NAVA has prepared a letter template you can adapt and send.

Copyright 

The Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) grants artists the economic right to reproduce their work, including: Reproduction: The right to reproduce the work in a material form, such as images. 

Publication: The right to publish the work. Communication: The right to communicate the work to the public. 

This means that in most cases others cannot copy or use images of the artist’s work without permission. Artists should not be asked to assign or waive their copyrights.

Moral Rights

Under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), artists hold the following moral rights in their work:

• Attribution: The right to be recognised as the creator of the work.
• Non-false attribution: The right to prevent others from falsely claiming authorship of the work.
• Integrity: The right to ensure the work is not subjected to derogatory treatment that prejudices the creator’s honour or reputation.

Artists should never be asked to waive their moral rights.

Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP)

Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP) refers to the rights of First Nations peoples to their cultural heritage, including artworks, stories, songs, ceremonies, symbols, languages, designs and cultural knowledge.

First Nations peoples have customary laws that determine who can access, share and use their cultural heritage. This heritage is passed down through generations and may be collectively owned. ICIP remains the property of the Traditional Custodians, and its use must follow the cultural protocols of the source community.

Australian copyright law does not adequately protect all aspects of ICIP, particularly collectively held cultural knowledge and expressions. The unauthorised use of ICIP causes harm to artists, their families and communities.

The Australian Government has committed to developing stand-alone legislation to protect First Nations traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, including addressing the harm caused by fake Indigenous art, merchandise and souvenirs. An Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Expert Working Group has been established to inform this work.

NAVA supports stronger legal recognition and protection of ICIP, including the rights of First Nations peoples to control how cultural heritage is accessed, used and reproduced. This is particularly important as AI systems create new risks of cultural material being used and reproduced without consent.

Artists face significant barriers when trying to enforce their copyright, including legal costs, limited access to information and the time required to pursue infringement claims. NAVA has advocated for improvements to Australia's copyright enforcement system, including more accessible options for resolving infringement disputes.

In March 2023, NAVA responded to the Copyright Enforcement Review Issues Paper raising concerns about the cost of enforcement, inadequate protection of ICIP and emerging risks associated with AI. NAVA continues to advocate for stronger enforcement mechanisms so artists can exercise their rights in practice.

NAVA contributes to government inquiries, consultations and policy development, conducts research with artists, and works with other organisations to advocate for stronger intellectual property rights.

October 2026: Don't lose ART to ARTificial Intelligence campaign calling on artists to write to their MPs

October 2026: Artists' rights are in Australia's interests

September 2026: NAVA continues advocacy for artists' rights in AI, including a submission to the Senate inquiry into artificial intelligence and data centres and the Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence

July 2026: response to the Australian Government's commitment to protect artists' rights in the age of AI

June 2026: co-signed open letter Australia's creators are not a tech subsidy

May 2026: Australian creator groups send clear message to Government: Hold the line

April 2026: response to the passage of the Copyright Amendment Bill

March 2026: co-signed Education giants seek midnight raid on creator rights

February 2026: submission to the Senate inquiry into productivity in Australia

December 2025: response to the Attorney-General's Department consultation on copyright and artificial intelligence

November 2025: submission to the Senate inquiry into the Copyright Amendment Bill

October 2025: response to the Australian Government's decision to reject an AI copyright exemption

October 2025: NAVA opposes AI exceptions in Productivity Commission submission

September 2025: Artists call for consent and compensation in AI training

September 2025: Artists say AI scraping without permission isn't innovation, it's exploitation

July 2025: submission to Treasury's Economic Reform Roundtable consultation, and co-signed submission with representatives of Australia's creative industries and copyright holders

July 2025: Artificial Intelligence (AI) and visual arts practice survey

February 2025: submission to the Attorney-General's Department on the proposed Orphan Works Scheme

May 2024: response to establishment of a Select Committee on Adopting Artificial Intelligence (AI)
August 2023: response to Enhancing Australian design protection proposed reforms
August 2023: response to Supporting responsible AI: discussion paper
July 2023: response to Inquiry into the use of generative artificial intelligence in the Australian education system
February 2022: response to Copyright Amendment (Access Reform) Bill 2021
February 2021: response to issues paper on the Right to repair
September 2020: response to the establishment of the Select Committee on the Aboriginal Flag

July 2018: response to the Copyright Modernisation Consultation

April 2018: response to the Digital Platforms Inquiry

March 2018: response to the Review of Code of Conduct for Australian Copyright Collecting Societies

October 2017: response to the Exposure Draft of Copyright Regulations October 2017 and the Copyright Legislation Amendment (Technological Protection) Regulations 2017.

September 2017: response to the Review of the Code of Conduct for Copyright Collecting Societies Discussion Paper.

February 2017: response to the Final Report of the Productivity Commission Inquiry into Intellectual Property Arrangements.

June 2016: response to Productivity Commission’s 2016 Intellectual Property Arrangements DRAFT Report.