Have your say: Artificial Intelligence (AI) and visual arts practice survey

It has been two years since NAVA first surveyed the visual arts sector about the risks and benefits of generative AI. Since then, the use of AI tools has rapidly expanded, and so have concerns around consent, copyright, cultural safety, and creative control.

We are checking in again to learn how AI is affecting your practice, income, reputation, and decision-making. Whether you're actively using AI, engaging with new tools and technologies, or concerned your work has been scraped, imitated, or used without consent, we want to hear from you.

Your responses will help shape NAVA’s advocacy, guide future policy recommendations, and build a stronger case for protections for artists.

The survey takes about 10 minutes and you may remain anonymous.

Survey closes Thursday 31 July 2025.

NAVA has advocated that:

• Artists must retain rights to attribution, consent, and income. Visual artists’ work is being scraped, modified, or imitated by AI systems without permission, attribution, or remuneration. This undermines artists’ moral rights and devalues their labour.
• Transparency is essential, but should not be delivered through copyright reform. Instead, we support AI-specific or consumer data legislation that mandates clear labelling, metadata standards, and transparency from offshore platforms.
• Informed consent and fair compensation must be at the core of any AI framework. Artists should not be automatically included in AI training datasets and then expected to opt out. Instead, their consent must be actively sought, and they must be adequately compensated when their work is used.
• First Nations leadership is critical. Following NAVA’s participation in the Envisioning Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander AI Futures gathering, we echo the Communique’s call for Indigenous governance, consent, and data sovereignty to be embedded in AI policy and practice.
• Artists are already using AI creatively and critically. NAVA’s previous survey found that almost 40% of respondents were using generative AI in their practice, primarily as a tool for ideation, editing, and administrative support. While most reported using AI for only a small portion of their final output, many described innovative ways of collaborating with these technologies. Any future AI framework must support artists’ ability to explore and experiment, while protecting their rights and creative integrity.
• Australia must reject a TDM (Text and Data Mining) exception. NAVA, alongside Australia’s creative industries, copyright holders, licensing bodies, and news media organisations, opposes proposals to “reform” copyright law in ways that would allow AI developers to mine copyrighted content without permission or payment.

Help us continue this work with real stories, real data, and real insight from across the sector.