AI is turning Indigenous Australian art into 'Temu slop', artist says

AI systems have already been trained, without compensation, on the works of well-known Australian artists including Kylie Minogue and Nick Cave — and First Nations artists say the technology is now converting Indigenous Australian art into what Pitjantjatjara artist Sally Scales calls "Temu slop".

Scales, who chairs the National Gallery of Australia's First Nations advisory group, said in an interview that the technology is undermining both the agency of First Nations artists and the authenticity of their work, and represents "a theft" of cultural knowledge.

The claim lands in the middle of an unresolved policy fight. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has vowed to protect Australian creatives from copyright theft, and attorney general Michelle Rowland has said there are "no plans to weaken copyright protections". Yet the scraping of copyrighted Australian works for AI training has already happened. For Indigenous artists, the stakes extend past royalty income into questions of who controls sacred and culturally restricted knowledge.

What is being sold?

Searches on Temu, Shein and Amazon return countless works described as Aboriginal paintings, alongside items such as coasters and stubby holders bearing Aboriginal-style designs. Most carry no attribution to any artist.

That matters because First Nations art is not a generic decorative genre. Works can encode community-specific techniques, stories, motifs and mark-making, and can include sacred and cultural knowledge. AI systems can hoover up anything found online — songs and paintings included — regardless of those restrictions.

Scales said the problem is visible on the face of the products themselves.

"It's in the name, it's artificial," she said.

"I've seen some works where I look at it and wonder if they've gone through a First Nations community or a person, or if it's something generic that they've whipped up.

"It's a theft of the agency of the artist. It rips the authenticity out of it, because it's not been made by anyone who has the connection … the artist's family lineage is not there, the lived experience is not there."

How bad is the copyright problem for creators?

Prof Kathy Bowrey, an intellectual property specialist at UNSW Law, said one in five creators already had problems with copyright infringement before AI entered the picture. The issues become more complex again when the creators are First Nations people, she said, "partly because of lack of control over ownership and respect for Aboriginal culture".

Bowrey gave a concrete example of how the harm compounds. An organisation pays to use artwork or images of Aboriginal people, then later uses AI to "update" or repurpose those images without permission.

"The corporate client can pay you once and then make unauthorised Aboriginal derivative work and use the faces of the artists without consent," she said.

"Not only do [the artists] not get the repeat business, but when they go to make new work they're competing against an AI."

That dynamic — one licensed payment, then unlimited unauthorised derivatives — turns AI from a licensing question into a structural market threat for creative professionals whose income depends on repeat commissions.

What has AI already done to Indigenous artworks?

The peak body for Australian visual artists has documented the damage. In a submission to the joint select committee inquiry on artificial intelligence, the National Association for the Visual Arts (Nava) pointed to work by the Wuthathi and Meriam lawyer Terri Janke, an international authority on Indigenous cultural and intellectual property (ICIP).

Janke, according to the submission, has "documented AI scraping Indigenous art centre websites, removing artists' names and altering their work". Alteration followed by sale has already occurred — an act Nava said was causing "cultural and economic harm".

Janke has also warned of a broader risk: AI reproducing cultural knowledge without regard to its accuracy or appropriate use.

"Nava members have also raised concerns about AI-generated 'Aboriginal-style' images and designs that imitate community-specific techniques, stories, motifs and mark-making," the submission said. "These images can be presented and sold as Indigenous or Indigenous-inspired work, spreading misinformation, causing cultural and economic harm and competing with work by First Nations artists."

Nava frames the remedy in terms of Indigenous data sovereignty, which it defines as the framework that "recognises the right of First Nations peoples to exercise authority over their data, cultural material and knowledge".

What is 'Copyright Plus'?

Bowrey and her colleague, associate professor Oliver Bown, a creative technologies expert, have proposed a framework they call Copyright Plus. It contains four main mechanisms:

• Mandatory disclosure: AI companies would be forced to disclose their data sources, revealing what copyrighted and cultural material their models were trained on.
• A right to refuse: artists would gain the legal right to say no to having their work scraped or mimicked.
• An AI levy: a levy on AI companies would fund a payment scheme for creative professionals and establish a cultural fund.
• Takedown notices: a mechanism for removing fake content would allow creators to challenge AI-generated imitations sold as Indigenous or Indigenous-inspired work.

Bowrey said the pair wrote the draft policy based on the parameters of what the government has said so far — meaning it is designed to fit within the government's stated commitment not to weaken copyright protections while extending creators' control into AI-specific territory.

What has the government said?

A spokesperson for the attorney general said Australian creatives were "world class" and that the government was committed to supporting them.

"That's why we're continuing to consult with creators, media organisations and AI companies on a range of options to ensure any future copyright changes deliver meaningful control and fair compensation," the spokesperson said.

The statement confirms consultation is ongoing. It does not commit to disclosure mandates, levies or takedown mechanisms. For First Nations artists, the gap between consultation and enforceable control is where the harm continues: while policy is debated, AI-generated 'Aboriginal-style' products remain listed on major retail platforms, largely without attribution.

The outcome of the joint select committee inquiry on artificial intelligence, and whether the government adopts provisions resembling Copyright Plus, will determine whether First Nations artists gain legal authority over their cultural material — or keep competing against machines trained on it without consent.