What Happened
Author and illustrator Megan McKean found her work on the wall of a yoghurt shop she had never heard of. The store was Yogii & Yoii, a newly opened frozen yoghurt business on Racecourse Road in Ascot, on Brisbane's north side. The mural depicted the Brisbane skyline and matched an original piece McKean had created for her 2018 Bristopia exhibition - a show that ran for six months at the Museum of Brisbane.
McKean had not given permission for the work to be used. She had not been paid. When she contacted the business, the response was that "the mural artwork was supplied and installed by an independent contractor, and we were not aware at the time that the illustration was subject to copyright restrictions or required separate licensing." The store said it had not intended to reproduce her work without permission and told McKean that steps to remove the mural were taken immediately.
McKean kept watching. "I had been viewing their Instagram periodically, to check for the removal of the first mural, and saw the replacement artwork in the background of videos - which still looked alarmingly similar," she said. She then sent friends to the store in person. "I had friends in Brisbane visit the premises to take photographs of the mural, which showed a direct correlation to my work, along with errors that can only be attributed to AI."
The store had not simply removed the mural. It had replaced it with what McKean believes is a generative AI reproduction of her original. Her response was direct: "We again demanded the removal and destruction of the mural, the contact information of the supplier, and increased the damages owing."
Why It Matters
This case is not an isolated incident. It sits inside a much larger shift in how businesses source visual content - and how little thought often goes into whether that content is legally clear to use.
A Creative Australia survey released this week found two in five (40 per cent) Australians now use AI tools to create art or generate ideas. That number is growing. As AI image generation becomes cheaper and faster, the temptation for businesses to source murals, illustrations, and branding through AI tools - without checking what those tools were trained on - is real and rising.
McKean put it plainly: "This is sadly all too common situation for many artists - and it feels like it will only get worse as AI art becomes more prevalent and accessible."
For Australian businesses, the legal exposure here is not abstract. Under Australian consumer and copyright law, the fact that a contractor supplied the infringing work does not automatically shield the business that commissioned and displayed it. The store's claim that it was unaware of copyright restrictions does not extinguish liability - it may reduce damages in some circumstances, but it does not eliminate the underlying breach. Businesses working with AI strategy and AI automations need clear procurement policies that include IP clearance at the point of commissioning, not after a complaint arrives.
For artists, the situation McKean describes - discovering your work on a wall, demanding removal, then finding an AI copy in its place - is a new kind of infringement that existing frameworks were not built to handle cleanly. The creative industries are watching cases like this closely, because the outcome will shape how aggressively artists pursue similar claims.
Key Details
McKean went public on Instagram this week, not only to document her own dispute but to help other artists facing the same problem. "My intention by posting on Instagram this week was to raise awareness of how common it can be; I hoped to provide some resources and support for creatives if they find themselves in a similar situation, and remind the general public that art is made by humans, and should be paid for."
The Bristopia exhibition - the source of the copied work - ran for six months at the Museum of Brisbane after its 2018 debut. The work had genuine institutional recognition. That history matters in a copyright context, because it establishes the work's provenance and McKean's authorship clearly.
The AI replacement mural, McKean says, contained visible errors consistent with AI generation. Those errors did not make the work less infringing - they made the copying more obvious.
Background and Context
Australia's copyright framework protects original artistic works automatically from the moment of creation. There is no registration requirement. The Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) gives creators exclusive rights to reproduce their work, and those rights are not waived simply because a third party - a contractor, a supplier, an AI tool - is the one doing the copying.
The question of whether AI-generated outputs can infringe copyright is being tested in courts across multiple jurisdictions. In Australia, the ACCC and the OAIC have both flagged AI-related consumer and privacy concerns, though neither body has yet issued specific guidance on AI art and copyright. The Attorney-General's Department has been consulting on AI and the copyright framework, but no legislative changes have been finalised.
What is clear under existing law: if an AI tool reproduces a substantial part of a protected work, the output can infringe copyright - and the person or business that commissioned or used that output may be liable. The contractor defence has limits.
Our AI training resources cover how businesses can build internal awareness of these risks before they become legal problems. Getting procurement teams to ask basic IP questions at the point of commissioning is a practical first step, not a legal luxury.
What Comes Next
McKean has demanded the mural's removal and destruction, along with the supplier's contact details and increased damages. Whether the matter proceeds to formal legal action or settles privately is not yet known.
The broader policy question - how Australia's copyright law should treat AI-generated works that closely resemble protected originals - remains open. The Creative Australia survey finding that 40 per cent of Australians are already using AI creative tools suggests the volume of potential disputes will grow before any legislative clarity arrives.
Artists in similar situations can document their work thoroughly, issue formal written demands, and seek legal advice about their options under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). McKean's decision to go public is itself a tactic: it creates a record, builds community awareness, and puts pressure on businesses that might otherwise wait out a private complaint.
For businesses, the lesson is straightforward. Commissioning a mural - or any visual content - through a contractor does not transfer the copyright risk. Ask for IP clearance documentation before the work goes on your wall.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a business avoid copyright liability if a contractor supplied the infringing artwork?
Not automatically. Under Australian copyright law, a business that displays infringing work on its premises can be liable even if a contractor sourced or created the material. The contractor relationship may be relevant to how damages are apportioned between parties, but it does not extinguish the business's own exposure. Businesses should require contractors to provide evidence that any artwork supplied is either original, licensed, or in the public domain before installation.
Can an AI-generated image infringe copyright on an existing artwork?
Yes, it can. If an AI tool reproduces a substantial part of a protected work - whether by being trained on that work or by generating output that closely replicates it - the resulting image may infringe the original creator's copyright. Australian courts have not yet handed down a definitive ruling on AI-specific infringement, but the existing framework under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) applies to reproductions regardless of the method used to create them.
What should an artist do if they discover their work has been used without permission?
The first step is to document everything thoroughly - photographs, screenshots, timestamps, and any public posts by the business showing the work. The artist should then issue a formal written demand for removal and payment of a retroactive licensing fee. If the business does not comply, or replaces the work with a similar piece, the artist can escalate to a formal legal claim. Organisations like the Arts Law Centre of Australia provide free or low-cost legal advice to Australian artists in these situations.
What does the Creative Australia survey finding mean for the creative sector?
The finding that 40 per cent of Australians now use AI tools to create art or generate ideas reflects how quickly these tools have moved from novelty to routine. For working artists, that shift means the pool of potential infringers is larger and the tools available to copy or approximate their work are more accessible than ever. It also means that public education about what AI tools can and cannot legally do with existing artworks is genuinely urgent.
