Photographers, Illustrators and Artists: Is Your Style Protected from AI?

Photographers, Illustrators and Artists: Is Your Style Protected from AI?

The explosion of artificial intelligence has brought extraordinary creative possibilities that we all know.

At the firm, some of our clients, be it photographers, illustrators, graphic designers are asking one question which is – Can AI copy my style — and is there anything the law can do about it?

You will appreciate that this is no longer a hypothetical fear as over the past two years, AI models have rapidly improved to the point where they can mimic the look, feel, tone and aesthetic of specific artists with real precision.

AI tools can create “Warhol‑style” portraits of living celebrities and “Frida‑style” self‑portraits of influencers and the styles of living painters, including high-profile Archibald Prize winners, without those artists ever agreeing to it.

As Frida Kahlo apparently once said, “I paint flowers so they will not die.”

No one in Kahlo’s time could have predicted that, decades later, AI would be able to regenerate those “flowers” endlessly without credit or context.

Is style the new battleground?

Under Australian copyright law, you can protect the specific expression of your work — the actual photograph, illustration, drawing, graphic layout or animation frame.

But style itself — the mood, technique, aesthetic choices or general flavour of your work — is not protected.

In Australia, we have what we call the idea–expression dichotomy in copyright law.

Copyright protects the specific expression of an artwork – the actual image, its composition, colours, and details – but not the broader ideas, concepts or general style behind it. So a particular painting is protected, yet the notion of “moody, hyper‑real portraits with loose brushwork” is treated as an idea, not something an artist can own in itself.

That division creates a gap when it comes to AI image generators.

This is because if an AI system is trained on thousands of works by a living painter and users prompt it to create images “in the style of” that artist, the law may treat this as copying their style rather than reproducing a particular protected work.

As long as no existing painting is substantially reproduced, the output can sit in a legal grey zone: recognisably “like” the artist but not clearly infringing.

Creators in Australia are increasingly seeing this as a loophole, because their style and reputation can be commercially exploited in this way without permission, payment or meaningful control.

Real-World Examples

Hayao Miyazaki famously described early AI animation as “an insult to life itself.” His concern wasn’t just aesthetic — it was existential.

AI tools allow anyone, anywhere, to replicate the signature look of artists who spent decades developing it. The public then struggles to distinguish between authentic work and an algorithmic imitation.

That blurring is where economic harm can arise.

Archibald Prize winners and AI

Archibald Prize winners are a good example of how AI can target living artists.

The prize showcases distinctive portrait styles by well-known contemporary Australian painters, and those images can be swept into training sets and then echoed in prompts like “paint this in the style of an Archibald winner.”

Many of these artists are very much alive and rely on their recognisable style and reputation to make a living, yet they are almost never asked, credited or paid when AI systems copy their look. A similar pattern has appeared globally: illustrators and painters have found their names used in thousands of prompts, and their online portfolios folded into training data, so that apps and generators can spit out images that feel uncannily close to their work without consent or context.

Why Photographers, Illustrators and Digital Artists Should Care

For photographers, illustrators and digital artists, this is about your work right now, not just “fine art.”

The same AI systems that learn from Archibald-winning paintings can also scrape your website, socials and client work, then let people create “images in your style” without hiring or crediting you.

That is why the Australian government’s decision not to allow a broad text‑and‑data‑mining free‑for‑all really matters. The government has chosen not to give tech companies a blank cheque to scrape everything online and use it for AI training without limits. It tries to keep more control in creators’ hands, instead of automatically treating all your work as free for AI to just take. And, it means your photos, illustrations and digital art are not automatically there to be scraped for training.

While in principle, that AI companies should not get a free pass to use your work without permission or payment, the exact rules are still being worked out and the law has not passed yet.

What Makes a Threat “Unjustified”?

A threat is “unjustified” when the sender can’t prove a real, enforceable legal right was infringed.

No trade mark registration? Threatening a trade mark action is unjustified.

No copyright, or not original? Threatening a claim is unjustified.

Risks that remain

Two main risks remain. First, AI companies can still scrape public images from your website, social media or portfolio and use them as training data, even if the law does not clearly give them a free pass. Second, once a model has learned from huge image sets, it can generate pictures that look and feel a lot like your work, even if it does not copy any one image directly.

Copyright usually protects specific works, not a general “style” or vibe.

That means you may only have a legal case if an AI image is very close to a particular piece of yours – for example, it copies your composition, lighting, character design or layout almost exactly.

If it just looks “in your style” in a loose way, that is much harder to challenge under current copyright rules.

What to do?

There is no one-size-fits-all answer, and the right strategy will depend on your work, your platforms and your goals. Sharon Givoni Consulting has been working with artists, photographers, illustrators and other creators for over thirty years, and can help you understand what practical steps make sense in your situation – from using platform tools and metadata in a smart way, to thinking about licensing, contracts and how to respond if AI outputs get too close to your work.

Rather than giving generic legal tips here, it is better to get tailored advice, so if you are worried about scraping, style copying or AI training on your images, contact Sharon Givoni Consulting to discuss your options.

How Sharon Givoni Consulting Can Help

Sharon Givoni Consulting advises photographers, designers, illustrators, studios and creative businesses across Australia.

We assist with:

• copyright protection strategies
• licensing and attribution agreements
• portfolio and website protections
• AI-related advice
• infringement disputes
• consent, permissions and moral rights

If you’re a creator concerned about AI copying your style, your portfolio or your images, we can help you navigate your rights clearly and practically.

---

Please note the above article is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice.

Please email us info@iplegal.com.au if you need legal advice about your brand or another legal matter in this area generally.