Used under a Creative Commons Licence
Copyright and Wrong: A Basic Guide for Designers
Designers are working faster and sharing more than ever – logos whipped up overnight, mood boards on Pinterest, process videos on Instagram and client work in online portfolios. The law, however, has not changed as quickly. Many of the myths from 2015 are still doing the rounds, and new habits (like AI tools and constant social posting) have added fresh layers of risk. This updated guide brings the original “Copyright and Wrong” article into today’s Australian context, using the same plain‑English foundations but with 2026 realities in mind.
What copyright protects (and what it doesn’t)
In Australia, copyright is still an automatic right. As soon as you create something and fix it in a tangible form – a drawing, layout file, photo, animation, code, etc. – it is potentially protected. You do not need to register it or add a © symbol for protection to arise.
Copyright can cover:
- logos and brand artwork (if sufficiently original and more than a simple word or geometric shape)
- illustrations, typography layouts and packaging artwork
- photographs, animations, videos, sound recordings and text (including blog copy and UX copy)
- digital art, motion design and even some 3D assets used in product visualisation.
However, copyright does not protect:
- ideas, concepts or design “vibes”
- general styles, trends or techniques (for example, “Brutalist web design”, “grunge textures” or “naïve illustration style”)
- very basic shapes or common symbols that lack originality.
The line from the original article still holds: copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. A drawing of “a boy holding a balloon” can be protected, but not the bare idea of “boy + balloon”.
Myths that still get designers into trouble
Some of the most persistent myths in creative circles are the same ones called out years ago – but now amplified by social media and AI.
“I changed it by 10 per cent, so it’s fine.”
There is still no “10 per cent rule” in Australian copyright law. The question is whether you have taken a substantial part of someone else’s work – and that is about quality, not quantity. If you lift the key visual element or essence of a work, that can be infringement even if lots of other details are changed.
“It’s on the internet and there’s no © symbol, so I can use it.”
Online images, fonts, videos and illustrations are almost always protected, symbol or not. The fact that you cannot easily find the owner does not mean the work is free to use. “I found it on Google Images / Pinterest / Instagram” is not a defence.
“I paid for the work, so I own it.”
In Australia, paying a freelancer or studio does not automatically transfer copyright, unless the creator is your employee and the work is created in the course of employment, or the contract clearly assigns copyright. Without an assignment clause, the creator usually remains the copyright owner and you have only an implied or limited licence.
“I created it, so I can post it anywhere.”
If you have assigned copyright to a client, or agreed to restrictions in your contract, you may not be free to post the work on your website or social media without consent. This is why some clients ask designers to remove portfolio pieces – their contract gives them stronger rights than the designer realised.
Substantial reproduction: why “inspired by” can still infringe
Designers often sit in the grey area between influence and copying. The law asks whether a “substantial part” of the original work has been taken. It is not a numbers game; courts look at whether the important, distinctive features have been copied.
For example:
If you closely trace or recreate the key character, layout or illustration from another designer’s work, that will often be substantial reproduction, even if colours, backgrounds or minor details are tweaked.
If you adopt the same underlying idea but express it in a genuinely different way (for example, a completely new composition, characters and style), you are more likely to be safe – but the assessment is always fact‑specific and can be surprisingly strict.
The uncomfortable truth is that lightly “remixing” someone’s design can still be infringement if their essential creative choices are carried through into your version.
Types of infringement: more than just direct copying
Australian law still recognises several ways copyright can be infringed, and designers need to be aware of more than just obvious tracing.
Direct infringement
Reproducing someone’s work in any material form without permission can infringe, including:
- placing a third‑party image in a pitch deck or mood board published online
- using a stock image outside the licence terms
- photographs, animations, videos, sound recordings and text (including blog copy and UX copy)
Authorising infringement
Clients who instruct designers to “copy this logo” or “make something very close to this competitor’s layout” may themselves be liable for authorising infringement. Designers who go along with it can be directly liable; clients can be secondarily responsible for pushing them to do so. Both sides bear risk.
Unconscious copying
Courts can find infringement even if the copier did not set out to copy, where it is likely they have seen the earlier work and their “new” work is too close to be coincidence. In a world of feeds, mood boards and saved posts, this risk is higher: if a design looks extremely similar, the other side can argue that what felt like inspiration was really unconscious reproduction.
At the same time, style and technique remain free for all. You cannot claim ownership over a general illustrative style, a trend, a brush technique or a type of colour grading, no matter how signature it feels to you. Protection attaches to specific works, not broad stylistic territory.
Online use, mood boards and AI in 2026
The original article highlighted mood boards and websites; the same logic now extends to a broader set of online practices.
Mood boards and pitches
Internal mood boards that never leave your studio are lower risk. The moment you publish them – on your website, in a downloadable PDF, in a webinar or course – you may be reproducing multiple third‑party works without permission. It is safer to use properly licensed stock or your own work in any public‑facing material.
Social media portfolios and process posts
Many designers share client work, in‑progress screenshots and lettering experiments on Instagram, TikTok and LinkedIn. If your contract assigns copyright to the client or restricts publicity, you may need explicit permission to show the work, especially before launch. Getting a simple “portfolio rights” clause into your agreements can avoid awkward take‑down requests later.
AI tools and training data
While the law is still catching up, using AI image tools to generate “in the style of [famous designer/artist]” raises similar issues to heavily referencing a human creator. The fact that an AI tool outputs the image does not guarantee it is safe to use commercially; you can still be criticised or challenged if the output is too close to an identifiable source.
Practical habits for designers
The core message of “Copyright and Wrong” is still right: copyright can be both a shield and a sword. Used well, it can protect your work from copying and help you push back when others appropriate your designs. Used carelessly, it can trip you up when you borrow too heavily from others or post client work without thinking.
Some practical habits that help:
- Treat anything you didn’t create – especially online – as protected by default unless you have a clear licence.
- Build reference libraries from properly licensed sources (paid stock, commissioned photography, your own archives) rather than random screenshots./li>
- Use contracts that clearly spell out who owns what, and whether you can show the work in your portfolio.
- When in doubt about how close is “too close”, or whether you’ve been copied, get legal advice rather than relying on rules of thumb like “10 per cent change”.
This overview is general information only and not a substitute for tailored legal advice. For designers, a short conversation with an intellectual property lawyer who understands the creative industries can be the difference between “inspired by” and “copyright and wrong”.
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.