Understanding copyright risks for printers

Used under a Creative Commons Licence

This article is relevant to:

• Owners of commercial print businesses (offset, digital, wide‑format)
• Managers at trade printers and print brokers
• In‑house legal or compliance staff at printing companies
• Pre‑press, production and account managers who approve client jobs
• Small print shop and copy‑shop owners (including franchisees)
• Printing businesses offering in‑house design or artwork services
• 3D printing, signage, merchandise and promotional product printers
• Marketing, design and creative agencies that outsource to printers

In today’s print industry, copyright risk isn’t just your client’s problem — it’s yours too. The business of printing has changed dramatically in the past decade. Jobs arrive by email, through online ordering systems, or via file‑sharing links rather than across a counter. Clients might submit artwork downloaded from the internet, logos they found on social media, or even AI‑generated designs that may or may not be derived from someone else’s protected work. In this environment, the old saying “we just print what we’re given” no longer holds up in court. Printers are now expected to act with awareness, diligence, and proper business processes that show they took reasonable steps to avoid reproducing infringing material.

As the late Justice Wilcox famously observed, “Turning a blind eye to the obvious is not innocence, but indifference — and the law does not reward indifference.” That principle is central to how Australian courts interpret the idea of copyright authorisation — a legal concept that expands liability beyond the person who directly copies the work.

So what does authorisation actually mean? Under sections 36 and 101 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), a person can infringe copyright not only by physically copying or distributing a work, but also by authorising someone else to do it. In simple terms, authorisation means giving permission, encouragement, or indirect approval — even passively — for someone else’s infringing act.

In practice, a printer might be seen as authorising infringement when they produce materials that are clearly copied or use protected content without taking reasonable precautions. For example, printing an obviously branded brochure or reproducing a well‑known corporate logo without checking its origin could cross that line. Courts look at three factors: how much power the printer had to prevent the infringement, what steps were taken to avoid it, and whether they knew or should have known about the risk.

Or, as one trade lawyer put it, “Every time you hit ‘print’, you’re saying yes to what comes out — make sure you’d be comfortable defending that yes.”

By understanding how authorisation works and putting practical safeguards in place, printers can protect both their business and their reputation from the costly consequences of copyright infringement.

​

Why printers can be on the hook

When a customer asks you to reproduce content, you are not just providing a neutral service; in many situations, you are enabling the act that infringes copyright. Factors courts consider when deciding whether a business has authorised infringement include:

1. The extent of the business’s power to prevent the infringement
2. What reasonable steps were taken to avoid or stop infringement
3. Whether the business had knowledge, or should have had knowledge, of likely infringement

In practice, this means a printer who routinely reproduces obviously branded material, images lifted from the internet, or designs that clearly belong to someone else, without any checks or contractual protections, may face real legal exposure. As printing technologies expand into areas like 3D printing, design reproduction and on‑demand manufacturing, the potential for infringement only increases.

The digital shift — and why it matters more than ever

Most print jobs no longer walk through the front door as hard‑copy artwork. They arrive instantly — through email, upload portals, or automated web‑to‑print systems. On the surface, this digital convenience seems like progress. But beneath it lies a legal trap that continues to catch many printers by surprise.

A growing number of files come filled with images pulled straight from social media, “free” stock sites, or designs generated by AI tools such as Midjourney or Canva’s text‑to‑image features. Because these sources feel open or automated, many clients assume the content is theirs to use — and many printers unknowingly agree. Unfortunately, Australian law doesn’t see it that way.

Unlike some overseas jurisdictions, Australia has not introduced any broad “free use” exception for AI‑created material or for works used to train AI systems. Copyright owners still hold powerful rights in their original works, and using something that “looked available online” can still amount to infringement.

For printers, that means you can’t rely on a casual assurance that a client’s artwork “came from an AI” or “was found online.” If the material includes a company logo, a recognisable photo, or art that clearly belongs to someone else, producing it could still expose your business to a copyright claim.

The takeaway? Digital workflows make jobs faster — but they also make it easier for questionable content to slip in unseen.

Having clear terms of trade, staff awareness, and basic file‑checking steps is now essential, not optional. It’s how printers can keep pace with technology while staying on the right side of the law.

Why terms of trade and procedures matter

Good terms of trade and internal procedures do not remove all risk, but they are a key part of showing you took “reasonable steps” to prevent infringement. Industry‑style terms often include: a warranty from the customer that they own or are licensed to use the content, an express authorisation for you to reproduce the material, and an indemnity protecting you if that warranty turns out to be wrong.

However, generic or outdated terms may not reflect how your business now operates.

Terms also need to be brought clearly to the customer’s attention – not hidden – and backed up by staff training and simple procedures: when to ask questions, when to refuse a job, and when to escalate for advice.

How our law firm can help

Every print business is different in its client base, services and risk appetite. Off‑the‑shelf documents or copying another printer’s terms can leave important gaps, especially where you offer design services, reuse work on your website or social media, or handle complex digital or 3D work.

We can:

• Review how you take in work and spot key copyright risks.
• Update your terms, order forms and online conditions to suit your services.
• Create simple staff procedures for checking jobs and raising concerns.
• Advise on higher‑risk areas like AI‑generated art or 3D printing.
• A quick review now costs far less than handling a dispute later.

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.