Credit: Andrea De Santis (Unsplash)
Why changing a work by 10%, finding it on Google or paying a freelancer does not necessarily give you the right to use it
The internet has created a strange kind of confidence.
Somewhere between Google Images, Pinterest boards, Instagram feeds and AI-generated content, many otherwise intelligent people have developed a belief that if something appears online, it must somehow be available for the taking.
It is not.
Yet every week creative businesses, marketers, designers, influencers, entrepreneurs and even large corporations continue to make the same copyright mistakes. They copy an image because it was easy to find. They borrow a logo concept because they changed it “enough”. They use a photograph because nobody complained. They assume they own work because they paid somebody to create it.
Then comes the unpleasant surprise.
The letter of demand.
The takedown notice.
The dispute.
The legal costs.
The awkward conversation with a client.
The reality is that copyright law has always been less concerned with convenience than it is with protecting creativity. While technology has dramatically changed how creative works are distributed, shared and reproduced, the fundamental legal principles have remained remarkably stubborn. Copyright still belongs to creators and copyright infringement is still copyright infringement, whether it occurs with tracing paper, a photocopier, Photoshop, Pinterest or artificial intelligence.
One of the biggest myths in the creative industries is the idea that copyright protects ideas.
It does not.
If it did, nobody would ever be allowed to write another detective novel, paint another landscape, compose another love song or design another floral pattern.
Copyright protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. This distinction is one of the cornerstones of copyright law. Anybody can have the idea for a detective story. Not everybody can copy the exact way another author expressed that idea. Anybody can create a fashion label inspired by nature. That does not mean they can reproduce another designer’s artwork. Anybody can be inspired by a photograph. That does not automatically give them permission to copy it.
This is where many creative people inadvertently wander into dangerous territory.
They tell themselves they were merely inspired.
Perhaps they genuinely were.
The problem is that courts do not simply ask whether somebody intended to copy. Courts look at what was actually taken.
That brings us to another copyright myth that refuses to die despite decades of legal reality.
The so-called “10 per cent rule”.
It is one of the most persistent pieces of legal nonsense circulating through creative industries, design studios, marketing departments and social media groups.
Somewhere along the line, a rumour developed that if you change a work by ten per cent, twenty per cent or some other magical number, copyright infringement somehow disappears.
The law has never worked this way.
There is no ten per cent rule.
There never has been.
A court does not sit down with a calculator and determine whether enough pixels have been moved around to avoid liability. Instead, the question is whether a substantial part of the original work has been reproduced. Importantly, substantial does not necessarily mean large. The law focuses on the quality of what has been taken rather than the quantity. A relatively small but important element of a work can be enough to create legal problems.
This often comes as a shock to people who have spent hours modifying someone else’s work and genuinely believe they have created something new.
Sometimes they have.
Sometimes they have simply produced a modified version of somebody else’s copyright material.
The difference can be expensive.
The internet has also given rise to another misconception. Many people assume that if they can download an image, they can use it.
This is a little like assuming that because you can walk into a car dealership and see a vehicle, you can drive it away.
Visibility is not ownership.
Accessibility is not permission.
The fact that a photograph appears on Instagram, Pinterest, Facebook, LinkedIn or a website does not place it into the public domain. In most cases, copyright continues to subsist in that photograph and reproducing it without permission may expose the user to legal liability.
This can create particular challenges for businesses that rely heavily on visual marketing.
Mood boards are a good example.
Many businesses create mood boards using images sourced from across the internet. While mood boards can be useful creative tools, problems can arise when they move beyond internal brainstorming and become public-facing marketing material. What started as inspiration can quickly become reproduction.
The distinction matters.
Copyright law often cares deeply about distinctions that creative people overlook.
Another area that causes endless confusion concerns freelancers.
Many businesses assume that paying for work automatically means owning the copyright.
Again, not necessarily.
Under Australian copyright law, freelancers will generally own copyright in the work they create unless there is an agreement transferring ownership. In many situations, the client receives an implied right to use the work for the purpose for which it was commissioned, but not necessarily ownership of the underlying intellectual property itself.
This misunderstanding has fuelled countless disputes.
A business pays for a logo and assumes it owns everything.
The designer assumes they still own the copyright.
Years later, both parties discover they were operating on entirely different assumptions.
The result is often a legal argument that could have been avoided with a properly drafted agreement.
Then there is perhaps the most fascinating copyright concept of all: unconscious copying.
Most people imagine copyright infringement involves deliberate misconduct.
Someone knowingly reproduces another person’s work and hopes they will not get caught.
Sometimes that happens.
But copyright law is not confined to intentional copying.
A person can sometimes infringe copyright without consciously realising they have copied anything at all. If they had access to an earlier work and produce something that is substantially similar, a court may conclude that copying occurred, even if the person genuinely believed they were being original.
This can be uncomfortable for creative professionals.
Nobody likes to think their brilliant idea may have been influenced by something encountered years earlier.
Yet human memory is not nearly as reliable as most people imagine.
Creative inspiration and recollection often become tangled together in ways that are difficult to separate.
That is one reason why copyright law can be surprisingly complex.
It is not merely a legal issue.
It is also a human one.
For creators, copyright functions as both shield and sword.
It protects the investment of time, skill, effort and creativity that goes into producing original work. It encourages innovation by allowing creators to control how their work is used and monetised. At the same time, it provides mechanisms for taking action when those rights are infringed.
In an economy increasingly driven by ideas, content, branding and digital assets, copyright has become more valuable than ever.
Many businesses now own far more intellectual property than physical property.
Their photographs, websites, marketing campaigns, written content, software, branding assets, artwork and social media content often represent some of their most valuable commercial assets.
Yet these are frequently the assets that receive the least attention until a problem arises.
That approach can be risky.
The internet may have made copying easier than at any point in human history, but it has also made detection easier. Reverse image searches, digital monitoring tools, metadata analysis and online investigations have transformed the way copyright owners identify unauthorised use of their works.
The chances of being discovered are often far greater than people assume.
The better approach is to ask the right questions before publishing, reproducing, commissioning or adapting content.
Because by the time a copyright dispute reaches your inbox, the cheapest opportunity to solve the problem has usually already passed.
Why Use a Copyright Lawyer?
Copyright law is rarely as straightforward as people expect. Questions about ownership, licensing, commissioning arrangements, online content, social media use, artificial intelligence, infringement claims and enforcement often involve legal nuances that are not immediately obvious.
A copyright lawyer can help identify risks before content is published, review agreements with freelancers and contractors, advise on ownership and licensing issues, respond to infringement claims, prepare cease and desist letters and develop practical strategies for protecting valuable intellectual property assets.
In many situations, a short conversation before taking action can prevent a much larger problem later.
How Sharon Givoni Consulting Can Help
At Sharon Givoni Consulting, we advise businesses, creatives, designers, photographers, artists, publishers, agencies, influencers and entrepreneurs on copyright law and intellectual property protection.
Whether you are creating content, commissioning work, launching a brand, licensing intellectual property or dealing with an infringement dispute, we can help you understand your rights and develop a practical strategy to protect what you have created.
After all, in a world where almost everything can be copied with a click, understanding copyright is no longer just useful.
It is essential.
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.