DIY contracts, big regrets: why creatives should stop copying templates

Used under a Creative Commons Licence

DIY contracts, big regrets: why creatives should stop copying templates

There is a special kind of 1am panic that only hits after you have copied a stranger’s terms and conditions off the internet, swapped in your business name, and then actually had to rely on that Franken‑contract in a real dispute. It is the moment you realise the “perfect” template you found was written for another country, another industry, and possibly another century – and yet it now governs your relationship with clients, collaborators and your most valuable intellectual property. This article looks at why Australian creatives and small businesses so often reach for free or cheap templates, what can go wrong when those contracts do not match local law or your real IP risks, and why getting tailored advice upfront is usually cheaper – and kinder to your sleep – than trying to patch things together after a crisis.​

Why creatives love templates (and why that’s risky)

Template contracts look irresistible on paper. They are quick to download, cheap or free, and often marketed as “one‑size‑fits‑all” for designers, photographers, writers or agencies. For a busy creative or small business in Melbourne or Sydney, grabbing a template feels like a smart, practical move. The problem is that a lot of online contracts are drafted for overseas law – usually US, UK or generic “common law” – not Australian law, and many are out of date on key issues like unfair contract terms, consumer law and privacy.​

Another major issue is that these templates often say little or nothing useful about intellectual property ownership, licences or moral rights. IP Australia and other government resources repeatedly stress that IP ownership, licences and collaboration terms should be clearly agreed in writing, and that generic wording can easily miss or misstate details that are critical for your particular project. A contract that “sort of” covers payment and deadlines but ignores who owns the content or how it can be reused is a very shaky base for a creative business.​

What templates often get wrong about IP

When it comes to copyright, trade marks and other types of IP, templates commonly get three things wrong.

First, they may blur who actually owns what. Many assume the client or business automatically owns all IP created under the contract, which is not how Australian copyright works for independent contractors. Unless there is a proper assignment clause, your freelancer may still own the copyright in key content even if the contract vaguely suggests otherwise. That can cause problems if you later want to register a trade mark, license material widely or enforce your rights against copycats.​

Second, peoople can be unclear about licence scope and reuse. Templates often glide over how work can be reused, adapted or resold. That can leave both sides unsure about whether content can be repurposed – for example, turning blog posts into a book or online course – or whether a contractor is allowed to reuse elements in future projects. Without clear terms, you end up relying on “what we thought was okay”, which is not a strong legal position.​

Third, creatives who draft contracts themeslves can iadvertently mishandle moral rights and attribution.

Australian law gives creators moral rights, including the right to be credited and not to have their work treated in a derogatory way. Overseas‑style templates may ignore moral rights completely or try to waive them in sweeping language that does not sit well with Australian law or creative ethics. These gaps can leave your contract looking tough on the surface but legally flimsy when challenged.​

When DIY contracts are tested in real disputes

The risks of copying templates are not theoretical; they show up whenever contracts are pushed in real‑world disputes or big transactions.

We see this time and tine again in the firm.

Clauses cut and pasted from foreign agreements may refer to the wrong legislation, procedures or legal concepts, making them unclear or even unenforceable in Australia. Laws also change over time – especially in areas like unfair contract terms under the Australian Consumer Law and privacy – so static templates that are not updated can quietly expose you to penalties or invalid clauses.​

Generic agreements also tend to miss the IP risks that actually matter to you.

They rarely spell out what happens to jointly developed IP in a collaboration, how portfolio rights work for creatives, or what rights each party has after the relationship ends. Things can come to a head during due diligence if you try to raise capital, sell your business or license your IP. Lawyers for the other side will comb through your contracts and, if they find that important IP is owned by third parties or that your terms are vague, deals can stall, be repriced or even fall over.

The “saving” you made by using a free or generic template often disappears the first time you need the contract to do some heavy lifting.​

Some risk areas are especially sensitive.

If your contract does not clearly say that copyright in your logo and brand assets is assigned to you, your designer may still technically own them, which can be a serious issue if you want to register a trade mark, franchise your brand or take action against copycats. The same is true for website copy and layouts, where a developer or copywriter might reuse structures or wording for other clients, and for course content or training materials, where a contractor might later adapt slides, workbooks or videos for their own programs unless your agreement clearly says they cannot. The more central the content is to your brand or business model, the more dangerous it is to rely on vague assumptions about who owns it and who can reuse it.​

Collaborations and joint projects

What we see in our law firm is that this is one area where online templates really struggle.

Collaboration is where creatives shine and where template contracts often crumble. Joint projects between designers, writers, developers, podcast hosts or agencies, brand partnerships and co‑branded campaigns, and co‑created products licensed across multiple platforms all raise complex IP questions. IP Australia’s guidance on IP management for collaborations highlights the need to work out who owns the IP each party brings in (background IP), who will own any new IP created together (project IP), how each side can use the other’s IP during and after the collaboration, and what happens if someone leaves or the project ends.​

Off‑the‑shelf templates rarely match these realities.

They might assume a simple “client / supplier” relationship when in fact your arrangement is closer to a joint venture, or they may ignore joint ownership entirely. That mismatch is a recipe for confusion and resentment and can be very expensive to untangle later. Government‑linked tools such as the Australian IP Toolkit for Collaboration include model clauses, but even those documents warn they are starting points only and should be adapted – ideally with legal input – to suit the particular project.​

Why tailored IP advice is usually cheaper in the long run

It is easy to see tailored legal advice as a luxury and templates as “good enough”, but once you factor in the cost of misunderstandings, re‑negotiations and lost deals, the maths changes. A lawyer‑drafted agreement built around your real business model can prevent disputes that would cost far more than the initial drafting fee. For many creatives and small businesses, the most valuable assets are intangible – brand, content, software, designs, reputation – and locking those inside a vague or ill‑fitting contract is a high‑stakes gamble.​

Government resources on IP and contracts consistently urge businesses to be specific about IP ownership and to seek legal advice for collaborations, major licences and transfers. DIY tools and model documents can be very useful to help you understand the issues and ask better questions, but they are not a replacement for an experienced IP lawyer who can see the traps before you fall into them.​

Sharon Givoni Consulting can review the contracts you are already using – or thinking of copying – and explain, in plain English, what they actually do, what they miss, and how that affects your IP and branding. The firm can then prepare tailored agreements for designers, writers, photographers, agencies, startups and other creatives, covering ownership, licences, moral rights, portfolio use and collaboration terms in a way that fits how you actually work. If you are entering a collaboration, licensing your IP, or getting ready for investment or sale, Sharon Givoni Consulting can help structure the paperwork so your contracts support the deal instead of quietly undermining it.​

The lesson

This is one of those areas where “she’ll be right” is not a strategy – it is an invitation for trouble. If the content really matters to your business, trust an IP lawyer more than your late‑night Googling, and get the ownership and licences sorted properly before the plot twist arrives.

What we can do for you

• Review existing contracts
• Work out who owns what
• Identify implied licenses
• Recommend copyright assignments
• Draft clear IP clauses
• Set license scope and limits
• Define portfolio and reuse rights
• Clarify payment and approval terms
• Tailor agreements to your industry
• Explain your legal position in disputes
• Help resolve IP and content conflicts

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.