Sally Scales warns AI imitations strip Indigenous art of agency and authenticity

Australia’s government has promised to protect creators from copyright theft. But Pitjantjatjara artist Sally Scales says AI is already turning First Nations art into “Temu slop.” Speaking to the Guardian, the chair of the National Gallery of Australia’s First Nations advisory group warned that imitation strips away artists’ agency, cultural connection and authenticity.

Scales described the technology’s use of First Nations art as a theft of cultural knowledge, not simply a way to produce competing pictures. Her objection rests on what an imitation cannot supply: the artist’s family lineage, lived experience and connection to the work. Those relationships, she said, are missing from generated substitutes.

It’s a theft of the agency of the artist. It rips the authenticity out of it, because it’s not been made by anyone who has the connection … the artist’s family lineage is not there, the lived experience is not there.

Sally Scales, speaking to the Guardian

Names removed, cultural knowledge repackaged

The National Association for the Visual Arts, or NAVA, has raised related concerns in a submission to Australia’s parliamentary AI inquiry. It cited Indigenous cultural and intellectual property lawyer Terri Janke’s documentation of AI scraping Indigenous art-centre websites, removing artists’ names and altering their work.

NAVA said members were concerned about AI-generated “Aboriginal-style” designs that imitate techniques, stories, motifs and mark-making specific to communities. When sold as Indigenous or Indigenous-inspired work, the association warned, those images can spread misinformation, cause cultural and economic harm, and compete with First Nations artists. Janke has also warned that AI can reproduce cultural knowledge without regard for accuracy or appropriate use.

The Guardian’s marketplace searches found paintings described as Aboriginal, alongside coasters and drink holders bearing Aboriginal-style designs, on Temu, Shein and Amazon. Most lacked attribution to an artist. Separately, NAVA framed Indigenous data sovereignty as First Nations peoples’ right to exercise authority over their data, cultural material and knowledge.

A paid commission can become an unpaid substitute

Kathy Bowrey, an intellectual property specialist at UNSW Law, described another route to harm. An organisation might pay for artwork or images of Aboriginal people, then use AI to update or repurpose those images without permission. In her example, an initial payment becomes the basis for unauthorised derivative work, including use of artists’ faces without consent.

The artist could lose repeat business and then face competition from the AI-generated work, Bowrey said. She argued that First Nations creators face added difficulties beyond existing copyright infringement, including a lack of control over ownership and respect for Aboriginal culture.

Disclosure, refusal and compensation remain proposals

Bowrey and creative technologies expert Oliver Bown have proposed a Copyright Plus framework to give creators greater control. The proposal described by the Guardian would combine rules about what AI companies take with measures addressing the content they produce:

• Require AI companies to disclose their data sources and give artists the right to refuse scraping or imitation.
• Impose a levy on AI companies to support payments to creative professionals and establish a cultural fund.
• Use takedown notices for fake content.

These are proposed protections, not adopted government measures. Bowrey said the draft followed the parameters the government had outlined. An attorney general’s spokesperson said consultation with creators, media organisations and AI companies was continuing, with the aim of ensuring future copyright changes deliver meaningful control and fair compensation.