Art Case Update: AI training, art worker recognition and cultural protection
Photo by Emir Bozkurt via Pexels.
Aurelian Lawyers & Advisers is your go-to source for art-related legal cases and law reform in Australia, as well as select cases internationally.
In this story, Principal & Founder Alana Kushnir and Lawyer Sarah Wei report on recent developments in arts worker classification, First Nations cultural heritage protection, AI and copyright policies internationally, museum thefts and sanctions enforcement in the art market.
Australia
How are arts workers being classified under Australia’s award system?
The Fair Work Commission has released a provisional Full Bench decision and draft determination, as part of its Modern Awards Review 2023–24, addressing classification coverage for employees in museums, galleries and art centres under the Amusement, Events and Recreation Award 2020 (proposed to be renamed the Amusement, Recreation, Events and Arts Award (AREA) 2020). As a provisional decision, it remains open for comment, with stakeholder responses due in early September 2026. It is not to be mistaken for an independently defined category for ‘Arts Workers.’ Rather, it clarifies how the existing award structures apply to roles already within the scope of the relevant award, with particular attention to curatorial and curatorial-support work.
The Full Bench indicated that giving the sector's roles a clearer place within the classification structure serves the modern awards objective, noting the award currently doesn't describe much of the work actually performed in museums, galleries and visual arts venues even though those roles clearly exist in the sector. The Commission connected this to the statutory objective of keeping modern awards simple and easy to understand, and observed that the gap has led to inconsistent classification practices in the absence of clearer guidance.
Importantly, the proposed variations are framed as clarifying the existing structure rather than replacing it, the classification hierarchy stays intact, wage relativities are unchanged, and the approach mirrors how other streams within the award already use indicative duties to guide classification decisions. The Commission's attention was focused primarily on grades 2 to 8.
A proposed definition: "visual arts venue"
The Commission provisionally considered varying clause 4.2(a) of the award to add a new definition of "visual arts venue" (rather than the alternative "visual arts organisation" proposed by the joint submission), on the basis that the award's existing definitions are generally tied to a physical premises or venue. As proposed, this would cover art centres, including community-governed centres and those created by and for First Nations art, craft and design centres, studio spaces, residencies, art fairs, art festivals, and venues used by artist-run initiatives or cooperatives.
Proposed indicative duties for people working in the arts sector
Grades 2–3 cover front-of-house and support roles: greeting visitors, invigilating spaces and assisting with retail/ticketing at grade 2; proposed at grade 3 includes supervisory and coordination duties, including cash handling and exhibition prep.
Grade 4 was the subject of two rejected proposals: carving out "exhibition technicians" as a distinct classification, and adding administrative roles (which the Commission considered already covered by the Clerks Award). Instead, grade 4 is proposed to be clarified to capture arts workers performing trade-equivalent work without a formal trade certificate, covering duties like overseeing studio or front-of-house operations and managing other employees.
Grade 5 indicative duties are proposed around exhibition logistics, collection documentation and loan administration, education and community program delivery, and liaison with artists, lenders and community groups, rather than the front-of-house supervisory role originally proposed by the joint submission.
Grade 6 proposals include managing a program area (exhibitions, collections, education or engagement), coordinating loans or touring exhibitions, conservation/restoration work, and specialist advisory duties. A proposal to move "restoration officer" and "museum technician" to a higher grade was rejected for lack of supporting material.
Grade 7 is proposed to pick up management of complex exhibitions, collections or projects, supervision of professional/technical/operational staff, budget and partnership oversight, and culturally appropriate governance duties having regard to traditional law. The Commission also proposed broadening the existing "completed training" language to recognise knowledge gained through cultural experience, not just formal training.
Grade 8 is treated as senior leadership and is proposed to cover managing multiple program areas, managing staff and budgets across functions, oversight of organisational goals and programs, and cultural leadership responsibilities.
Grades 9 and 10 will remain unchanged.
Curatorial work spotlight
A central issue before the Full Bench was whether curators should be brought within the award's classification levels.
The Commission declined to extend coverage to curators themselves. Two reasons were given:
Evidentiary basis: the material before the Commission indicated that curators typically hold significantly higher educational qualifications than the classifications contemplated by the award.
Statutory constraint: section 143(7) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) provides that a modern award must not be expressed to cover employees who, by reason of the nature or seniority of their role, have traditionally fallen outside award coverage, or whose work is not of a similar nature to work traditionally regulated by awards.
Applying s 143(7), the Full Bench found that curators do not appropriately fit within the award's classification structure and may be excluded from coverage on that basis. At [25], the Commission stated it had "not proposed variations to the Award which would have the effect of extending coverage to curators."
The Commission treated curatorial support, however, differently. Work performed in a supporting or assistant capacity was found to be capable of falling within the supplementary indicative duties proposed for existing classification levels. This means that curatorial assistance work — as distinct from the curatorial role itself — can be classified and paid under the award, provided it fits the relevant duties and grade.
No prescribed job titles
The Full Bench also declined a proposal to attach specific job titles to classification levels. The reasoning was practical rather than principled: organisational structures across the sector vary too widely, from small community-based art centres to larger museums and galleries with more complex governance and executive arrangements, for a fixed list of titles to operate reliably. The Commission observed that "the titles, scope and reporting lines of senior roles vary considerably across these settings," and that prescribing indicative roles "may inadvertently narrow or distort the application of the classification framework."
Instead, the classification structure will continue to be built around indicative duties rather than named positions. The stated intent is that this keeps the award adaptable to different organisational models while still giving guidance on the level of responsibility associated with each grade.
Practical implications
For employers in the sector, the decision means classification decisions should continue to be made by reference to the substance of duties performed, not job title.
For individuals — arts workers — the decision confirms that a title such as "curator," "assistant curator" or "curatorial officer" is not, by itself, determinative of award coverage or pay grade. What matters legally is the actual duties performed and how those duties map to the award's classification criteria.
Read the decision and draft determination here.
Can environmental approvals adequately protect ancient First Nations rock art?
Friends of Australian Rock Art (FARA) is challenging the federal Environment Minister's decision over Woodside's North West Shelf gas project.
For more than 40,000 years, the rocks of the Burrup Peninsula — Murujuga, in the language of its Ngarluma-Yaburara custodians — have carried one of the world's largest and oldest collections of petroglyphs. It also sits, uneasily, in the shadow of one of Australia's largest industrial gas complexes.
On 12 September 2025, the federal Environment Minister approved the continued and extended operation of the North West Shelf project, including long-term processing at the Karratha Gas Plant, until 31 December 2070. The Federal Court matter concerns the Murujuga/Burrup Peninsula, an area of exceptional First Nations rock art and cultural significance. The substantive hearing ran in July 2026, alongside the Australian Conservation Foundation's challenge.
Woodside’s own Federal Court submissions acknowledge that the potential impact of the plant’s industrial emissions on the rock art of the Dampier Archipelago, including the Burrup Peninsula, was the environmental issue at the centre of the approval. Material released in connection with the Minister’s decision reportedly recorded multiple lines of evidence supporting a conclusion that industrial air emissions were causing accelerated and irreversible weathering of the rock art, with deterioration likely to continue unless emissions were regulated.
Both the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) and FARA have challenged the approval in the Federal Court. Importantly, these are judicial review proceedings: the Court is not being asked to decide whether it would have approved the project itself, but whether the Minister exercised the statutory approval power according to law.
For art and cultural-heritage law, however, Friends of Australian Rock Art’s arguments may be more significant.
FARA contends that the Minister was required to act consistently with the National Heritage Management Principles and that this requirement constrains the legal power to approve the project. It also argues that the final conditions were materially different from earlier conditions considered in the heritage analysis and that the Minister could not simply rely on analysis directed to one set of safeguards when ultimately approving another.
A UN Special Rapporteur was also granted leave to participate as amicus curiae (‘friend of the court’), and placed the dispute in the broader context of Indigenous peoples’ cultural and land rights, including the principles reflected in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Practical implications
The Court’s decision, when delivered, could therefore have significance far beyond one gas project. It may tell us something fundamental about whether Commonwealth cultural-heritage protection operates as a genuine constraint on approval power or principally as one consideration within a broader executive balancing exercise.
Read the orders and submissions here.
How Copyright and AI regulation is changing
The Federal Government has now adopted its strongest public language yet on how it plans to protect Australian creative content from unauthorised use in AI training.
In July 2026, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said writers, musicians, artists and journalists should retain control over their work and that companies should not use Australian books, music, art or news to build or train AI without creator control including over the price and value of that work. The Government has also announced an Office of AI and foreshadowed legislation dealing with its wider AI framework.
The announcement comes amid public debate over how Australia should regulate access to copyright material for AI training, including proposals for licensing models and a possible "creatives fund". However, a political commitment is not the same thing as enacted copyright law, and rights holders and artists should be cautious about assuming that legislative change is imminent or certain in scope.
The issue raises an important question for Australian artists and other rights holders: what level of control will creators ultimately retain over the use of their work by AI developers?
Australia’s existing Copyright Act continues to govern reproduction and the available exceptions, at the moment. The Attorney-General’s Copyright and AI Reference Group has been considering the interaction between generative AI and copyright since 2023, but the Prime Minister’s speech shows that legislation and development of the law is on the horizon.
International
Hauser & Wirth Cleared of Russia Sanctions Charge
On 9 July 2026, at Southwark Crown Court in the UK, Hauser & Wirth was cleared in proceedings concerning an alleged breach of UK sanctions arising from the sale of an artwork to a Russian collector.
The Crown alleged that Hauser & Wirth supplied a luxury good to a person connected with Russia between 14 April and 31 December 2022. The prosecution concerned a painting by George Condo titled Escape from Humanity and the UK’s Russia luxury-goods sanctions.
The two questions before the court were whether the artwork had been “made available” to purchaser Alexander Popov under regulation 46B of the Russia sanctions regime, and whether Popov was “ordinarily resident” in Russia at the time.
The judge found there was sufficient basis for saying the artwork had been “made available” to Popov through the combination of title, payment and control.
What proved fatal to the prosecution was its evidence that Popov was a person “connected with Russia.” The evidence showed substantial Russian connections, but also significant evidence of relocation and steps to establish life elsewhere such as moving art works out of Russia, attempts to renounce citizenship and homes outside the country. The court concluded there was no evidential basis on which a properly directed jury could be sure that Russia remained part of the settled and regular order of Popov’s life at the material time.
Practical implications
For international galleries and art-market businesses navigating sanctions regimes, the decision is instructive when conducting high-value cross-border transactions. Where legislation captures dealings with persons “connected” to a country by residence or other statutory criteria, businesses need defensible information about the counterparty’s actual circumstances and about when control over the artwork passes.
Read the case here.
Dallas Mural Painted Over: Wyland’s VARA Claim Against FIFA
American marine artist Robert Wyland filed proceedings in the Northern District of Texas on 1 June 2026 after his large Dallas mural, Ocean Life, was painted over ahead of the FIFA World Cup.
Wyland’s complaint invokes the US Visual Artists Rights Act, or VARA. He alleges that the mural was a work of “recognized stature”, that named defendants which included FIFA, the owner of the building and the property management company, intentionally destroyed it and that no written waiver of his statutory rights was obtained. He seeks actual damages of not less than US$25 million in the alternative to statutory remedies.
The case is still developing, with submissions to be made by the other parties and public reports after filing stating FIFA’s position that it was not involved in the decision. Read more here.
In Australia, under Part IX of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), artists have a moral right of integrity in their work, broadly, the right not to have it subjected to “derogatory treatment”. For an artistic work, that can include destruction, material distortion, mutilation or alteration where the treatment is prejudicial to the artist’s honour or reputation.
So, would painting over a mural breach Australian moral rights? That question remains open and has not yet been tested before an Australian court.
Export News and Rules
Italy Enacts New Immunity-from-Seizure Law
Italy's new Law No. 134/2026 grants immunity from judicial seizure to foreign cultural property loaned for exhibitions, protecting it from civil disputes over ownership or possession once the Ministry of Culture issues an immunity guarantee. The protection excludes criminal proceedings, international/EU law obligations, and doesn't shield works from being reclassified as cultural property under Italian law. Immunity is available to foreign states and cultural institutions (not individuals) and is conditioned on reciprocity, meaning it only applies where the lender's home country offers equivalent protection to Italian works loaned abroad.
Read more here.
UK Blocks Export of £71 Million Rembrandt Portrait in Bid to Keep It for the Nation
The UK government has placed a temporary export ban on Rembrandt's Portrait of Catrina Hooghsaet (1657) to give UK institutions, galleries and museums the chance to raise funds and keep the work for public display in the country. An initial deferral period runs until 26 December 2026, followed by a 15-business-day consideration window if an offer is made, and a further nine-month deferral once an Option Agreement is signed.
The UK allows the Government to pause the permanent export of a cultural object deemed a national treasure. This gives a UK museum or other appropriate purchaser time to raise the funds needed to keep the work in the country, in this case a reported purchase price of £71,696,324.90 (plus VAT).
Read more here.
Europe's Museum Heists and Art Thefts
Europol’s latest cultural-property report shifts the familiar museum-security narrative. A series of high-profile thefts has targeted European museums in recent months, from Renaissance paintings in Sicily and Impressionist masterpieces in Parma to Art Nouveau objects in Alsace and a 2,500-year-old Celtic gold torque in France.
Published on 24 August 2026, Changing tactics, changing targets: the evolving nature of museum heists reports that investigators are seeing more forceful and confrontational attacks, including the use of sledgehammers, explosives and firearms. Precious metals, gemstones and culturally significant artifacts are increasingly attractive because of their high value and the opportunities to move, dismantle or transform them through illicit markets. Europol also identifies involvement by criminal actors beyond the traditional specialist art-thief profile, including opportunistic groups recruited through social media.
In Sicily on August 15, thieves used the cover of the mid-August Ferragosto holiday to break into the Museo Regionale di Messina overnight, taking three panels of Antonello da Messina's fifteenth-century San Gregorio Polyptych and a double-sided panel of the Madonna and Christ in Pietà — works so recognisable that specialists doubt they could ever be sold through legitimate channels.
Near Parma on the night of 22-23 March, masked burglars entered the Magnani-Rocca Foundation and, in under three minutes, removed paintings by Renoir, Cézanne and Matisse before an alarm cut the raid short in March. The Italian Carabinieri have since recovered the works.
In Alsace on 5 July, a gang forced entry into the Musée Lalique at Wingen-sur-Moder, smashed six display cases and left with 27 pieces of Art Nouveau and Art Deco jewellery worth an estimated €4.5 million in an eleven-minute operation.
And in Burgundy on 24 July, two men posing as ordinary visitors walked out of the Musée du Pays Châtillonnais in broad daylight with a 2,500-year-old Celtic gold torque from the Trésor de Vix.
Practical implications
For museums, this should move security out of the category of ordinary facilities management. A stolen painting or artefact creates overlapping legal problems around title, insurance, provenance, border controls, law-enforcement cooperation, and the bona fides of later purchasers. Where precious-metal cultural property is broken up or melted down, the possibility of physical restitution may disappear altogether. Whether you are buying, transacting, or protecting your own works, due diligence should now be top of mind, and security should be treated as part of cultural-property governance.
IP and Copyright Spotlight
Banksy's Indemnity Costs Ruling: The Risk of Using Litigation as Commercial Leverage
Banksy returned to the UK High Court of Justice on 1 April 2026, in Full Colour Black Limited v The Artist Known as "Banksy" and Another [2026] EWHC 795 (KB), in a dispute over the commercial use of the artist’s work.
The latest proceedings between Full Colour Black and the artist known as Banksy add to the growing body of litigation surrounding the commercial exploitation and legal protection of Banksy's work.
Full Colour Black Ltd (trading as Brandalised) sued Banksy and his licensing company, Pest Control Office Ltd, for libel over an Instagram post Banksy published on 18 November 2022. The post responded to a fashion collaboration between FCB and GUESS that used images derived from Banksy's artworks. FCB discontinued the libel claim in March 2025, just before a summary judgment hearing the defendants had brought against it. The defendants then sought (i) indemnity costs against FCB and (ii) a non-party costs order against Andrew Gallagher, FCB's sole director and shareholder.
Ruling on indemnity costs - granted
The presiding Nicklin J found the defamation case objectively had no real prospect of success and concluded that the proceedings had been used to apply pressure through Banksy’s concern to maintain anonymity, including in wider disputes about commercial exploitation of his work. The Court concluded that the way and purposes for which the proceedings were pursued were unreasonable to a high degree and ordered Full Colour Black to pay the defendants’ costs on the indemnity basis from 10 October 2023.
Read more here.
Peppa Pig Ruling Confirms Copyright Can Protect Sound Alone
On 26 June 2026, in Hasbro Consumer Products Licensing Limited & Anor v SConnect Co.Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 1546 (Ch), Richard Smith J in the Chancery Division of the UK High Court considered whether short audio clips lifted from a larger animated work could themselves attract independent copyright protection.
The claimants relied on individual audio clips like spoken words and sound effects recorded separately before being incorporated into Peppa Pig episodes. The Court held that the relevant copyright was copyright in the sound recordings themselves, not an abstract monopoly over the sounds represented. It also rejected the argument that those sound recordings needed the kind of “originality” required of literary and artistic works. The Court accepted evidence showing extensive matching between sounds in Peppa Pig and Wolfoo videos and held that the defendants had no realistic prospect of defeating the copying claim.
The key takeaway is that even a short audio clip can be a distinct sound recording, and copying that recording can infringe copyright even when the clip forms only one small element of a much larger audiovisual production.
Read more here.
Molly Tea Ruling Shows How Far a Floral Logo Can Travel Before It Infringes
In late June 2026, in Louis Vuitton Malletier v Shenzhen Molly Tea Catering Management Co., Ltd, the Suzhou Intermediate People's Court in China considered whether a Chinese tea chain's four-petal logo was confusingly similar to Louis Vuitton's registered floral device marks. The verdict fell in favour of LV, with Molly Tea ordered to cease use of the logo, publish corrective statements and pay RMB 10.3 million in damages and costs. An appeal is likely, in which the question of distinctiveness will be re-examined.
The dispute is notable because the two businesses operate in very different commercial categories, and because it has prompted public debate in China about the relationship between modern trademarks and much older decorative floral traditions.
Read more here.
Loro Piana's "White Sole" Injunction Extends Fashion Protection Beyond the Logo
By order dated 12 May 2026, in Loro Piana S.p.A. v Parijan SAS, the Court of Turin in Italy has granted Loro Piana a preliminary injunction against French fashion retailer Parijan SAS finding that several of its loafers were not simply inspired by Loro Piana’s Summer Walk and Open Walk “White Sole” shoes, but reproduced their distinctive overall appearance.
The Court focused on the combination of features that give the shoes their recognisable identity, including the contrasting light rubber sole, soft and unstructured silhouette, mock welt, tonal stitching and characteristic tread.
For the luxury sector, the decision reinforces the proposition that protection can extend beyond a conventional logo or word mark to the distinctive overall appearance and combination of aesthetic features of a product.
Read more here.
AI Law Developments, Globally
The Bartz v Anthropic Settlement Becomes the Largest Copyright Settlement in US History
Authors who found their books swept up in Anthropic's AI training data now have a final answer on compensation. The US District Court for the Northern District of California granted final approval on 20 July 2026 to a US$1.5 billion settlement in Bartz v Anthropic PBC, closing out what is now the largest copyright class action settlement in US history.
Read the case here.
Düsseldorf's AI Dog-Photo Ruling Shows Copyright Turns on Human Control, Not the Tool
The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf has weighed in on one of the thorniest questions in AI copyright law: can AI images be protected? The court considered whether an underwater photograph of a dog that had been fed into a generative AI tool to create a later image could be protected.
In its decision of 2 April 2026 (I-20 W 2/26), the Court found that the AI-generated result had not been shown to constitute a new copyright-protected work because the evidence did not establish sufficient human creative influence over its particular form.
At the same time, it found no infringement of the source photograph because the later image reproduced essentially the underlying motif, which was a dog underwater reaching for an object, rather than the photographer’s protectable choices concerning elements such as perspective, framing, lighting and sharpness.
Read more here.
South Korea's Music Collecting Society Reverses Its Ban on AI-Assisted Registration
For over a year, creators in South Korea seeking royalties for AI-assisted music had to certify that no AI was involved at all. That changed on 4 August 2026, when the Korea Music Copyright Association (KOMCA) announced revised standards allowing registration of AI-assisted works provided a human creator's contribution is "substantial and leading." The change was short-lived. Three weeks later, on 25 August 2026, KOMCA's board voted to withdraw the new standard altogether. Reporting on the withdrawal suggests strong artistic and public backlash, and a concern that KOMCA had overstepped by writing the legal definition of authorship — a task many argued belonged to South Korea's National Assembly.
A collecting society needs operational rules to administer royalties in a world where AI assistance is already common. By creating its own substantive threshold for how much human input makes an AI-assisted work registrable, KOMCA effectively wrote a definition of authorship. A determination of authorship should, however, be left to legislators and government, not administrative bodies.
Timeline:
24 March 2025 - KOMCA's "zero percent" rule takes effect, barring registration of any work involving AI, however minor the contribution.
28 July 2026 - KOMCA's board approves amendments permitting registration of AI-assisted works.
3–4 August 2026 - The revised standard takes effect and is publicly announced.
25 August 2026 - KOMCA's board votes to withdraw the standard, roughly three weeks after it took effect.
Read more here.