Street Art, copyright, and photography in Australia: what you should know
For photographers, street art can be a visual magnet. Bright walls, bold stencils, and layered paste-ups often add drama and character to urban shoots.
But in Australia, there’s a legal wrinkle many pros and emerging shooters overlook: photographing street art can land you in copyright trouble — even when it’s in a public space.
The legal landscape in Australia
Under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), street art is considered an “artistic work” and is protected just like a painting in a gallery. Copyright arises automatically — the artist doesn’t need to register anything. This applies whether the work was legally commissioned or painted without permission.
If you photograph street art as the main subject of your image and then use that photo commercially — for prints, advertising, merchandise, or editorial campaigns — you may be infringing the artist’s copyright or their moral rights (the right to be credited and to protect the integrity of their work).
If the artwork appears incidentally — say, blurred in the background of a street portrait — the legal risk is generally lower. But it’s not a guaranteed safe zone. The more recognisable and central the art is, the greater the potential for infringement claims.
As Henri Cartier-Bresson once said, “Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst.” But when it comes to street art, your first mistake could also be your costliest.
Why this is still a ‘Vexed Question’ in Australia
Unlike the US — where high-profile cases such as Castillo v G&M Realty over the demolition of the 5Pointz street art mecca resulted in a US$6.75 million payout — Australia hasn’t had a major precedent-setting case.
Most disputes here are settled quietly out of court. IP lawyer Jennifer Tutty notes that street artists often lack the funds to fight large brands in lengthy legal battles.
But the principles are clear: photograph and exploit street art without permission, and you’re at risk. This includes:
- Using street art in advertising without consent
- Selling prints where the artwork is the primary subject
- Editing or altering the artwork in ways that distort the artist’s intended meaning
- Even if the artist is anonymous, copyright still applies. The challenge for them is proving ownership — but that’s their legal hurdle, not yours.
While our Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) automatically protects artistic works, including street art, there’s no Australian case that has addressed issues like: Can an artist stop an influencer from using their mural as a backdrop for commercial promotion? Or sue a brand for reproducing it on merchandise without consent?
Most disputes here are settled quietly as artists often don’t have the funds to take large companies and disputes tend to resolve through confidential negotiations rather than court.
This lack of decisive legal battles means the boundaries remain murky — and photographers must tread carefully when street art features in their work, especially if it’s the main subject rather than incidental background.
The AI Factor in 2025
Leaving this part of the law aside, an emerging risk for photographers is the use of generative AI tools to modify or replicate street art.
For example, replacing a mural with an AI-generated background may still breach the artist’s moral rights if it distorts or misrepresents their work. Conversely, AI could unintentionally recreate a substantial part of an existing artwork, triggering copyright issues.
If you outsource editing or retouching, ensure your agreement requires human review and confirmation that no AI-generated art infringes existing works.
Practical tips for photographers
Get Permission When Possible – Especially if the art is the main subject and the work will be sold or used commercially.
- Keep It Incidental – For commercial shoots, position street art as a background element rather than the focus.
- Credit the Artist – This can help meet moral rights obligations, though it doesn’t replace the need for consent.
- Watch Your Edits – Avoid altering street art in ways that could damage the artist’s reputation or distort the work.
Final frame
Street art adds vibrancy to our cities and to our photography, but it’s also someone’s intellectual property. For photographers, whether you’re shooting a wedding couple in Melbourne’s Hosier Lane or a fashion spread in front of a mural in Sydney, understanding the difference between incidental and featured use isn’t just good practice, it’s legal self-preservation.
About the Author
Sharon Givoni is a Melbourne-based intellectual property lawyer who works extensively with photographers, artists, and creative professionals Australia-wide. She is the author of Owning It: A Creative’s Guide to Copyright, Contracts and the Law.