This was published 5 months ago
Raising two daughters in regional NSW, artist Sophie Corks began painting nostalgic backyard scenes two years ago: paling fences, cockatoos and magpies, toys arrayed on the lawn, and a lounger near the hills hoist.
“The backyard paintings to me represent feelings of both isolation and joy, watching my daughters grow up,” Corks says.
The independent artist sells prints of these popular domestic scenes on her website. An original, The Colourful Neighbours, sold for more than $2500 at a Milton gallery last December.
So it came as a huge surprise when last month she was alerted to “striking similarities” in style between her works and a canvas art print selling for under $50 at the homewares chain Adairs.
“When I saw a similar backyard scene at Adairs, it looked like my world. My home. My story,” said Corks, who is based in Orange, in central NSW. “I’m proud that my style is recognisable, but artists deserve respect, not to be imitated and undercut.”
Three other artists joined her in writing to the retailer in October.
Melbourne landscape artist Ka Mo saw her signature style in Adairs’ Bushland Pink Hills canvas while Sydney artist Jessica Watts saw echoes of her Pretty Boy budgerigars series in the retailer’s Birdhouse Budgie.
Adairs investigated their claims. The company confirmed that Sophie Corks’ Backyard Series was included in their internal design brief for the artwork but denied copyright infringement, stating the final image for the wall art was created from an AI-generated photograph. The likeness to the budgies was “coincidence”, the company said, pointing out stylistic differences including brushstrokes. Furthermore, the retailer contended its pink-hued landscape predated Mo’s specific works.
According to the Arts Law Centre of Australia, the case highlights the legal grey area between inspiration and imitation, which is proving increasingly problematic to police in the age of AI.
The trio is not claiming a copyright breach, but have called for “accountability and a higher standard of creative ethics” among retailers.
“When a retailer mirrors an artist’s voice instead of collaborating, it’s not inspiration, it’s a missed opportunity, the artists said in a statement to this masthead. One partnership can change an artist’s life, yet imitation ultimately devalues their original work.”
Corks chooses not to license her original paintings to brands through licensing platforms but is open to official collaborations. “A genuine collaboration like that could have changed my life, she says. “Instead, I’m seeing work that looks and feels like mine, sold for a fraction of the cost.”
“Unfortunately, this is not a unique situation,” says Penelope Benton, executive director of the lobby group, National Association for the Visual Arts. “We’re increasingly seeing homewares, clothing companies and others drawing on the style of artists’ work in ways that sit outside the Copyright Act. Style itself isn’t protected, but that doesn’t mean these situations are without impact. For buyers, these products can also be confusing. People may assume an artist was involved when they weren’t.”
Arts Law Centre chief executive Dr Louise Buckingham says she receives thousands of inquiries each year from artists and musicians navigating copyright. The legal test for infringement comes down to whether a substantial part of an original work has been used without the copyright owner’s permission. Australia has also moral rights provisions in its Copyright Act that obliges respect and acknowledgment of the artist.
Few artists have the means to pursue legal action and success is not guaranteed, Buckingham said. AI has only made recourse more difficult because its scraping of databases means intent by the designer is harder to prove. Last month, the Albanese government quashed a proposal to grant tech firms an exemption from copyright laws so they could freely mine copyright content to train their models.
Corks posted her circumstances on Instagram on November 17, without naming the retailer, and other artists came forward to share their experiences in the retail sector. The trio says their message is one of opportunity, not hostility.
“We simply want major retailers to partner with us, not echo us. Adairs has the power to uplift Australian creativity, and we’re asking them to use that power responsibly.”
Adairs said it took artistic integrity and ethical design seriously, and had acted responsibly in line with “both our legal obligations and our high ethical standards”. The retailer did not respond to questions asking if the canvases had been pulled from sale.
“We’ve reviewed the concerns raised by the artists and the processes followed by our designers, and we shared the findings directly with them,” the company said.
“To be clear, Adairs has not infringed the copyright of any of the artists concerned. Further, and importantly, Adairs is confident our approach reflects ethical design principles and that there’s no reasonable basis for any suggestion that Adairs has not conducted itself ethically.”
The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.