Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 24 AUGUST 2009

“But We Found The Image On Google - Doesn’t That Mean We Can Just Use It?”

Swaab Attorneys
Explore more from Swaab Attorneys

Adding a picture or image to your article, presentation or marketing materials can add a human aspect and a visual value association to the message you want to convey.

AustraliaIntellectual Property
Swaab Author
Swaab Author
Tyrilly Bolton
Tyrilly Bolton
Author LinkedIn connections

Adding a picture or image to your article, presentation or marketing materials can add a human aspect and a visual value association to the message you want to convey. Choosing your image is tricky, and clearing the rights to use that image can be daunting. This is particularly true when you are using the image for commercial purposes i.e. in the course of your work.

Clients often ask us:

"But we found the image on Google - doesn't that mean we can just use it?"

The answer is no. Just because you find an image on Google or elsewhere on the Internet does not mean you are automatically able to use it. This is because the image may be protected by copyright under the Copyright Act 1968 (or other similar legislation around the world). The owner of the copyright in the "works" (as that term is defined in the Act) has the exclusive right to do each of the following:

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Counterfeit Imports – Tougher Penalties At The Border

Australia strengthens its response to counterfeit goods importation through new legislation that creates strict liability offences and enables infringement notices at the border. The amendments aim to make counterfeit importing unprofitable by ensuring penalties and seized goods exceed potential profits. How will these changes impact intellectual property rights holders and importers operating in Australia?
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Pointon Partners
Pointon Partners
Article

Supporting ‘Human Artistry’: Wholly AI-Generated Recordings Disqualified From ARIA Charts In Australia

The Australian Recording Industry Association has amended its chart eligibility guidelines to exclude songs predominantly created by generative AI, sparking debate about the intersection of artificial intelligence and copyright law. This decision mirrors broader legal challenges facing courts and regulators worldwide as they grapple with determining when AI-generated or AI-assisted works deserve copyright protection and recognition.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
K&L Gates
K&L Gates
Article

How Can You Retain Intellectual Property When A Client Will Not Pay?

A service provider who has not assigned their intellectual property still owns it, regardless of what the invoice says. Under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), the creator owns copyright by default, and ownership moves only by written assignment. Paying a designer or developer does not transfer ownership on its own. That default gives service providers real leverage where a client refuses to pay. Retention and suspension clauses turn the default into a contractual right to withhold deliverables.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
LegalVision
LegalVision
Article

Protecting The AI Systems Competitors Can Actually Copy

Businesses building AI products on third-party models face a critical intellectual property challenge: determining what parts of their AI systems can actually be protected when competitors have access to the same underlying models. This analysis explores where protectable value sits in AI workflows, from data retrieval and validation processes to system integration and deployment architecture, and why patent strategy must focus on the commercially defensible elements rather than just the AI model itself.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers
Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers
Article

Benchmarking “not Too Closely” – Is It Still Too Close?

The Full Federal Court has clarified the test for copyright infringement in artistic works on product packaging, rejecting a generalised 'look and feel' approach in favour of detailed side-by-side comparisons. In a dispute between Aldi and Hampden Holdings over baby snack packaging, the Court found that five of Aldi's eleven MAMIA designs infringed copyright, despite Aldi's deliberate strategy to stay 'not too close' to its competitor's benchmark designs.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Piper Alderman
Piper Alderman
Article

Employ­ers Ban­ning AI Smart Glass­es From The Workplace

As wearable AI technology becomes more prevalent, employers face critical decisions about whether to ban smart glasses in the workplace. This analysis explores the privacy, cybersecurity, and workplace surveillance risks associated with AI-enabled eyewear, while examining the legal framework for regulating their use. Two important exceptions—disability accommodations and workplace safety—complicate what might otherwise be a straightforward prohibition.
AustraliaEmployment and HR
Swaab Attorneys
Swaab Attorneys
Article

Land­lords Beware: New Tobac­co Laws Could Mean Heavy Fines and Even Gaol Time

New South Wales has introduced strict legislation targeting landlords who knowingly permit tenants to sell illicit tobacco and vapes from their premises. With penalties reaching $165,000 and potential imprisonment, property owners must now actively monitor tenant activities and report suspicious behavior. The legislation also grants landlords new powers to terminate leases when closure orders are issued, fundamentally changing the landlord-tenant relationship in commercial retail settings.
AustraliaReal Estate and Construction
Swaab Attorneys
Swaab Attorneys