Some First Nations artwork is not what it seems: The dangers of AI-generated imagery

Clients aren’t using AI-generated ‘First Nations’ imagery in briefs and assets maliciously, but these images cause harm in myriad ways. Adobe’s stock images in question, and similar found in other stock libraries like Shutterstock, don’t accurately represent First Nations people, cultures or artwork – they perpetuate stereotypes.

Dr Terri Janke, a leading voice in Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP) protocol, put the issue succinctly to the ABC: “AI has no Dreaming, it has no kinship, Country, or cultural obligations.”

AI-generated images aren’t embedded with the knowledge and stories of genuine First Nations artwork – stripping them of meaning, flattening culture, ignoring self-determination and consent, and taking opportunities away from First Nations people.

Cultural flattening

In The Conversation, academics John McMullan and Glen Stasiuk explain that AI-generated images of First Nations people, cultures and artwork result in ‘cultural flattening’. Due to the way AI generation works, the cultural images it produces are homogenous and misrepresentative of the diversity of First Nations people and cultures.

Images of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are merged with other Indigenous groups across the world, generating depictions of cultural markings and clothing that are misappropriative and meaningless.

Ignoring ICIP protocol

The Arts Law Centre of Australia explains that “for an artwork to be protected by copyright, it must involve human effort rather than machine effort. This means that AI-generated images that lack a human author’s ‘independent intellectual effort’ likely do not qualify for copyright protection.”

This leaves AI-generated material that contains ICIP unprotected by copyright law. This is of grave concern for ICIP, working against the principles of consent and self-determination. Dr Janke outlines several other breaches of ICIP protocol by AI, stating that it:

• Fails to attribute Traditional Knowledge holders
• Creates false and misleading representations
• Disregards cultural protocols, such as those governing who can share certain stories or use specific artistic styles, including gender-specific artworks
• Misappropriates ICIP without consultation or free, prior and informed consent.

Taking income away from artists

Adobe isn’t the only business exploiting First Nations imagery – knock-off artwork is littered across online marketplaces like Amazon, Etsy and Temu.

How can ‘First Nations’ art, or images of First Nations people and cultures, be sold when no First Nations person was involved in creating it – or even consulted? This practice is taking income away from First Nations artists, businesses and communities.

Are these images unstoppable?

AI-generated First Nations imagery is arguably a form of ‘technological colonialism’, which is when tech companies extract and exploit data without consent or mutual benefit. AI companies, including OpenAI (ChatGPT) and Anthropic (Claude), have openly lobbied our government for a data mining copyright exemption.

Thankfully, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has ruled this out, stating: “an artist’s creative endeavour is their work and their property. No company should use Australian books, music, art or news to build or train AI without the artist’s control. … Anything less, is theft.”

We’re seeing court cases pursued globally against AI companies for illegally training their models on creatives’ work. But holding powerful companies to account is costly, and policy is slow to catch up with the damage done.

While we wait for companies to properly address the issue, we can take a stand against cultural theft and exploitation by steering clear of generated art and content. Instead of grabbing an image from a stock library, let’s funnel opportunities to real First Nations artists.

Little Rocket partners with over 50 First Nations artists and talent from across the country. Reach out now to get connected.