AI-Generated Designs Registration in New Zealand and Australia: What Counts and Who Owns It
You can register a design that was made with AI in both countries, but the registration hangs on the facts, not the tool. New Zealand asks whether the design is “new or original”, and Australia asks whether it is “new and distinctive”. The harder question is ownership, because Australian copyright needs a human author and New Zealand has a special rule for computer-generated works.
This is not legal advice. This article explains the law for study purposes. Check current legislation, including whether the Designs Act 1953 has since been replaced, and take professional advice for a real design.
Picture a Master of Laws student at the University of Auckland. They have a client letter due, a 3,250-word limit, and a scenario where a baby-product company wants to register one design in two countries. The company’s designer used an in-house AI tool for early sketches and later for tidying his drawings. That is the situation in a LAWCOMM 795 Copyright and Design final assessment, and you can browse similar tasks on our University of Auckland questions page. The rest of this article explains how to think about it.
Short on time before your deadline? Send us your brief and an expert will guide your structure and research.
Quick answer: the tests side by side
| Question | New Zealand | Australia |
|---|---|---|
| Governing Act | Designs Act 1953 | Designs Act 2003 (Cth) |
| Registrability test | New or original | New and distinctive |
| Prior art | Registered or published in New Zealand | Prior art base; overall impression compared |
| Copyright in AI output | Special rule for computer-generated works | No equivalent; human author needed |
| Register to search | IPONZ | IP Australia |
Who is the “designer” when AI draws first?
The designer is the person who creates the design, and that remains a human question in both countries. In New Zealand, the Designs Act 1953 treats the author of a design as its proprietor, unless the design was executed for another person for good consideration [1]. An AI tool is not a person, so you must ask what the human did.
Split the process into stages. Raw output from a tool is one thing. A human taking that output, choosing, redrawing and refining it, is another. The more the human decisions shape the final lines, the stronger the human authorship story.
Many students treat “the AI did it” as a single issue. Don’t. Marks come from separating inspiration use from tidy-up use and saying what each means for ownership.
Copyright in the AI drawings: where the countries split
New Zealand’s Copyright Act 1994 says the author of a computer-generated artistic work is the person by whom the arrangements necessary for its creation are undertaken [2]. That is a deliberate gap-filler. It means someone, perhaps the company or the operator, may own copyright in raw output.
Australia has no such provision. The Full Federal Court held in Telstra Corporation Ltd v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd that a work needs an identifiable human author who contributes independent intellectual effort [3]. The High Court stressed the same theme in IceTV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [4].
The result is awkward. The same AI drawing may carry copyright in New Zealand and none in Australia. A good answer says so plainly and tells the client not to rely on copyright alone.
Not sure how to split NZ and Australian law in your answer? Get expert guidance and an expert will guide your structure and research.
Is the design new enough? Prior art and register searching
Novelty is where the real risk sits. In New Zealand a design cannot be registered unless it is new or original, and it fails if it matches a design already registered or published in New Zealand, or differs only in immaterial details [5]. In Australia the design must be new and distinctive compared with the prior art base, and the test looks at overall impression [6].
In an assessment that limits prior art to the national registers, the practical step is clear. Search the IPONZ register and the IP Australia register for similar products before filing. An AI tool can produce shapes that look original but are close to existing ones, so do not assume that fresh output is novel output.
Publication is the second trap. If the product has been shown or sold before filing, novelty can be lost. That is why the scenario tells you to treat the design as never published, and why your letter should still ask the client about any disclosure.
Copyright and design overlap in practice
Design registration changes what copyright can do for the client. In New Zealand, once an artistic work has been applied industrially, making articles from it generally does not infringe copyright after 16 years [7]. In Australia, copyright in an artistic work is not infringed by applying it industrially where the corresponding design has not been registered [8].
In plain terms, copyright protects drawings well and product shapes poorly. If the client wants to protect the product itself, registration is the main tool.
Mark-maximising checklist for your letter of advice
- Put the recommendation in the executive summary, before the reasons.
- List the issues in the introduction in order of importance.
- Apply each test to the facts. Do not just describe the Act.
- Separate the inspiration drawings from the tidy-up, and address each country.
- Say what the register searches must show and what you will do if they show a match.
- Give a clear filing sequence, with dates and owners for each step.
- End with specific questions for the client, such as the designer’s contract and the AI tool’s licence terms.
- Check that every source exists and supports the point you cite it for.
Common mistakes and what markers look for
| Mistake | What the marker wants instead |
|---|---|
| Describing the law at length | Short, fact-focused advice, as the client asked |
| Treating NZ and Australia as the same | Two tests, two outcomes, compared side by side |
| Ignoring employment status | A view on who owns the drawings and what contract you need |
| Vague recommendation | A numbered action plan with timing |
| No further-information section | Precise questions that would change the advice |
Not sure how deep to go on each country? Browse our law assignment help page, or read how we support company law assignments. Our guidance is for study; you stay responsible for your own submission and your university’s rules. For a worked layout, see our letter of advice sample on design and copyright law, for reference only.
Frequently asked questions
Can an AI-generated design be registered in New Zealand?
Yes, if it is new or original and the applicant is the proprietor. The Act looks at the design and the proprietor, not the tool used. The open question is who is the proprietor, so record the human contribution.
Does Australian law protect AI output as copyright?
Not without a human author. Australian cases require an identifiable human who contributes independent intellectual effort. A purely machine-made drawing is unlikely to qualify, while a designer’s own drawings tidied by a tool probably do.
Who owns a design made by an employee using a company tool?
For copyright in New Zealand, an employer is generally the first owner of work made in the course of employment, unless the parties agree otherwise [9]. Check the contract and any assignment.
Do I need to search before filing?
Yes. A match on the register can defeat novelty. Search IPONZ and IP Australia for similar products first.
Is copyright enough to protect a product shape?
No. Copyright protects the drawing, but the industrial-application rules limit its reach over articles made from it. Registration protects the appearance of the product itself.
What should a letter of advice include?
An executive summary, a short issue list, application of each test, a clear action plan, and a list of further information needed. Keep general law to a minimum.
Next step
Before you write, search both registers in your head: what would a match look like, and what would you tell the client if you found one? That single habit separates a strong letter from a descriptive essay.
Want an expert to check your plan? Submit your assignment details and an expert will guide your structure and research.
About the expert
Reviewed by George Stewart, a Wellington-based law expert with a Master of Laws (International Law and Politics) from Auckland University of Technology. His profile lists fields including international law, trade law, constitutional law and consumer protection.
References
- Designs Act 1953, s 6: https://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/consol_act/da195391/s6.html
- Copyright Act 1994, s 5(2)(a): https://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/consol_act/ca1994133/s5.html
- Telstra Corporation Ltd v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd [2010] FCAFC 149: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/full/2010/2010fcafc0149
- IceTV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2009] HCA 14: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2009/14.html
- Designs Act 1953, s 5: https://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/consol_act/da195391/s5.html
- Designs Act 2003 (Cth), ss 15–17: https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A01232/latest/text
- Copyright Act 1994, s 75: https://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/consol_act/ca1994133/s75.html
- Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), s 77: https://www6.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s77.html
- Copyright Act 1994, s 21: https://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/consol_act/ca1994133/s21.html
