Aboriginal artists incorporate both traditional and contemporary components in their work (Shand, 2000, p. 4). While these artists have increasingly sought acknowledgement among non-Indigenous artists (Anderson, 2003, p. 338), their interactions with mainstream cultures and concerns have not always gone smoothly. Misunderstandings and misappropriations have characterized the appearance of Aboriginal art in non-Aboriginal settings, and this has set the stage for the use of copyright as a tool to "protect" cultural ownership.

"It was the copyright cases in the 1980s involving Aboriginal art that provided the first solid catalyst for the inclusion of indigenous knowledge in intellectual property law in Australia," notes Anderson (2003, p. 338). Since then, more such cases have arisen in Australia and beyond (Brown, 2003). Intellectual property rights have been invoked in service of both economic and self-deterministic arguments (Anderson, 2003; Battiste & Youngblood Henderson, 2000; Brown, 2003; Shand, 2000), with mixed results.

Copyright is generally understood to be an imperfect solution for protecting Indigenous culture (Anderson, 2003; Battiste & Youngblood Henderson, 2000; Brown, 2003; Shand, 2000). Battiste and Youngblood Henderson note that the economic and cultural arguments that fall under Indigenous copyright claims are at cross-purposes; worse, they argue, this confusion points to a "commodification of culture that is the real basis for intellectual property" (Battiste & Youngblood Henderson, 2000, p. 244). Though governmental acknowledgement of customary law and sui generis ("self-generating") legislation are the favored solutions of a number of Indigenous peoples (Battiste & Youngblood Henderson, 2000; Young-Ing, 2006), "piecemeal reform" of copyright may also offer some advantages (Shand, 2000, p. 14).