Funding applications can be stressful and time consuming - and often require you to use skills that may not be in your creative realm.

Where it’s written word, English not being your first language, business plans…there are many elements that can cause immense stress. Who wouldn't want an easier, more effective way?

Last week, we heard from AI Expert Maggie Buxton with her thoughts from the frontline - which raised some questions that many creatives may identify with.

When it comes to putting together applications, there has been whispers about how AI is used and what is or isn’t allowed from the funding bodies.

So The Big Idea decided to cut through the rumours and head right to the source. We asked nine of the organisations that are crucial to funding the creative sector and asked them all the same questions”

What is your stance on applicants using AI in their funding application - and if they declare the intended use of AI, how is that judged against other applications? What do you do to safeguard their process from AI being used as a replacement for creative skills?

Here are their responses.

Creative New Zealand 

Claire Murdoch - Senior Manager, Arts Development 

At this stage, we’re not factoring into our formal assessment criteria whether an application is written by a human.

What matters most is the quality, originality, and impact of the artist’s (or an organisation’s) work, including on communities.

We’re realistic that some artists and organisations are already experimenting with AI - whether that’s for administrative tasks like budgeting, helping to overcome accessibility issues in their application-writing, or as part of their creative work.

We are seeing more frequent Chat GPT acknowledgements and/or modifications included in application text.

Our observation is, that when AI *is* used, applicants have had an original idea and are then using AI to help frame and write their applications.

We are currently developing guidance for applicants on the use of AI and will continue to develop this as technology and the needs of the sector change. Transparency will always be a key principle.

We expect the use of AI to increase, both for administrative tasks and as a creative tool; we must recognise it in our future strategy.

Creative New Zealand has contributed to and made submissions on the 2025 Long-term Insights Briefing being led by Manatū Taonga Ministry for Culture & Heritage.

This provides information and analysis on digital technologies, including AI, and looks at implications for the way New Zealanders tell their stories in 2040 and beyond.  This includes how we recognise and protect mātauranga Māori and traditional cultural expressions.

We would always expect applicants to respect intellectual property and privacy laws and consider the safety of their own intellectual property when inputting sensitive data into publicly available generative AI tools. Likewise, we want to protect matauranga Māori.

As AI becomes more widespread, Creative New Zealand will be developing greater understanding and measures regarding its use, and its potential.

We’re here to support and invest in artists, arts organisations and their communities – and we champion the rights of artists to earn a living from their creative work. AI may be one of the tools they use, but we do not see it as a replacement for matauranga, human judgement, artistic vision or creative expertise.

Foundation North

Audry McLaren - Head of Funding 

Foundation North is not concerned about the use of AI from those applying for grants - though acknowledging that you used a tool to craft your application would be good practice.

This is something we have looked into previously. Before the explosion of ChatGPT, I had already started testing AI with two of our applicants. We looked at how it could potentially be used, utilising resources that were readily available to put together an application or proposal to Foundation North, based on what you can find out about us online, what we deliver and how to match to our strategy. It did a reasonable job - three years on, it probably does an amazing job now.

We get around 1000 applications a year through the organisation. Depending on the complexity of the project and the experience of the applicant, it takes between 16-25 hours on average to craft an application, put together all the documents and the budget.

If there are time-saving tools that can be employed to reduce the burden on the grant writer, then that’s fantastic. 

When used wisely and with discernment, AI is a time-saving tool rather than a substitute for creativity, expertise, and skill. Use it to ‘buy time back’ so you can spend more on creative pursuits or to think more deeply about what truly matters.  AI should not diminish your creative ability - it can actually help prevent overload, especially when it comes to writing funding applications.

What an AI tool will never be able to do is find the nuance. If it’s your particular work that you want us to know about, you’re going to have to weigh in yourself.

New Zealand On Air

The major funding organisation has recently published an AI content creator guide - covering off much of the topics in question.

NZ On Air includes a specific questionnaire in its funding application forms to gather information about the intended use of AI. This helps us understand how AI is being used and informs our assessment process. 

When AI is proposed in a project, we assess the application based on the following key factors, which align with our broader investment principles. Applicants should consider these factors and note anything relevant in their funding application: 

• Cultural authenticity with regard to te ao Māori and mātauranga Māori - That AI applications respect and meaningfully represent diverse cultural perspectives and knowledge systems, with safeguards to prevent misrepresentation of cultural elements and inclusion of appropriate consultation with relevant cultural knowledge holders.

• Creative integrity and artistic vision -Assess how AI can support, rather than replace, human creativity, ensuring that technology enhances storytelling while remaining secondary to the artistic integrity. 

• Content distinctiveness and market gaps -  We will evaluate where AI has enabled the creation of unique material that wouldn’t otherwise be commercially viable. Ensuring that public funding supports content the market alone cannot deliver. 

• Risk management - Applicants must identify potential risks associated with AI use—such as technical failures or unintended outputs—and provide clear mitigation strategies. 

• Diversity, competition and accessibility - We will evaluate whether AI helps new and diverse creative voices who might otherwise face barriers, instead of favouring already established creators. Page | 4 NZ On Air - AI Content Creator Guidance 

• Value and cost efficiency - AI can offer cost savings or enable more ambitious creative outcomes. We will consider whether AI use reduces the need for public funding or enhances the overall quality and scope of the project. 

• Capability and technical expertise - Applicants must demonstrate that they have the necessary skills and governance structures to use AI responsibly and ethically. 

• Transparency - Full disclosure of how AI is used in the project is essential. This includes being clear in the application about the role AI plays in content creation. 

• Ethical implications and industry impact - Those applying for and commissioning projects need to ensure that their use of AI adheres to all relevant legal obligations. While NZ On Air acknowledges the importance of these issues, and the broader effects of AI implementation on the creative sector, we do not enforce copyright law.

New Zealand Film Commission

Bevin Linkhorn - Investment and Development Executive 

Earlier this year, NZFC released a set of AI principles that centre human creativity, talent, and culture at the heart of our screen industry. We recognise AI can offer useful productivity gains, but that it should support - not replace - original storytelling.

We also make it clear to funding applicants that respecting copyright and intellectual property is essential. Without a clear chain of title, filmmakers can run into serious roadblocks when trying to secure deals with distributors, sales agents, or exhibitors.

To better understand how AI is being used, we’ve started asking two questions at the end of every application form:

1. Did you use AI, or a tool based on it, to complete this application? This includes both the application and/or any supporting documents, such as the screenplay, treatment, director’s notes, etc.
2. Are you applying for funding for a project in which you intend to generate outputs using AI or an AI-based tool? E.g. pitch deck, audience engagement plan, completed film, etc.

If someone answers “yes,” we ask for more detail. So far, responses tend to fall into a few categories:

• Using AI for early-stage research
• Editing or tidying up documents (e.g. grammar checks, shortening synopses)
• Creating images for pitch decks using tools like Midjourney
• Exploring AI to streamline production/post-production, especially VFX
• Clarifying that the core creative work (story, characters, screenplay) is authored by a human writer

Applicants are informed their answers to these questions are solely for helping us understand how AI is being used. These responses are not used to determine eligibility or to assess the quality of an individual application.

We want to hear authentic human stories - ones that come from lived experience, imagination, and originality. AI can remix what already exists, but it can’t replicate the emotional depth and personal insight that real creators bring to the table.

We encourage all filmmakers and creatives to read and follow the NZWG AI Advice Handbook for Screenwriters. It’s a valuable resource from the New Zealand Writers Guild.

Also, before uploading any creative material to an AI tool, we urge creators to read the terms and conditions carefully. Understand how your material might be used, and if you’re unsure, it’s best not to upload it.

New Zealand Music Commission

Cath Anderson - Chief Executive

The Music Commission has allowed AI tools to be used in funding applications for quite a while - pretty much since the release of GPT4. 

Our primary funding programme is Outward Sound, the international music market development programme. With each artist's international opportunities being so different, it would be near impossible for AI tools to completely write an accurate and well reasoned Outward Sound application - designing offshore business and marketing plans is a detailed and nuanced process - so AI is not particularly helpful for putting together an export proposal at this stage.

However, AI can be a useful writing tool to help express the details and get your key points across clearly in an application. My perspective is that it helps level the playing field for people who are not great writers, but have great opportunities and ideas.

Auckland Council

Kenneth Aiolupotea - General Manager of Community Wellbeing

At Auckland Council, we acknowledge that AI use is becoming a normal part of work and everyday life.

When reviewing grant applications, we understand that the process can be challenging for some organisations and individuals. AI provides a tool that can help people to navigate this and apply for funding.

We do not reject or assess applications based on the use of AI.

All funding applications are considered on the merit of project outcomes, including how well the application meets specific criteria, and the applicant’s ability to deliver those outcomes.

We encourage applicants to ensure they submit all information required in a clear and concise manner, including supporting materials, and above all, it must be accurate.

Wellington City Council

Siaun Lintern - Funding Team Leader 

At present, we don’t have any policies currently around screening funding applications for use of AI.

Our funding applications require both an eligibility check and an assessment as two seperate stages. For the assessment of the application, we have Subject Matter Experts, including external Panels in some cases, that review the application. 

The information they review largely covers a project proposal, as well as delivery information such as detailed budgets, audience/community served, statistics such as audience numbers or community need/reach. These details vary depending on the project type - for example, Assessors would review individual artist/practitioner details in programmes and projects delivering to Aho Tini. 

Throughout the contract period, there is also a requirement to further report on the use of funds and outcome of project. In some cases, particularly where contracts span a longer period or larger sum, this will also include meetings with Te Kaunihera Officers to assess the contract health and project progress. 

Whilst creativity is an aspect in applications, it is not a key driver of the outcome. Instead, it is the level if impact, alignment to relevant priorities and/or policies of Te Kaunihera and the strength of a projects plan to deliver. This includes, but is not limited to, its financial feasability, community need, negotiated outcomes with clear measures, engagement with mana whenua/hapori Māori, effective delivery etc. 

As the use of AI in creative projects continues to evolve, we remain committed to assessing applications on their overall merit ensuring innovation supports rather than replaces, meaningful engagement, impact and alignment with Te Kaunihera's priorities. 

Christchurch City Council 

Lucy Blackmore - Events and Arts Manager

We have received a number of funding applications where there is clear – and undeclared – use of AI in the writing of the application. 

We understand that for some artists and arts organisations who may not have English as their first language are time poor, or find the funding application process challenging, AI can be useful in bridging some of these barriers. However, these applications tend towards the generic and feature assumed funding buzzwords and phrases, so are often weaker than less ‘put together’ applications that use an authentic voice. In these cases - and in any situation where the intent of the application is not clear - we will reach out to the applicant to understand their project more fully.

We have not encountered any funding applications where the core of the creative project hinges on the use of AI.

When we are working with an artist in a direct commissioning relationship we take an engaged approach, working alongside them at each stage of the commissioning process from brief to detailed design, so we are aware of the methodologies they employ. As a safeguard, we have ensured the language in our contracts reflects our desire for original and unmediated work.

Dunedin City Council 

Lisa Wilkie, Team Leader Arts Culture and Recreation

At present we are not actively monitoring the use of AI in grant applications. Assessment of each application is done collaboratively within the team, and staff are usually in direct contact with applicants before and during the assessment process.

If an applicant were to declare that they had used AI as part of the grant-writing process, this would be noted and it is likely that staff would follow up with a phone call to discuss the application in person. Staff assess grants based on multiple factors, including the rigour of a project’s creative concept and execution, its relevance to local communities, the potential for successful outcomes, evidence of the applicant’s skills and experience, and the project’s alignment with council strategies.

We’re also aware that our current requirement for applications to be submitted only in written form can be a barrier for applicants who:

• speak English as a second language
• have learning disabilities
• use computer-assisted communication methods
• are first-time applicants
• have limited experience with bureaucratic language and concepts
• prefer to communicate verbally

Given these factors, the use of AI to produce a written application can mitigate some of the systemic bias in the grants process.  

New technologies, methods, and media – from Duchamp’s ‘ready-mades’ to photography to digital art - have always been subject to heated debate about their validity within creative practice and creative production. 

This question (safeguarding from AI replacing creative skills) is being grappled with world-wide. There are implications for copyright, intellectual property rights, transparency, as well as ethical concerns about the potential for misuse. There is global inconsistency and the focus of regulations vary widely: the U.S. focuses on human authorship, the EU on risk and transparency, and South Korea on strict copyright limits.

AI is already in use in creative sectors: APRA-AMCOS-commissioned research surveyed over 4,200 music creators and publishers in Australia and NZ and found that 38% of have used AI in their work, with a further 13% planning to use it in the future. (AI and Music Market Development of AI in the Music Sector and Impact on Music Creators In Australia And New Zealand. Goldmedia: August 2024.)

NZ Digital Government guidelines on AI is useful in terms of use of AI within public service, but do not directly address questions regarding the use of AI in a creative context. At present, were a grant applicant seeking funding for a project that incorporated use of AI, it would be assessed in terms of its conceptual and critical rigour as noted above, while also bearing in mind that this is an area subject to rapid change.