Australian Arts Groups Demand AI Content Protection Amid Theft Concerns
Australia’s creative industries are urging the federal government to reject proposals that could allow tech companies to use Australian content to train artificial intelligence (AI) models without compensation. Arts, media, and creative groups warn that such a move would amount to "rampant theft" of intellectual property and "sell out" Australian workers.
The Albanese government has stated it currently has no plans to alter copyright law, emphasizing that any potential changes must consider their impact on artists and news media. However, the debate has intensified following an interim report from the Productivity Commission (PC).
The PC's report, titled "Harnessing Data and Digital Technology," explored how AI and other technologies could be regulated in Australia. It suggested that AI could significantly boost productivity, potentially adding up to $116 billion to Australia’s GDP over the next decade. The report acknowledged that building AI models requires vast amounts of data and noted concerns from stakeholders like Creative Australia and the Copyright Agency regarding the unauthorized use of copyrighted materials for AI training.
To address this, the PC proposed several remedies, including expanding licensing schemes. Crucially, it also floated the controversial ideas of introducing an exemption for "text and data mining" and expanding existing "fair dealing" rules, which the commission noted exist in some other countries.
These latter suggestions have drawn fierce opposition from Australia's creative sector. Industry groups fear that such exemptions would enable wealthy tech companies to exploit their work without payment, potentially undermining existing and future licensing deals, including those under the news media bargaining incentive where publishers negotiate commercial agreements with major social media platforms.
The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) strongly criticized the PC's approach, accusing it of adopting the arguments of multinational tech companies. ACTU assistant secretary Joseph Mitchell warned that a text and data mining exemption would "open the door to legitimising the rampant theft of the creative output of Australia’s creative workers and of Indigenous cultural and intellectual property." He added that this would create a scenario where "tech bros get all the benefits of the new technology and productivity benefits are not fairly shared."
Apra Amcos, Australasia’s music rights collecting agency, and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Music Office voiced disappointment, cautioning that the PC’s suggestions could "potentially devastate Australia’s $9 billion music industry." Apra chair Jenny Morris stated that the recommendations would "legitimise what they themselves acknowledge is already widespread theft."
Opposition leader Sussan Ley has also weighed in, demanding that copyrighted material not be used without compensation. "It is not appropriate for big tech to steal the work of Australian artists, musicians, creators, news media, journalism, and use it for their own ends without paying for it," Ley said. She expressed concern about a lack of "guardrails" from the government in managing AI challenges.
Government ministers have responded to the concerns. Attorney General Michelle Rowland, responsible for copyright law, affirmed that any further adoption of AI must build trust and confidence. She stated, "Any potential reform to Australia’s copyright laws must consider the impacts on Australia’s creative, content and news media sectors," and highlighted the ongoing engagement through the Copyright and AI Reference Group established last year.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers acknowledged AI's potential as "a force for good" but also recognized its risks. He reiterated that copyright laws apply in Australia, unlike some other countries, and that the government is not seeking to change these laws. Arts Minister Tony Burke pointed to a submission from Creative Australia, which advocates for consent, transparency, and remuneration regarding copyright and labelling.
The Australian Publishers Association (APA) expressed fears that authors, researchers, and publishers would see their work used without permission or compensation, undermining local publishing and federal cultural policy. APA CEO Patrizia Di Biase-Dyson stated, "We reject the notion that Australian stories and learning materials – that shape our culture and democracy – should be treated as free inputs for corporate AI systems." The Copyright Agency also opposed the text and data mining exemption, emphasizing that it would negatively affect creators' earning capacity and is not in the national interest. "If we want high-quality Australian content to power the next phase of AI, we must ensure creators are paid for it," said CEO Josephine Johnston.
The debate underscores a critical tension between fostering technological innovation and protecting the rights and livelihoods of content creators in the evolving digital landscape.