Australia’s creative industries are savoring a “significant” victory, as the federal government stamps out controversial proposals that would weaken copyright law in the AI age.
A slew of tech companies had lobbied for an amendment to Australia’s Copyright Act, outlined in Harnessing Data and Digital Technology, the Productivity Commission’s interim report which recommended a new fair dealing exception to allow for text and data mining (TDM).
Related
Should the tech sector get its wishes, warned reps from the across the cultural communities, the exemption would enable AI specialists to rip copyright-protected works without permission or payment for training their platforms. The end result would crater the music space, creatives have said, and would legitimize the industrial-scale theft of music and other cultural and creative sector intellectual property.
That worst-case scenario isn’t going to happen.
Earlier today, Oct. 27, Attorney-General Michelle Rowland confirmed the government has no plans to water-down existing copyright protections, essentially burying talk of a TDM exception.
“There is a body of work to do around what the copyright environment looks like in the AI world, but we are making it very clear that we will not be entertaining a text and data mining exception,” Rowland told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s AM on Monday.
“And this is fundamental to their right as people who are generating works to ensure that they are fairly remunerated for that and that there are fair terms of use.”
Music industry bodies, including ARIA, PPCA and APRA AMCOS, welcomed the decision.
“This is a significant moment for Australian creators and our cultural sovereignty,” says Dean Ormston, CEO of APRA AMCOS. “The Australian Government has recognized that Australia’s world-leading licensing framework is the pathway to ethical AI development, not a barrier to innovation.
“For far too long, the tech sector has made the false claim that Australia’s copyright framework is preventing AI development in Australia. This lobbying narrative has been thoroughly debunked.”
The industry, he continues, is “ready to work constructively to develop practical licensing solutions. This is everyday business for us. It’s time for tech companies to stop delaying and start licensing discussions covering both the input and output of creative materials in AI platforms.”
The government has made the right call, adds Annabelle Herd, CEO of ARIA and PPCA. “This decision reinforces Australia’s commitment to its artists and creative industries, ensuring that consent, control, and compensation remain at the heart of copyright in the age of artificial intelligence. It recognizes the inherent value of Australian creativity and culture, including First Nations Culture. It recognizes that copyright and IP laws are the foundation of the creative economy, the digital economy, and the technology industry.”
As Australian artists struggle to be seen and heard in the all-access streaming world, the government’s decision, Herd reckons, was a “commonsense” one, by backing the rights of artists, authors, creators, and rights-holders “over a small group of large, powerful tech companies.”
The Australian Society of Authors chimed in, too. “This represents a clear message from government that creators should be paid for their work,” says ASA CEO Lucy Hayward. “It’s also an important acknowledgement of the value of Australian stories and storytellers, and a vital first step in redressing the harm that has been caused by what has been called ‘“’the greatest act of copyright theft in history’.”
Screenrights, which provides licensing services for film, TV and radio, shared a joint statement with the Australia New Zealand Screen Association (ANZSA) and Screen Producers Australia (SPA). “We welcome the Attorney’s announcement ruling out a Text and Data Mining (TDM) exception,” it reads. “Australia’s Copyright Act is fit for purpose. This is a sensible and pragmatic decision that allows for innovation and creativity to progress hand-in-hand for the benefit of rights holders, creators, AI developers, and the Australian public and audiences.”
When the Productivity Commission’s report dropped in August, the music industry brought turned words into action. Then out came some of its big guns, including the likes of ARIA Award winners Missy Higgins and The Presets’ Julian Hamilton, Kate Ceberano, and Midnight Oil frontman and former Labor frontbencher Peter Garrett, who described the recommendation as “shameful.”
Even Spotify distanced itself from the tech giants, siding instead with the artist community, and pointing out that “musicians’ rights matter. Copyright is essential.”
In September, a delegation of industry professionals and high-profile artists, including Holly Rankin (Jack River), Adam Briggs, and Paul Dempsey, attended a Senate committee hearing, where they appealed for stronger copyright protections. Their comments, it would appear, hit their mark.
The next step, industry leaders say, is to ensure these principles are applied in practice, and that the government doesn’t dilute copyright protections.
The battle is won, but the fight goes on. The Copyright and AI Reference Group (CAIRG) reconvenes this week in the capital to examine key policy issues as AI technology develops.
“We will be in Canberra to make the case for keeping Australia’s cultural sovereignty intact,” Herd insists. “We will be there with artists and industry leaders to ensure creators’ voices shape the future of copyright and technology.”
Billboard reached out to the Tech Council for comment.