Australia’s creative community breathed a collective sigh of relief on Monday (October 27) when the government announced it would not be pursuing a plan to give AI developers an exemption to copyright laws.
In an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), Attorney-General Michelle Rowland said the Labor Party government of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese would not move forward on a proposal to give tech companies an exemption to copyright laws for text and data mining (TDM).
An exemption to TDM rules would in effect have allowed AI companies to train their models on Australian artists’ work without notice or compensation.
“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 said on the ABC’s AM program.
“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.”
Instead, Rowland suggested the government would be looking to establish a licensing system for copyrighted content used in training AI, calling for a transparency standard for training AI that would enable artists to negotiate their own terms of use.
“If we don’t have attribution and transparency regulations for these corporations, then how can you know where and how your content’s being used anyway and how can you get fairly paid for it,” Rowland said.
“These are purportedly the most intelligent people in the world, they should be able to design royalty back ends in their platforms. They should be able to track content in their platforms. Solve the problem.”
The proposal to exempt TDM from copyright law was part of an interim report tabled by the Productivity Commission and it garnered support from tech companies. But it also attracted fierce opposition from many in the creative industries, including prominent Australian artists like Peter Garrett, a former Labor MP and frontman of Midnight Oil.
“These are purportedly the most intelligent people in the world, they should be able to design royalty back ends in their platforms. They should be able to track content in their platforms. Solve the problem.”
Michelle Rowland, Australia attorney-general
In the wake of Howland’s announcement on Monday, music industry groups lauded the government and urged the creation of a licensing system for AI companies.
“This is a significant moment for Australian creators and our cultural sovereignty,” said Dean Ormston, CEO of music rights management org APRA AMCOS.
“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… If copyright was truly the barrier the tech lobby claims, the multi-billion-dollar investments in Australia from companies including Amazon and OpenAI wouldn’t be happening.”
Ormston said that tech companies are “shopping for jurisdictions that will water down copyright legislation so that they can find ways to avoid paying creators” while profiting from their work.
“We’re 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.”
However, tech companies are lining up against the Albanese government’s plans for transparency in AI training and licensing of content. Google, Meta and OpenAI have all told the Australian government they oppose the idea of being forced to publish detailed data about their model training, the Australian Financial Review reported.
In Europe, where a similar transparency rule is part of the European Union’s AI Act, Google has expressed concern about the potential of transparency rules forcing trade secrets into the open.
Under the reforms being discussed by the Albanese government, AI companies could be required to disclose what content they used to train their AI. The government is also a considering a new enforcement regime that would make it easier for small rightsholders to seek compensation for the use of their work in AI.
Such rules could push tech companies to the negotiating table with rightsholders, AFR suggested.
“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.”
Dean Ormston, APRA AMCOS
In the meantime, rightsholders in Australia are celebrating a victory.
“The government has made the right call in rejecting a TDM exception, and we sincerely thank Attorney-General Michelle Rowland for standing firmly to uphold copyright law, but also for making the commonsense decision: to back the rights of artists, authors, creators, and rights-holders over a small group of large, powerful tech companies,” said Annabelle Herd, CEO of the recording industry group PPCA.
“Make no mistake: it is not for tech giants to determine how creators’ IP is utilized, even in negotiation. There are no grounds for new loopholes or amendments that diminish a creator’s right to transparency and permission over how their work is used. Protecting that agency is how we build a creative economy that continues to grow, inspire and compete globally.”
The controversy in Australia echoes a similar situation in the UK, where a paper presented to parliament in January proposed a TDM exemption for UK-based AI companies, on the grounds that the UK was at risk of falling behind the European Union on AI development.
The EU’s AI Act includes an exemption to TDM rules for AI developers, unless rightsholders explicitly “opt out” of having their content used. That rule prompted both Sony Music and Warner Music Group to send out letters to AI developers last year, declaring they are opting out.
However, the UK proposal for a TDM exemption was effectively abandoned after a defeat in the upper house of parliament, and amid objections from artists such as Elton John and Paul McCartney and a Daily Mail campaign against the proposal, which was joined by the heads of the big three record companies.Music Business Worldwide
