Arts, creative and media groups have demanded the government rule out allowing big tech companies to take Australian content to train their artificial intelligence models, with concerns such a shift would “sell out” Australian workers and lead to “rampant theft” of intellectual property.
The Albanese government has said it has no plans to change copyright law, but any changes must consider effects on artists and news media. The opposition leader, Sussan Ley, has demanded that copyrighted material must 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 on Wednesday.
In an interim report on “harnessing data and digital technology”, the Productivity Commission set out proposals for how tech, including AI, could be regulated and treated in Australia, suggesting it could boost productivity by between 0.5% and 13% over the next decade, adding up to $116bn to Australia’s GDP.
The report said building AI models required large amounts of data, and several stakeholders in the field, including Creative Australia and the Copyright Agency, had “expressed concern about the unauthorised use of copyrighted materials to train AI models”.
The commission suggested several possible remedies, including expanding licensing schemes, or an exemption for “text and data mining” and expanding the existing fair dealing rules, which it said existed in other countries.
The latter suggestion prompted fierce pushback from arts, creative and media companies, which raised alarm their work could be left open for massively wealthy tech companies to use – without compensation or payment – to train AI models.
Such moves could undermine licensing deals currently being negotiated by publishers and creatives with big tech companies. It would also raise questions about the viability of the news media bargaining incentive, where news publishers strike commercial deals with major social media networks for the use of their journalism online.
Sign up: AU Breaking News email
The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) accused the Productivity Commission of having “swallowed the arguments of large multinational tech companies hook, line and sinker”, warning its approach would do little to help working Australians.
“The report’s extensive canvassing of the possibility of a text and data mining exemption opens the door to legitimising the rampant theft of the creative output of Australia’s creative workers and of Indigenous cultural and intellectual property,” the ACTU said.
Joseph Mitchell, the ACTU assistant secretary, said such an exemption would create a situation 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 said they were disappointed at the commission’s suggestions, raising concerns about such moves “potentially devastating Australia’s $9bn music industry”.
Apra’s chair, Jenny Morris, claimed the recommendations would “legitimise what they themselves acknowledge is already widespread theft”.
The attorney general, Michelle Rowland, who has carriage over copyright law, said further adoption of AI must be done in a way to build trust and confidence.
“Any potential reform to Australia’s copyright laws must consider the impacts on Australia’s creative, content and news media sectors. I am committed to continuing to engage on these issues, including through the copyright and AI reference group that our government established last year,” she said.
after newsletter promotion
Ley, when asking about the commission’s report, said she was concerned about a lack of “guardrails” from the government in responding to AI challenges.
“We have to protect content creators … that work is theirs and it can’t be taken without it being paid for,” she said.
Ed Husic, Labor’s former industry and technology minister, on Wednesday defended the prospect of economy-wide AI laws. The treasurer, Jim Chalmers, later told ABC’s 7.30 “the mechanism you use, one act or a number of existing acts … [is] not the most important thing”.
“My view is we can find a middle path between people who say let AI rip, and other people who pretend that we can just turn back the clock,” he said, saying Labor aimed to “maximise the opportunity and minimise the risk”.
“We don’t have any plans to change or weaken [Australia’s] copyright arrangements.”
The arts minister, Tony Burke, pointed to a submission to the review from Creative Australia, which he said “makes clear that with respect to copyright and labelling, there needs to be consent, transparency and remuneration”.
Creative Australia said in a statement that Australia could be a world leader in setting “fair standards” for AI use.
“Artists and creatives whose work is used to train AI are entitled to fair remuneration,” a spokesperson said.
“Innovation must not come at the expense of core ethical business principles.”
The Australian Publishers Association (APA) raised fears over the potential for work being used without permission or compensation, which it said would undermine local publishing, as well as federal government cultural policy.
“We support responsible innovation, but this draft proposal rewards infringers over investors,” said Patrizia Di Biase-Dyson, APA’s CEO.
“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, saying it would negatively affect creators’ earning capacity.
“The push to water down Australia’s copyright system comes from multinational tech companies, and is not in the national interest,” said CEO Josephine Johnston. “If we want high-quality Australian content to power the next phase of AI, we must ensure creators are paid for it.”
