Australia’s AI copyright fight turns on who pays creators

The evidence behind the dispute

ICMP represents Sony, Warner, Universal and thousands of independent publishers across six continents. Its managing director, John Phelan, told Guardian Australia that AI companies are asking politicians to “legalise theft” and using the threat of withheld investment to pressure the Australian government.

The committee’s Labor chair, Josh Burns, and deputy chair, Liberal senator Jonathon Duniam, urged the government to examine copyright rules while guaranteeing creators control over their work and payment for its use. Independent senator David Pocock said he was concerned the committee had settled its position with the prime minister in advance, pointing to edits made by staff in a letter. Burns rejected the accusation.

ICMP says material from Australian artists has already appeared in AI-related data:

Phelan said 62 countries had considered changing their laws, but none of the other 61 had introduced a new copyright exception for commercial text and data mining or restricted exclusive rights. He said the music industry and other creative sectors worldwide were watching Australia.

What companies say they need

Anthropic special envoy Jeffrey Bleich told the committee last week that the company was not trying to dictate terms. He said Anthropic had given the Australian government information about its training and how possible decisions could affect its ability to operate in the country.

Bleich argued that licensing the entire internet was impossible: billions of items are available to view and study online, and, in his account, that is how training works. But he said he understood Australian law could make such training illegal without a licence from every rights holder in Australia.

OpenAI head of economic policy Adam Cohen said the US fair-use exception “fundamentally protects” the development of new technology. He cited deals with News Corp and Guardian as examples of agreements to use creative work, while saying US law does not require such deals.

In July, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said taking artists’ control over the use of their work to create and train AI, and their right to payment, would be “theft.” The committee’s letter called for a review of the rules without giving up those protections.

The unresolved bargain

Phelan’s explanation for the pressure is that AI companies face huge investment costs, the need to earn returns and ongoing US copyright lawsuits. He believes they may be looking to Australian law for a way to operate without licences and preserve their future business model. That is his interpretation, not a finding by the committee.

I think the hardest question here is not whether licensing every item online is practical. It is whether the alternatives put forward by AI companies leave creators with meaningful control or compensation. Guardian Australia told the committee that copyrighted material should be used for AI training only with prior, explicit permission from rights holders.

The government is being asked to reconcile those positions while companies warn that current law limits their ability to train in Australia. If the rules change, the effect will reach beyond one country: Phelan says the rest of the world is watching whether Australia creates a new route for commercial AI training.