IFPI warns Albanese against weakening copyright for AI

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), which represents recording organisations around the world, has warned the Australian government that weakening copyright to train AI would harm creative industries and the country’s reputation. IFPI chief Victoria Oakley believes allowing companies to train models on protected material without licences would set a dangerous precedent for music and culture worldwide. Anthony Albanese’s government is considering changes to AI policy, although the prime minister has promised to ensure creators receive “the strongest possible protection”.

IFPI warns Australia against weakening copyright for AI

Why Australia’s decision matters

Australia’s creative industries have already opposed AI companies’ demands to weaken copyright so they can train models on local material. Industry representatives have raised constitutional concerns and threatened political resistance. IFPI, meanwhile, is watching to see whether Australia accepts terms that other countries have rejected.

Oakley said she sees no reason why a developed democracy with its own culture should accept proposals from a handful of major AI companies. In her view, Australia should not become the weakest link by believing companies’ promises and sacrificing its creative industries. She also stressed that one jurisdiction with weakened protections would be enough: companies could then train models on music from any country. The consequences would therefore reach beyond Australian music and culture.

The Labor government is considering changes in several areas related to AI. Alongside copyright, the package includes data centres, online safety, the labour market, energy and the economy. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has promised to ensure “the strongest possible protection” and warned that using creators’ work without payment would be theft. But AI companies’ proposals to weaken the law have alarmed creative industries.

Some companies refuse to sign licences under the current rules, arguing that doing so is too difficult. Anthropic has proposed an opt-out model: the company could collect material from the internet unless rights holders had objected in advance. Major AI developers also say they need legal certainty, including on copyright, to invest in Australia and train models there.

Oakley noted that AI companies have made similar proposals in the United States, the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Australia does not need to agree to weaker protections to attract investment and be seen as pro-innovation, she said. IFPI has discussed the issue with governments in different countries and considers a possible Australian decision a threat to creativity.

Justice Minister Michelle Rowland said through a representative last week that the government intends to support creative workers. She promised that any future changes to copyright law would give creators “meaningful control and fair compensation”.

Oakley said she is concerned about AI’s impact on copyright worldwide, but is particularly worried about Australia’s actions. Creative industries fear a ripple effect: if Australia weakens protection, that could affect rights to works from around the world. She declined to speculate on whether there would be legal or constitutional challenges of the kind raised by the Australian Recording Industry Association, but warned that the decision would damage the country’s reputation in the international creative community.

Licensing is already working

In responses to questions from an AI parliamentary committee, submitted by independent senator David Pocock, OpenAI explained why it cannot make deals like Spotify. The company said Spotify has a different business model: the service mainly delivers copyrighted content to users without altering it, so it is expected to obtain licences for the music it streams.

Oakley countered that record companies have already signed dozens of licensing agreements with small AI companies around the world. Music labels know how to license content to technology platforms, she said: that is how Spotify, Amazon Music, Apple and Tidal operate. Rights holders have experience licensing music for streaming and existing examples of agreements with AI companies. Oakley urged the industry to let the market work and seek licences from rights holders.

Dataist’s take: the dispute is not only about the terms for training models in Australia. A single legal precedent could change access to protected works around the world. At the same time, Oakley’s examples show that licensing is already used both by music services and in agreements with some AI companies.