‘Blueprint for theft’: Australian creative organisations hit out against proposed copyright changes
The Productivity Commission’s proposal to change the Copyright Act to allow technology companies to mine text and data created by Australians to train artificial intelligence has been rejected outright by a number of media bodies, including News Corp, ARIA, and the MEAA.
The “Harnessing Data and Digital Technology” interim report was issued on Tuesday evening, and examines whether a new ‘fair dealing’ exemption should be granted to technology companies in order to train AI models off copyrighted material. It recommended sweeping changes to the current copyright laws.
Last week, Atlassian co-founder and billionaire Scott Farquhar called for an overhaul of Australian copyright laws, saying they were stricter than those in the UK and US, which prevents us from competing with the rest of the world in developing AI models.
Scott Farquhar wants copyright laws softened to allow AI training
“This is a barrier to AI companies who want to train or host their models in Australia. And this is even a barrier to Australian-born companies who want to build AI models here,” Farquhar told the National Press Club.
“ Fixing this one thing could unlock billions of dollars of foreign investment in Australia.”
The Copyright Agency – the not-for-profit that distributes royalties in Australia – told Mumbrella this week “it is not necessary, or in the interest of Australians, to change Australia’s copyright regime to benefit multinational tech companies”.
News Corp Australia’s executive chairman Michael Miller hit out against the Productivity Commission’s data and digital tech report during an earnings call on Wednesday morning, saying: “The harm is real with Australia being asked to trade away our cultural, social and economic sovereignty despite no genuine evidence that Australia’s copyright laws are stifling innovation or investment.
“Australia’s copyright laws are enforceable and fit-for-purpose to protect intellectual property in the age of AI. No other industry gets the right to steal other people’s products for their own benefit and nor should big tech.”
Miller asked: “If big tech wants free and open access to other people’s intellectual property are they prepared to give us free and open access to theirs?
“Surely the greatest boon for start up tech innovators would be to have access to big tech’s algorithms? I look forward to them making that concession.”
The Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) and Phonographic Performance Company of Australia (PPCA) who protect the interests of Australian musicians and songwriters, have also rejecting the proposal for an exemption, calling it “ill-considered and contrary to Australia’s best interests”.
ARIA and PPCA CEO, Annabelle Herd
ARIA and PPCA’s CEO Annabelle Herd said “granting technology companies unrestricted access to exploit generations of Australian artistic and cultural output will decimate the value of Australian creative industries and place our creators at a disadvantage internationally” in a statement issued this morning.
“Australia’s existing copyright law is the foundation of the creative industries and the digital economy. It currently aligns with global standards and effectively drives innovation and mutually beneficial negotiation without compromising Australian rights and investment.”
Herd argued the existing legal framework “already provides clarity, enabling licensing negotiations and balanced agreements that fairly reward creators and give them control over exploitation of their works”.
She said: “Australian songs, stories, art, research and creative works are among our nation’s greatest treasures: they deserve respect, not exploitation.
“Instead of rushing to open the gates for AI companies to unrestricted and free access to the valuable intellectual property of artists and creators, the Productivity Commission should work to optimise existing licensing frameworks that can deliver promised AI productivity gains without gutting Australian copyright.”
The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance also issued a statement rejecting the report, calling it “a blueprint for the wholesale theft of Australia’s art, media, and cultural heritage that will do nothing more than further enrich the billionaires in Silicon Valley”.
Erin Madeley
The MEAA said any rolling back of copyright law would “effectively enable a transfer of resources from Australian creatives to mostly foreign big tech companies, with no chance of compensation”.
MEAA chief executive Erin Madeley said the Productivity Commission’s interim recommendations were akin to “throwing Australia’s creative and media workers under a bus”, saying “there are no recommendations in this report that protect Australian workers or creative assets”.
She said members have “serious concerns about the rapid and unregulated rise of AI and its impact on day-to-day work, job security, and future employment prospects, as well as the impact of the loss of human-led creativity for Australia’s unique culture”.
“Also missing in discussions about regulating AI has been any consideration of how to compensate workers who have had their work stolen by AI developers overseas,” she said in the statement.
“We know that Australian voices, music, and artwork have been scraped overseas, that ChatGPT is substituting the work of our journalists, and that AI-generated clone hosts have been used for radio programs – with no disclosure to audiences.”
Keep up to date with the latest in media and marketing
Got a tip?
Nathan Jolly is the Features Editor at Mumbrella. He joined the team in July, 2023.
Linkedin
Have your say