Shadow comms minister warns of ‘overregulation’ amid AI copyright furore
Australia’s shadow communications minister Melissa McIntosh has given her take on government intervention and regulation as the country grapples with what to do about copyright concerns and AI companies stealing intellectual property.
An interim report from the Productivity Commission this week explored what to do with copyright laws and intellectual property regulations as seemingly protected content continues to be taken, without permission, to train AI models.
One potential solution put forward in the report was copyright licensing, in which the AI companies taking the material would need to pay the creators some sort of payment. Another option was to look at more effective enforcement, such as take-down notices, alternative dispute resolution and court action. The final option – and the one that has caused most concern amongst media and creative communities – is to look at a text and data mining ‘fair dealing’ exemption from copyright law.
Groups opposed to this route have called for more solid regulation and enforcement to protect them from having their intellectual property stolen. The media union warns it’s “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”.
Liberal shadow minister McIntosh, however, warned of the unintended consequences of “overregulating” the space.
Shadow communications minister Melissa McIntosh
“As a Liberal – regulation, like, you’re scaring me there… I think we need to be treading carefully, not overregulating. Again, technology is moving so fast, there may be unintended consequences,” she said on ABC’s Afternoon Briefing with Patricia Karvelas.
“If you regulate something that is moving quick, well where does that, where does that place?”
Despite seemingly railing against regulation, McIntosh noted the need to “[protect] Australian content against those big tech companies who should be paying for it”.
“No, I’m also very patriotic about protecting Australian content. I’ve spoken about this before…. that should be a priority, protecting content, you know.
“My son is very interested and works a lot in, you know, in drawings and, you know, if we’re protecting online drawings, novelists… I think it’s, you know, it is a concern and if there’s any weakening of the laws, we already have enough difficulties in this country when it comes to the protection of intellectual property. There’s so much intellectual property theft that goes on, particularly from offshore actors stealing contents, stealing business knowledge.”
This week’s interim report noted the delicate balance between protecting consumers, without holding the country back.
The interim report was released this week
“There is a role for government in setting the rules of the game, but without unduly curtailing the benefits of data and digital technologies and stifling innovation,” it said.
It also flagged the limitations of the current copyright regime, given changing technologies, and how much of the exploitation is being conducted beyond Australian borders.
“There are concerns that the Australian copyright regime is not keeping pace with the rise of AI technology – whether because it does not adequately facilitate the use of copyrighted works or because AI developers can too easily sidestep existing licensing and enforcement mechanisms,” the report said.
It added: “It should be noted that Australian copyright law only applies to copying that occurs within Australia’s boundaries – in other words, the training of AI models overseas is subject to the relevant laws of the jurisdiction in which it occurs.
As for a text and data mining (TDM) exemption, the interim report promised this would not be a free-for-all for tech companies. Although it did note this would require further clarification and work.
“It should also be noted that a TDM exception would not be a ‘blank cheque’ for all copyrighted materials to be used as inputs into all AI models… [T]he use must also be considered ‘fair’ in the circumstances – this requirement would act as a check on copyrighted works being used unfairly, preserving the integrity of the copyright holder’s legal and commercial interests in the work.
“There may be a need for legislative criteria or regulatory guidance about what types of uses are likely to be considered fair.”
Keep up to date with the latest in media and marketing
Have your say