Creators call on Australian govt to hold firm on AI copyright amid 'dirty deal' claim
#111 | PLUS: Google plays Charting's AI-Copyright Deniers' BINGO |✨AND: Let's face it, can you spot AI? Yes, with training
WELCOME TO Charting Gen AI, the global newsletter that keeps you informed on generative AI’s impacts on creators and human-made media, the ethics and behaviour of the AI companies, the future of copyright in the AI era, and the evolving AI policy landscape. Our coverage begins shortly. But first …
LEAD STORY
🏛️ AI POLICY & REGULATION
CREATORS AND leaders of creative industry groups this week called on the Australian government to resist Big Tech’s intense lobbying to weaken the nation’s copyright laws in favour of AI developers. The gathering at Parliament House in Canberra comes amid a claim that the Albanese administration is set to agree the “ultimate dirty deal: selling out Australian musicians, writers, authors and other creatives in return for an eye-wateringly large investment in AI datacentres”. The government has repeatedly rejected the allegation, and insists it hasn’t changed its position on a text and data mining (TDM) exception.
HOW WE GOT HERE
In October 2025 creator groups in Australia welcomed the rejection of a TDM exception that would have allowed AI developers to train their generative models on creative content without the consent of rightsholders. In a move praised around the world attorney general Michelle Rowland said that while ministers would consult on possible changes to Australia’s copyright laws any shake-up wouldn’t remove protections for creatives — who she described as “the lifeblood of Australian culture”. Rowland’s assurance followed a report two months earlier from Australia’s Productivity Commission (PC). That body, which provides independent economic advice to ministers, said there were “concerns” that Australia’s copyright laws weren’t “keeping pace with the rise of AI technology”, and floated a deeply controversial and short-lived TDM exception.
‘DIRTY DEAL’ CLAIM
Last week independent senator David Pocock claimed a deal was being worked on that would allow commercial AI model training on copyrighted works. This week the proposal was said to involve datacentre investment worth A$50 billion ($35 billion, £26 billion, €30 billion) with AI firms agreeing to bankroll a creators’ fund worth A$350 million ($243 million, £182 million, €212 million).
In the Senate, Pocock accused the government of working on a “massively concerning secret plan ... to sell out Australian creatives’ work to multinational AI companies”. “This is after promising to protect creatives’ work and not water down our copyright protections. What cabinet is considering is the ultimate dirty deal: selling out Australian musicians, writers, authors and other creatives in return for an eye-wateringly large investment in AI datacentres.
“To sell out Australian creatives would be a reckless act,” said Pocock who described Australia’s Copyright Act as “a beautiful solution to valuing the work of creatives and making sure they keep control over how their work is used in our society”.
“I urge the government to stand up for Australians and our future and the creatives that tell [us] where we’re from, where we are now, and where we’re going as a country.”
ROWLAND DENIAL
A spokesperson for Rowland, speaking to Guardian Australia, reiterated there were “no plans to weaken copyright protections when it comes to AI”. The spokesperson added: “We are committed to ensuring that Australia has a fit-for-purpose copyright framework that protects and supports Australia’s creative and media industries while unlocking AI innovation.”
‘HERITAGE AT RISK’
Last week an open letter — now signed by over 12,000 authors, artists, songwriters, composers, music publishers and industry organisations — called on the Australian government to “commit to the future of creativity in this country and not trade it away”.
“Australia holds something no other country possesses: more than sixty thousand years of First Nations culture. Those songs, stories, images and languages are living cultural heritage. Any framework that weakens the protection of creative work puts that heritage at risk of being absorbed into AI systems in ways that are extractive, disrespectful and irreversible.”
CONVERGING ON CANBERRA
Creators speaking at Canberra included the award-winning author Anna Funder. “I’m a writer but I’m standing here before you today really as a victim of crime. My books have all been hoovered up in many editions in many countries, in many languages by Big Tech, broken down into parts and used for them to make money,” said Funder, whose book Stasiland won the 2004 Samuel Johnson Prize for best non-fiction work published in the English language. “We don’t want patrons, we don’t want a Big Tech fund, we want our rights.”
Singer-songwriter Mahalia Barnes, added: “This is not just data. This is truly art. This is our culture, it’s the essence of our nation. Artists can never be replaced by technology and AI because art is essentially about humanity.”
Speaking to Charting Gen AI, Nicholas Pickard, public affairs and global policy chief at music rights management organisation APRA AMCOS, said: “Australia is currently a flashpoint in the global fight over whether tech companies can train on copyright material without paying for it.
“The promise of major datacentre investment across Australia comes as the US midterms approach, and communities in both red and blue states fight against the proliferation of tech infrastructure. It’s clear why they see Australia as a desirable location: safe economy, safe democracy, vast renewables and space.”
Lucy Hayward, CEO at the Australian Society of Authors, told Charting the rejection of the TDM exception last year had been “a world-leading decision”. “Instead of honouring the government’s commitment to the creative industries and starting negotiations with creators and rights holders, Big Tech is intensifying its lobbying for ‘solutions’ outside of our copyright framework.
“If these AI developers are truly interested in working with the creative industries on a mutually beneficial outcome, why are they going behind our backs to push the government to change their mind about copyright? Short term proposals and ideas for creator funds worth less than a tenth of a per cent of these companies’ multi-billion dollar valuations are frankly insulting. For all intents and purposes it’s wage theft for the creative industries.”
Hayward added: “We need the government to hold firm in the face of increased pressure from Big Tech for a handout, and continue to demonstrate the strong leadership they’ve shown in regulating tech companies for the benefit of Australians.”
Anna Ganley, CEO of the UK’s Society of Authors, told Charting: “To date, Australia has been a beacon of hope in upholding copyright laws and protecting creators’ rights. We stand with Australian creators. And we say to the Australian government, these are not your rights to give away.”
📣 COMMENT: The Australian government appears to be holding the line on creative copyright, however Guardian Australia reported there were “splits” over the “best approach for managing AI and the rights of creators, with senior ministers arguing about possible exemptions from copyright rules or licensing models”. Creators’ speeches in Canberra this week will have sent a very clear message to the government that any departure from the current position would be fraught with political risk. Last October Australia was praised for taking a principled stand on copyright and AI. Nine months later, the world is watching how it now responds to intense lobbying. Australia can have what Rowland’s spokesperson desires: creative industries that are protected and supported, and unlocked innovation in the AI sector. But only on the basis of transparency, consent and compensation.
RELATED:
PLUS:
➡ Altman and Trump admin ‘are mulling US govt owning 5% of OpenAI’
➡ US lifts export restrictions on Anthropic’s latest advanced AI models
➡ … after Trump allies were split on allowing global access to US tech
➡ Poll shows strong support among US voters for govt-led safety tests
➡ US Supreme Court rules Copyright Office chief can keep job, for now
➡ United Nations to convene commission on responsible AI next week
➡ The Ivors Academy calls on Ireland to take EU lead on AI protections
➡ European Broadcasting Union urges EU to adopt full AI transparency
➡ UK ministers suddenly cancel appearance to discuss AI and copyright
EARLIER THIS WEEK:
🚨CREATORS EMERGENCY SUMMIT
OUR NEXT Creators Emergency Summit — the event that’s spawning a movement — will highlight protections from AI exploitation, plus we’ll have the latest developments on the legal, regulatory and policy landscape. That’s all coming up in the Autumn. In the meantime, do continue to send us your ideas for the summit — topics, speakers, and your perspectives.
RELATED:
ALSO THIS WEEK
© AI COPYRIGHT & LICENSING
GOOGLE HAS BEEN playing Charting Gen AI’s ever-popular AI-Copyright Deniers’ BINGO — from both sides of the Atlantic.
In a new policy paper Kent Walker, the hi-tech’s global affairs chief, made the case for A Pragmatic Approach to AI Governance in America. In Walker’s view, using “publicly available web data for training models” (cross off a square) is a “transformative” (the erroneous idea that ‘AI models make something new’, cross off another) non-expressive use, working “like an art student taking inspiration from walking through a gallery” (akin to our old friend ‘AI training is no different to human learning’ — it’s entirely different, of course; another cross) and that everything “should remain protected under fair use in the US” (a reference to the fair use doctrine which isn’t a blanket protection, courts apply it on a case-by-case basis; another cross). Scoring a fifth cross on Charting’s bingo card, Walker said generative AI was “an expansionary opportunity for human creativity”, in other words, ‘We’re lowering barriers to creativity’ (nonsense, of course; generative AI doesn’t ‘create’ anything).
