The Australian Independent Record Labels Association, aka AIR, is the latest music industry organisation to hit back at the proposal that a new copyright exception be introduced in Australia to benefit AI companies.
The indie label trade group has responded to an interim report published last week by the Australian government’s Productivity Commission, which says it is now seeking feedback on the possibility of introducing a text and data mining exception into Australian law. That would mean AI companies could train their models on existing content without getting permission from any copyright owners.
“Any amendment to the Copyright Act to include a new AI exception would represent a dangerous step backwards”, AIR says, adding that doing so would “undermine the rights of creators and unrestrictedly allow multinational corporations to exploit creative works without permission or payment”.
Australia’s current copyright regime is “fit for purpose”, it adds, “and does not need exceptions to serve AI development that would strip Australian creators of their rights and jeopardise their ability to earn a living”. AI companies can instead negotiate licensing deals with rightsholders, something that is “already possible without weakening existing laws”.
Any copyright reform should instead focus on stopping AI companies from using vast quantities of music “without seeking consent or paying for it”, AIR goes on. Because currently those AI companies are “building lucrative business models based on training their algorithms with artists’ works and generating original content that competes directly with the creative works used for training”.
The debate over copyright and AI in Australia mirrors the global debate. Creators and copyright owners the world over insist that AI companies that want to use existing content to train their models must first secure permission and negotiate licensing deals.
Many tech companies argue that no permission is required because AI training is, or should be, covered by specific copyright exceptions or, under US law, the more ambiguous principle of fair use.
The Productivity Commission’s report includes a summary of some key developments regarding copyright and AI elsewhere in the world.
It notes that copyright exceptions for at least some AI training already exist in Singapore and Japan. It also summarises the text and data mining exception under European Union law, which includes an opt-out for rightsholders, and the fact that the UK is currently considering something similar.
It then confirms that the Commission is seeking feedback on the proposal that a text and data mining exception be added to Australian copyright law, asking how such an exception might “affect the development and use of AI in Australia”, and “how the exception should be implemented”.
It also adds that, even if a new exception was introduced, any AI company’s use of copyright protected works would still need to be “considered ‘fair’ in the circumstances”, a requirement which, it insists, “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”.
Although the Commission does also seem to acknowledge that defining ‘fair’ is never easy, with its report encouraging feedback on the question: “Is there a need for legislative criteria or regulatory guidance to help provide clarity about what types of uses are fair?”
The copyright industries - including the music industry - will lobby hard against any new AI exception in Australian copyright law, as they have done in numerous other countries.
In the UK, creators and rightsholders responded angrily to the British government’s own consultation on copyright and AI, which opened late last year and - initially at least - presented the introduction of a new copyright exception as the government’s preferred option.
In Australia, AIR’s comments today echo a statement put out last week by the Australian Recording Industry Association and record industry collecting society PPCA. The two organisations’ CEO Annabelle Herd said that, “Australian songs, stories, art, research and creative works are among our nation’s greatest treasures: they deserve respect, not exploitation”.
Australia’s current copyright framework “already provides clarity”, she added, “enabling licensing negotiations and balanced agreements that fairly reward creators and give them control over exploitation of their works”.
“Instead of rushing to open the gates for AI companies to unrestricted and free access to the valuable intellectual property of artists and creators”, she concluded, “the Productivity Commission should work to optimise existing licensing frameworks that can deliver promised AI productivity gains without gutting Australian copyright”.