A committee of Australian senators has told the country’s government to work with the creative industries to find “appropriate solutions to the unprecedented theft” of creative works “by multinational tech companies” that are developing generative AI models.
The select committee also urged government ministers to work with creators and copyright owners “to consider an appropriate mechanism to ensure fair remuneration is paid to creators for commercial AI-generated outputs based on copyrighted material used to train AI systems”.
The select committee has made a number of recommendations which, says Dean Ormston, CEO of Australian collecting society APRA AMCOS, “offer a pathway to protecting the creators who form the cultural backbone of this country” and whose works “enrich our lives and power an industry worth billions to our economy”.
A committee focusing on AI was established in Australia’s Senate in March this year, tasked with running an inquiry into, and then reporting on, “the opportunities and impacts for Australia arising out of the uptake of AI technologies”.
A report published as a result of that work is wide-ranging, examining the evolution and regulation of AI in both Australia and around the world, as well as the potential impacts AI might have on industry, business and workers. There are also specific sections looking at the impact of AI on the creative industries and the healthcare sector.
For the music industry, one of the key recommendations in the new report is that the Australian government should “require the developers of AI products to be transparent about the use of copyrighted works in their training datasets, and that the use of such works is appropriately licensed and paid for”.
Many AI companies are somewhat ambiguous about what content they use in their training datasets, and some argue that they can use copyright protected works in AI training without the permission of the copyright owners.
That argument relies on data mining copyright exceptions, or fair use principles, that are found in certain copyright systems around the world.
However, the Senate’s report notes that the Australian Copyright Council - which represents Australian copyright owners - has argued that “the practice of scraping copyright material” is unlikely to fall under any exceptions in Australian copyright law, which is similar to UK copyright law.
APRA AMCOS hopes that the report’s core recommendations around copyright and transparency will put pressure on the country’s government to address some of the music industry’s key concerns around AI.
The report, says the collecting society, “focuses on the need for proactive regulation”, and demonstrates how AI companies have failed “to address critical issues around the unauthorised use of creative and copyright works”, which underlines “the need for enforceable safeguards”.
“The testimony of some tech platforms during this inquiry demonstrates their unwillingness to take accountability for the harm their technologies are causing”, continues Ormston. “The committee’s recommendations provide a clear framework that supports innovation, but also holds these companies to account, so an environment is fostered where creators’ rights are respected and upheld”.
“Significantly”, he adds, “the report reflects unanimous agreement across government, opposition and crossbench senators on the urgent need to address AI’s impact on music and the broader creative sector. This bipartisan consensus is a powerful signal that protecting creators is not just a cultural imperative - it is a national priority”.