The Productivity Commission has proposed significant changes to the Australian Copyright Act, suggesting a text and data mining exception that would permit the training of artificial intelligence (AI) models, such as ChatGPT, on copyrighted Australian works. This interim report, titled “Harnessing Data and Digital Technology,” estimates that such a move could inject approximately A$116 billion into the Australian economy over the next decade. However, many in the creative sector express deep concerns over the implications for authors and publishers.
The proposal aims to add AI training to the list of existing “fair dealing” exceptions within the Copyright Act. Critics argue that this exemption would primarily benefit multinational technology corporations while undermining the interests of Australian creators. The Copyright Agency has voiced strong opposition, stating that the changes would prioritize tech companies over local creative industries.
Concerns for Australian authors have heightened since March when numerous authors discovered their works included in datasets used by companies like Meta to train AI systems without consent. This included works by notable figures such as former prime ministers John Howard and Julia Gillard.
Industry Response to Proposed Changes
The backlash from writers and publishers has been swift. Sophie Cunningham, a writer and chair of the Australian Society of Authors (ASA), emphasized that most authors do not earn a salary but rely on copyright for their income. The ASA’s CEO, Lucy Hayward, warned that the proposed exception would allow tech companies to exploit authors’ work without compensation, further jeopardizing the financial stability of Australian creators.
Statistics reveal that Australian writers earn, on average, about $18,500 annually from their writing careers, making the potential loss from AI exploitation particularly concerning. A recent study indicated that a vast majority of writers oppose their works being used for AI training.
Stephen King, one of the commissioners involved in the inquiry, acknowledged the risks associated with using copyrighted materials without appropriate compensation. He noted the desire for AI tools that could utilize such materials responsibly, yet the report suggests that the provision would not serve as a “blank cheque” for unrestricted use of copyrighted content.
Historical Context and Future Implications
The proposal is not the first time the Productivity Commission has shown indifference toward the local publishing landscape. In 2009, it recommended removing parallel importation restrictions, a move that local publishers argued would disadvantage them compared to international competitors. Critics, including author Richard Flanagan, have likened the Commission’s proposals to misguided advice, suggesting a lack of understanding of the local industry’s needs.
The ramifications of changing copyright laws could extend beyond Australia. As the 13th largest economy in the world, Australia’s legislative choices have the potential to influence other nations. Advocates stress the importance of protecting local cultural products and the creators behind them, urging the government to avoid adopting policies that undermine the creative industries.
Australia has the opportunity to lead in the realm of Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property, establishing best practices that other countries may follow. The ongoing debate over copyright and AI training is not just about the future of technology; it is about valuing and protecting the contributions of Australian creators.
As discussions continue, the outcome of this proposal may shape the future landscape of copyright law and its implications for the creative sector.
