Government moves to safeguard creative rights amid technology push
The Australian government has formally rejected a proposal that would have allowed large tech companies unrestricted access to copyrighted material to train artificial intelligence models. Attorney-General Michelle Rowland announced the decision, marking a firm stance in favour of protecting the creative sector At the centre of this decision was a recommendation from the Productivity Commission that creators’ works be exploited without individual permissions under a so-called “text and data mining” exemption. That proposal triggered significant opposition from authors, artists and media organisations who argued it would amount to wholesale appropriation of their work Rowland underlined the value of the creative industries, declaring that “Australian creatives are not only world class, but they are also the lifeblood of Australian culture, and we must ensure the right legal protections are in place.” The proposed exemption had stirred concerns that artificial-intelligence developers could bypass licensing and access rich troves of books, artworks, music and performance before any compensation or control by rights-holders
Companies and industry bodies had argued that relaxing restrictions would unlock billions in foreign investment and spur growth in Australia’s digital economy. One such claim came from Scott Farquhar, co-founder of the software firm Atlassian, who told a business audience that modifying existing rules could “unlock billions of dollars of foreign investment into Australia Despite the commercial pitch, the creative sector mobilised quickly. First-Nations rapper Adam Briggs told a parliamentary inquiry that permitting wide access to locally-made content would make it “hard to get the genie back in the bottle”. Australian author Anna Funder criticised the idea of large-scale AI systems being built on “the wholesale, unauthorised appropriation of every available book, work of art and piece of performance that can be rendered digital The inquiry further found that the Commission had proceeded with its interim report without consulting creatives or modelling the potential impact on the sector. Greens senator Sarah Hanson‑Young said the Commission had “misread the value of the creative industry The national arts unions similarly warned that an exemption would open the door to “rampant theft” of creative work.
With the exemption formally ruled out, the government plans to convene a copyright and AI reference group to explore other possible reforms. Included in the agenda is the idea of a paid licensing framework under the Copyright Act 1968 to replace or supplement the current voluntary regime Media and publishing organisations welcomed the announcement. The Australian Recording Industry Association described it as “a win for creativity and Australian culture” and for “common sense A representative of Guardian Australia said the decision recognised that Australian copyrighted content deserves protection and fair payment From a business perspective, the decision has multiple implications. It signals that nations are unwilling to give free access to creative content for AI training without meaningful compensation or control. For technology companies, it means licensing and rights-management remain critical. For creators, it affirms that their work must be treated as an economic asset, not as raw feedstock by refusing to grant a broad-based exemption for copyright mining, the government has underlined that the development of AI must proceed in tandem with the protection of intellectual property, creative industries and cultural value.