Australia’s government is weighing changes to copyright law in response to the rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI), with leaked documents revealing two proposed regulatory options that have sparked debate among lawmakers, rights holders, and AI companies.
The leaked documents outline two frameworks under consideration. Both include an opt-out mechanism allowing copyright holders to prevent AI companies from using their online content for training purposes by employing digital protections. Rights holders and AI firms would also be encouraged to negotiate voluntary data access agreements, with compensation determined through these negotiations.
Under the first option, dubbed “Option A,” a statutory data training authorization would permit AI companies to access unprotected content—that is, material not explicitly opted out—subject to payment to a central collecting body. The collected fees would then be distributed to registered rights holders. This model also proposes extended collective licenses managed by collecting societies to handle payments for “long tail” content, or publicly available material for which voluntary agreements prove unattainable.
The second option, “Option B,” envisions mandatory data access arrangements, allowing AI companies to use all unprotected online material after reaching agreements with a minimum number of companies for a specified minimum term.
According to the documents, both approaches aim to stimulate investment in frontier AI technology within Australia and generate domestic benefits from AI training activities.
The Albanese government has neither confirmed nor denied the authenticity of the leaked proposals. An Attorney-General’s Office spokesperson said consultations continue with creators, media entities, and AI firms to develop copyright law updates that ensure meaningful control and fair compensation for rights holders.
Opposition voices have criticized the options. Senator David Pocock described the proposals as significantly weakening protections for creators, arguing that current law places the burden on AI companies to obtain permission and pay for the use of copyrighted material. He expressed concern that the government appears intent on reversing this responsibility.
The Coalition opposition called the documents evidence that the government had reneged on its commitments. Legal affairs spokeswoman Michaelia Cash characterized the potential changes as creating a broad text and data mining exception with opt-out features, despite official assurances to the contrary. She called for the immediate release of all consultation materials and clarity on the government’s preferred approach.
The debate follows media reports that OpenAI, a leading AI company, stated it would not consider investing in Australian AI research or renewable energy projects unless copyright laws are relaxed. Nationals leader Matt Canavan and Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young accused OpenAI and other AI companies of exerting improper pressure on the government. Dean Ormston, chief executive of music rights body APRA AMCOS, echoed this sentiment, suggesting the government is being coerced through these corporate demands.
The government faces mounting pressure to strike a balance between fostering AI innovation and protecting the rights and incomes of Australian creators amid rapidly evolving technology and economic forces.