Australian musicians have voiced strong opposition to the unlicensed use of their work in artificial intelligence training datasets, describing the practice as theft and calling for stronger copyright protections. Among those affected is Kristy Lee Peters, known professionally as KLP, who discovered her music included without consent in a collection of 125 songs used by AI companies.
Peters expressed feeling “completely violated” after learning her work had been incorporated into AI models without permission or compensation. She emphasized that the creative industry relies on income generated through songwriting, performing, and recording, and criticized AI firms for adopting a business model she characterized as “stealing other people’s property” under the guise of innovation. Peters stressed that unlike other industries, musicians are expected to relinquish ownership of their intellectual property for free.
The concerns were echoed by a group of prominent Australian artists and authors who gathered at Parliament House to urge the federal government to uphold current copyright laws. The group included musicians Jack River, Mark Seymour, Paul Dempsey, William Barton, and Mahalia Barnes, as well as writers Andy Griffiths and Anna Funder. They sought assurances from government officials that no changes weakening copyright protections were being considered.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Arts Minister Pablo Rodriguez, and Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus reportedly reaffirmed the government's position of maintaining existing copyright frameworks. Meanwhile, Annabelle Herd, CEO of the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA), highlighted ongoing lobbying efforts by US-based AI executives aiming to soften copyright provisions. Herd described these overtures as attempts to exchange legislative concessions for significant investments in Australian data centers, reportedly valued at $50 billion.
Herd challenged claims from technology companies that licensing music for AI training is overly complicated, pointing out that platforms like Spotify have successfully operated on established licensing agreements for years. Peters and her fellow artists reiterated that their objection was not to artificial intelligence itself, but to the lack of choice and control over how their creative outputs are utilized by large technology firms.
The debate underscores tensions between creative industries and emerging AI technologies, with artists calling for clear and enforceable rights to protect their works in an evolving digital landscape. The federal government’s response may set important precedents for balancing innovation and intellectual property rights in Australia.