Australia's Old Law Might Stop AI Investments

Topic: AI

Tuesday, July 14, 2026, at 2:33 pm

Australia's copyright law is a problem for AI companies that want to invest in the country.

Tens of billions of dollars in investments and Australia's goal to become a global AI power depend on a law from 1968.

Australia's copyright law was written for a time when there was only black-and-white TV, film, and radio.

More than 50 years later, copyright is a big issue for AI companies that want to make Australia their second home.

These companies say that the uncertainty about copyright and their technology is a major obstacle to investing in Australia.

At the same time, writers, musicians, artists, and publishers want control over their work and fair payment for what they have already created.

Australia is a popular place for investment

Tomorrow, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will give a big speech about how the government is approaching AI and its rules for companies that want to expand to Australia.

Internal government documents show why Mr. Albanese thinks Australia has an advantage.

Before a meeting with the CEO of Anthropic, a company that makes AI, a government briefing showed that the company liked Australia because it is stable, has a lot of renewable energy, and is close to the US.

Building data centers in Australia could be worth tens of billions of dollars.

Other companies are also looking to expand in Australia.

In return, Anthropic has some demands, but according to a Treasury briefing, any major investment would depend on clear copyright rules.

Why is AI and copyright so complicated?

Even before AI arrived, Australia's copyright system was already very complex and not working well, according to a professor of copyright law.

There have been updates over the years to include new technologies.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will give a big speech on artificial intelligence this week.

But the system was not designed for AI companies that collect millions of books, images, and web pages to train their machines.

Public datasets and company disclosures show that big AI companies have used a huge number of copyrighted materials to train their models.

It's not just one case of copyright infringement.

When training a model, a company may collect and organize material, make copies, test the model, and then use the material again.

Each stage could be considered an infringement.

Artists and copyright advocates say big tech companies are trying to change Australia's copyright rules as AI companies expand.

Australian law also gives developers fewer defenses for AI training than US law.

It's likely that there has been copyright infringement in some stages of training AI, despite no known AI copyright case in an Australian court.

The professor said that may be because of the challenges of enforcing copyright, with expensive lawsuits and jurisdictional issues.

Australian creators' work is already being used to train AI

George Nicholas is a Grammy-nominated Australian mixing engineer and former member of the electronic group Seekae.

The ABC found 83 listings for Seekae tracks in big song datasets used to train AI models.

Nicholas suspected his music would be used to train AI without permission, but having it confirmed had an impact on him.

George Nicholas is concerned about his music being used to train AI models.

While creatives say AI companies have taken their work without pay or permission, tech and business groups argue that Australia's laws are blocking investment without helping creators.

Atlassian co-founder Scott Farquhar said changing copyright law could unlock billions of dollars in foreign investment.

Both tech and business councils have called for reform, and the Productivity Commission has also suggested it as an area for review.

The choice is not just between unrestricted access to copyrighted works and no Australian AI industry.

An Australian AI company, Maincode, built its chatbot using only copyright-free material and data from customers.

The company's CEO said that showed Australian companies could still develop AI models, but he didn't know if a general-purpose system like ChatGPT could be built.

It's not often that the pope, college students, and Australians agree on something.

The current policy setting could lead developers to build early proofs of concept in Australia, then move offshore once they are big enough.

Supporters of reform say the status quo is broken and that training AI is legally risky in Australia due to copyright issues.

Opponents argue that changing the law would reward companies that build valuable products from other people's work without permission.

What are the options from here?

Australia could leave the law unchanged, as rights-holder groups are urging.

According to a Treasury briefing, Anthropic argued that it could negotiate with major rights holders, but licensing from smaller owners was too difficult.

Rights-holder groups reject the argument that licensing is unworkable, pointing to deals already made in music, news, and other sectors.

Australia's stability, renewable energy, and close US ties make it a good place to host data centers.

APRA AMCOS, which handles royalties for Australian and New Zealand artists, says no major AI platform has tried to negotiate with Australian rights holders.

One option would be a text-and-data-mining copyright exception, which would allow anyone to train AI on copyrighted material.

Collective licensing would let one or more organizations negotiate and distribute payments for a group of rights holders.

A country-folk musician was shocked to find a fake AI-generated website tribute to her and disputes over copyright on her music.

That could simplify negotiations, but would leave questions about who is represented, whether it's compulsory, and how usage is measured.

The media union has proposed guaranteeing an ongoing share of licensing payments to creators.

An AI safety charity has circulated a plan to create a permit for companies to purchase to train on copyrighted material.

A separate fund would support creatives, but its payments would not be tied to permit revenue.

This is not just an issue for Australia

The prime minister is not expected to announce a decision tomorrow.

But copyright is a big issue for discussion about AI in Australia, and any decision will have effects beyond Australia.

In a submission to an Australian inquiry, the US Copyright Alliance argued that an Australian licensing deal could be cited in American courts.

When it comes to AI, Australia is in a difficult position between the US and China.

Both AI companies and rights holders will view any Australian deal through the lens of a global struggle.

A deal on copyright would settle only one part of the debate over AI and training data.

There are still questions about whether Australians would have protections over their likeness, voice, privacy, and more.

Professor Bowrey said the debate risks asking copyright law to solve problems it's not meant to address.

Tuesday, July 14, 2026, at 2:33 pm

Tuesday, July 14, 2026, at 2:38 pm

See more ABC coverage

Promotion

Praticar Escuta