Australia Says No to Free AI Use of copyright works

Used under a Creative Commons Licence

What the Government’s AI Decision Means for Creatives

If you’ve spent the last year rolling your eyes at giddy tech headlines (“AI trained on ten billion creative works!”) or feeling a shiver crawl down your spine when platforms tout endless “new” designs, here’s some refreshing news: the Australian Government is not letting artificial intelligence companies freely use creative works—like art, music, writing, and more—for machine training without asking or paying for it.

As a law firm, we’ve helped artists, writers, designers and photographers grappling with the fear that their work—whether it’s a painting, a verse, a logo or a textile print—might be swept up and reused by AI tools just because it’s been posted online. A common concern is, “Will I lose control if my work ends up on Pinterest or some global database?”

This government decision is genuine cause for celebration among our creative clients.

The Big Decision: No AI Free-for-All

Attorney General Michelle Rowland has made it clear: “There are no plans to weaken copyright protections when it comes to AI.” For context, previously, the Productivity Commission suggested an update to our long-standing Copyright Act—a so-called “text and data mining exception.”

That would have given AI companies a green light to scrape and reuse creative work for training purposes, with no consent and no cheque in the mail.

But after considerable pushback, from songwriters to designers to campaigners—and plenty of huffy press releases—the government has ruled that out. Copyright, for now, remains your shield.

Why Was This Proposed?

The Productivity Commission’s interim report, argued that artificial intelligence and big-data analytics could boost national productivity by 4.3%—a whopping $116 billion—and make Australia competitive with places like the US, UK, EU, and Japan, who all have various copyright exemptions for data mining.

Put in a super simple way, the tech companies were saying: “Let us use everyone’s art, music, writing and designs without asking—you’ll get more innovation, big money coming in, maybe even new jobs.” They argued that if the law made it easier for AI tools to copy lots of stuff, Australia would be able to keep up with other countries that already let this happen.

But for creatives, this was hardly attractive. It was like the government giving tech companies a free ticket to take artists’ hard work—even though deep down, everyone knows grabbing someone’s creation without permission is wrong.

That’s why so many artists, writers, songwriters and designers spoke out—they wanted the law to protect their art, not let it be gobbled up by smart computers and sold back to them with no say.

Let’s break down what a Text and Data Mining exception would have actually meant for everyday creatives.

Imagine if the law changed so that huge AI companies could grab your artworks, photos, written words, music, or unique designs from the internet—not to sell as-is, but to “feed” their smart computers. This feeding helps AI learn how to make new pictures, songs, or even copywriting, by learning from real people’s work.

You might never even know your creation was taken or used—no permission asked, no heads-up, and definitely no payment in your pocket. If you’re a surface designer, illustrator, novelist, photographer, songwriter, or even a web app creator, your online work could have become “study material” for these systems.

In Australia, there’s a legal idea called “fair dealing” that lets people use a little bit of someone’s work for research, review, or news. If this new rule came in, “fair dealing” would have grown much bigger so huge companies could do “machine reading”—which really just means computers could copy and sift through mountains of creative work, all at once, to spot patterns, styles, or ideas to use for AI.

And the important bit: this would not just affect artists! Writers, musicians, textile designers, programmers—anyone putting original work out there—would be at risk of having their creative content pulled into the AI training mix, with little say and no guarantee of being paid or credited.

That’s why the creative sector worried so much about these proposed changes.

Creators Got Vocal

The resistance was broad and heartfelt. Organisations like APRA, AMCOS, NATSIMO and ARIA pointed out that:

Over 30 lawsuits in the US are currently underway against AI companies for ingesting copyrighted material without permission.
Consent, control, and compensation are non-negotiables for creative businesses.
Allowing a carve-out would simply green-light further copyright exploitation and threaten cultural jobs and income streams.

Next Steps: What’s Actually Changing?

With the exception off the table, there’s now debate on how to license creative content fairly for AI use.
Three main issues are up for discussion as the Government’s Copyright and AI Reference Group (CAIRG) meets:

Opening Fair, Legal Licensing Paths for AI

AI companies must get permission before using your work in training, potentially boosting licensing opportunities for creatives.
Clarifying Copyright Law for AI-Generated Content
The law will address how it applies to works created with the aid of machines, and whether copyright is valid when the human touch is lost.
Making Enforcement Easier for Creatives
Plans are underway to create simple, affordable forums (like small claims courts) so individuals can pursue IP disputes without breaking the bank.

A Win for Creatives?

Yes! Your work stays protected under the current Copyright Act. AI can’t grab and use your art as “fuel” for machine learning without permission.

Licensing is front and centre; creators get to say yes or no, set fees, and require attribution.

Innovation in AI doesn’t mean creators lose out—practical licensing protects creative businesses and supports a healthy digital economy.

What Should You Watch Next?

Look out for updates from the Copyright and AI Reference Group as it debates improvements to enforcement, licensing, and transparency: Copyright and Artificial Intelligence Reference Group (CAIRG) | Attorney-General’s Department
Make sure you’re clear in contracts about how, where, and when your work can be used by tech partners or collaborators.
Keep records, watermark where practical, and talk to your professional association.

FAQ

Has the government changed the copyright law for AI?
No, the government said no special rules for tech companies to use your stuff for free.

Do I still own my music, writing, or photos online?
Yes, copyright law still protects your creative work.

What is “scraping” and why are people worried about it?
New rules are proposed so creators can get paid when tech companies use their work.

Will artists and writers get paid if AI uses their work?
Brands must ensure influencer content follows TGA guidelines, also for sponsored or unpaid posts.

What are the risks for not complying with TGA influencer rules?
Businesses and influencers may face large fines, forced takedowns, or reputational damage if they breach Australian laws on advertising therapeutic goods.

Copyright Stays Strong