• Analysis
AI Copyright Law Australia: IFPI Warns Weakening Protections Would Harm Creatives
The IFPI, the global recording industry body, has told the Albanese government that weakening AI copyright law in Australia would be 'ridiculous and dangerous', as Labor weighs copyright changes within a wider AI policy overhaul.
Labels already license to AI, says IFPI
Victoria Oakley, chief executive of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), argues that licensing music to technology companies is established practice, not untested territory. She pointed to the deals labels already hold with streaming services and said her members' labels have signed dozens of licensing agreements with smaller AI companies around the world.
"We already know how to license music to tech platforms because that's exactly how Spotify works, or Amazon Music, Apple, or Tidal"
That track record is central to her case against the demands now before the government: if labels can license to AI firms under existing copyright law, a special exemption is unnecessary. Some AI companies, however, have rejected making licensing agreements under the current framework, saying it was too difficult.
AI companies' demands and the opt-out model
Creative industries were alarmed after AI companies requested a weakening of copyright law so they could train on Australian material. What they are asking for includes:
- •Anthropic suggested an "opt-out" model that would allow it to scrape content unless rights holders signalled an objection.
- •Large AI companies say they need legal certainty on issues such as copyright before making investments in Australia or training models there.
- •OpenAI, in answers to a parliamentary committee on AI, told independent senator David Pocock that Spotify "has a different business, where it primarily transmits un-transformed copyrighted content, so would be expected to license" what it streams - drawing a distinction between streaming and AI training.
Oakley rejects that distinction. In her view, the fact that streaming platforms pay for music while AI firms seek exemptions is precisely why the proposals should not be accepted.
Oakley: one safe harbour would open the door worldwide
Oakley's sharpest warning concerns what a single Australian concession would mean beyond the country's borders. Her argument is that one legal foothold would be enough for AI companies to train on music globally.
"You just need one safe harbour, because then you can train on music from anywhere in the world."
She said creative industries worried about a "contagion" of copyright relaxation if Australia caved in, affecting copyright material from anywhere in the world. AI companies had made similar proposals in the US, UK and other nations, she said, and Australia should not accept such a bargain. She added that the IFPI had been talking to capitals around the world, asking "are you seeing what's going on in Australia?", and called the situation "a disaster for creativity".
Oakley declined to speculate on any potential legal or constitutional challenges, as raised by the Australian Recording Industry Association, but said weakening copyright would damage Australia's creative reputation. She called it "a huge mistake", saying the prize was not worth what would be thrown away.
Where the government stands
Labor is mulling copyright changes in a suite of policy overhauls around AI, including datacentres, online safety, workforce, energy and the economy. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has promised "the strongest possible protection", warning it would be "theft" if creatives were not paid for their work.
Attorney General Michelle Rowland, via a spokesperson last week, said the government was committed to supporting creatives and pledged that any future copyright changes deliver meaningful control and fair compensation.
