Arts, creative, and media organizations are urging the government to prohibit large tech companies from using Australian content and developing artificial intelligence models. There is growing concern that such a decision may “betray” Australian workers and facilitate the “widespread theft” of intellectual property.
The Albanese government has stated that it has no intention of altering copyright laws, but emphasizes that any changes must consider their effects on artists and news media. Opposition leader Sassan Ray has called for compensation for any use of copyrighted material.
“It is unacceptable for Big Tech to exploit the work of Australian artists, musicians, creators, and journalists without just compensation,” Ray asserted on Wednesday.
The Productivity Committee’s interim report titled “Utilizing Data and Digital Technology” proposes regulations for technologies, including AI in Australia, projecting a productivity increase of 0.5% to 13% over the next decade, thereby potentially adding $116 billion to the nation’s GDP.
The report highlighted that building AI models demands a substantial amount of data, prompting concerns from many players, including Creative Australia and copyright agencies, about the misuse of copyrighted content for AI training.
The committee outlined potential solutions, advocating for an expansion of licensing agreements, exemptions for “text and data mining,” and enhancements to existing fair trading regulations that are already in place in other countries.
This latter suggestion faced significant opposition from arts, creative, and media organizations. They expressed discontent at the idea of allowing wealthy tech companies to utilize their work for AI training without appropriate compensation.
Such a shift could jeopardize existing licensing agreements formed between publishers and creators with major tech firms and complicate negotiations for news media seeking fair compensation from social media platforms for journalism online.
Sign up: AU Breaking NewsEmail
The Australian Labour Union Council (ACTU) criticized the Productivity Committee’s proposal, claiming it exploits the interests of large multimillion-dollar corporations, warning that it may mislead efforts to assist Australian workers.
“The extensive discussion surrounding text and data mining exemptions risks normalizing the theft of creative works from Australian artists and Indigenous communities,” said ACTU.
Joseph Mitchell, ACTU Secretary, indicated that such exemptions would allow “high-tech corporations to reap the full benefits of advanced technology without giving back to the creators.”
Australia’s music rights organizations, Apra Amcos and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Music Bureau, expressed disappointment regarding the committee’s recommendations, raising alarms about the implications for Australia’s $9 billion music sector.
APRA Chair Jenny Morris stressed that this recommendation highlights a recognition that these practices are already widespread.
Attorney General Michelle Roland, responsible for copyright legislation, stated that any advancements in AI must prioritize building trust and confidence.
“Any reforms to Australia’s copyright law must reflect the effects on the nation’s creative and news sectors. We remain dedicated to participating in dialogues around these issues, particularly with the copyright and AI reference groups initiated by the government last year,” she mentioned.
After the newsletter promotion
When asked about the committee’s findings, Ray expressed concern regarding the absence of sufficient “guardrails” from the government to tackle AI-related issues.
“We need to safeguard content creators… their work rightfully belongs to them, and we must not take it without compensating them,” she added.
Ed Fushik, former Minister for Industry and Technology for Workers, defended the overall outlook for the economy on Wednesday. Treasurer Jim Chalmers later commented on ABC’s 7.30, saying, “The mechanism you deploy, whether one act or multiple existing acts… is not the crux of the issue.”
“I believe we can strike a balance between concerns that AI is harmful and those who pretend we can return to a previous state,” he indicated.
“There are no current plans to undermine or alter Australia’s copyright arrangements.”
Arts Minister Tony Burke highlighted a submission from Creative Australia regarding the review. He stated that, “It emphasizes the necessity for consent, transparency, and fair compensation concerning copyright and labeling.”
In a statement, Creative Australia asserted that the nation has the potential to lead globally in establishing “fair standards” for AI application.
“Artists and creatives whose work is utilized in training AI are entitled to proper compensation,” a spokesperson remarked.
“Innovation should not come at the cost of ethical business practices.”
The Australian Publishers Association (APA) has expressed worries about the possibility of works being utilized without authorization or compensation.
“While we support responsible innovation, this draft proposal favors infringers over investors,” stated Patrizia Di Biase-Dyson, CEO of APA.
“We oppose the idea that Australian narratives and educational materials integral to our culture and democracy should be treated as free resources for corporate AI systems.”
The copyright agency likewise spoke against the text and data mining exemption, emphasizing that it would adversely affect creators’ revenue.
“The movement towards revision of the Australian copyright system stems from large multinational corporations, and it does not serve the national interest,” remarked CEO Josephine Johnston. “To empower Australia’s high-quality content in the new AI era, it’s critical that creators receive fair compensation.”
Source: www.theguardian.com
