Global music publishers condemn Australia’s reported AI copyright options

Global music publishers have warned that Australia risks becoming a “honey pot” for large technology companies if it adopts an AI-copyright system that makes creators opt out of the use of their work for model training. The Brussels-based International Confederation of Music Publishers said Australian politicians misunderstood the international copyright dispute and were moving towards a policy that would “legitimise larceny.” The group, which says it represents about 90 per cent of the world’s commercial music and publishers connected to Sony, Universal and Warner Chappell, urged Canberra to wait for outcomes in United States litigation before settling its approach. The intervention concerns a leaked policy document, rather than confirmed legislation. Reporting by Tech Insider and the Law Society Journal described two potential models: a central licensing arrangement under which rights holders would need to opt out, and direct negotiations between AI companies and publishers, labels or rights-holder bodies. Both accounts said material whose owners had not opted out could be used. That would reverse the normal burden under Australian copyright law, the Law Society Journal argued. AI developers should seek permission, rather than creators having to discover and stop use of their work after the fact. The journal also warned that once copyrighted material had entered a model, it could not be unlearned simply because its creator later opted out. The government has not publicly embraced a broad text-and-data-mining exception. In October 2025, the Attorney-General’s portfolio said it was not considering such an exception, which would allow developers to train systems on Australian creators’ works for free and without permission. Attorney-General Michelle Rowland also said copyright protections would not be weakened for AI and that creators should be compensated. Anthony Albanese struck a similarly firm tone in July, saying that no company should use Australian books, music, art or news to build or train AI without the artist controlling the use, price and value of that material. “Anything less is theft,” he said. The government also announced an Office of AI within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, mandatory Australian AI standards in development, and consultation on AI-specific copyright measures. Music and creative-industry bodies have pressed for a permission-first model. APRA AMCOS has called for industry-to-industry licensing negotiations and said AI development must involve permission and payment. ARIA has urged AI companies to begin licensing Australian creative work, while the Australian Writers’ Guild and the Authorship Collecting Society Australia Aotearoa support a framework based on consent, credit and compensation. The Copyright and Artificial Intelligence Reference Group, established by the government, has initially focused on copyrighted material used as AI inputs and on transparency. The debate has also been tied to the government’s aim of attracting AI companies and expanding data-centre development, with Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles describing collaboration with frontier AI companies as a major economic opportunity. The publishers’ call to defer action reflects unresolved US cases testing whether training models on copyrighted works is fair use or infringement. Major publishers and labels have sued AI companies over allegedly unlicensed use of lyrics and recordings, including separate actions against Suno and Udio. Tech Insider reported that Australian AI-and-copyright legislation is expected in 2027.