APRA AMCOS and NATSIMO reject Productivity Commission's proposal

Music industry bodies warn PC proposal would "legitimise digital piracy under guise of productivity"

The recommendations would provide legal cover that would allow AI companies to use copyrighted works without permission or payment for training their systems

APRA AMCOS's landmark AI and Music report showed that 82% of music creators expressed concerns about AI preventing them from making a living

APRA AMCOS and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Music Office (NATSIMO) have today expressed disappointment at the Productivity Commission's interim report floating a text and data mining exception to Australia's Copyright Act, which would provide legal cover for AI companies to use copyrighted works without permission or payment for training their systems.

While carefully framed as seeking "feedback" on reform options, the Commission's 116-page interim report reveals a clear preference for weakening copyright protections to benefit AI platforms and devastate Australia's $9 billion music industry. This comes as the industry faces projections that 23% of music creators' revenues will be at risk from unregulated AI by 2028.

"The Commission may couch this as policy exploration, but their direction is clear," says APRA Chair, Jenny Morris MNZM OAM. "They're laying the groundwork to legitimise what they themselves acknowledge is already widespread theft. We've witnessed the wholesale ingestion of Australian works by AI companies in the US, where over 30 court cases are currently underway challenging this practice."

The Commission's approach is particularly disappointing given their acknowledgment that "large AI models are already being trained on unlicensed copyrighted materials" and that "lawsuits have been brought against technology companies" over this practice. Rather than supporting enforcement of existing rights, they're exploring ways to retrospectively legitimise unauthorised use.

NATSIMO National Director, Leah Flanagan, expressed particular concern about Indigenous artists and creators: "This interim report exposes a glaring double standard. In the Commission’s 2022 Aboriginal arts and crafts report, they rightly called for firm action against fake Indigenous art and new cultural rights legislation. They recognised that Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP) has intrinsic value. Yet now they seem content to allow the digital theft of ICIP that exists in our songs and music."

AMCOS Chair, Jaime Gough, highlighted the economic implications: "The Commission risks undermining the very licensing markets that will be crucial for Australian creators as AI becomes more prevalent. They acknowledge that AI companies generate billions in revenue from models trained on copyrighted works, while creators receive nothing. Instead of addressing fair compensation, they're exploring legal exemptions that would lock in this imbalance."

Particularly disappointing is the Commission's dismissal of existing market solutions. Their report notes that collecting societies are already investigating licensing frameworks for AI use, yet they simultaneously float exemptions that would undermine these efforts before they can mature.

APRA AMCOS's landmark AI and Music report found that 82% of music creators expressed concerns about AI preventing them from making a living. However, 38% of creators have already embraced AI in their work, with 54% agreeing it can support the creative process.

"Artists have been innovators for millennia, constantly embracing new technologies," adds Morris. "We're not afraid of AI and our members are early adopters who see its potential. We have members who are working with AI platforms that respect copyright and seek proper licensing. The Commission's approach threatens to undermine this collaborative progress by removing incentives for ethical AI development."

"The Commission admits that most AI training happens overseas and that their proposed exception is 'unlikely to affect whether AI models continue to be available and used in Australia.' This raises serious questions about the real purpose of this exploration. If it won't change practical outcomes, why pursue it except to provide legal cover for existing unauthorised practices?" 

This latest report continues a pattern established by the Productivity Commission's controversial 2016 IP report, which proposed slashing copyright terms from 70 years to just 15 years and importing the highly litigious US 'fair use' system. That report sent shockwaves through Australia's creative community, demonstrating the Commission's view that creator rights are obstacles to economic efficiency.

The Commission's framing reveals their underlying philosophy: they consistently characterise copyright as a barrier to "productivity growth" rather than recognising it as the foundation enabling Australia's $112 billion creative economy to contribute to national prosperity.

Gough adds: "The Commission's recommendation also perpetuates the thoroughly debunked myth that copyright is a barrier to innovation, a favourite big tech talking point. WIPO studies consistently demonstrate that copyright protection actually drives innovation by creating economic incentives for creativity. When we protect creators' rights, we're fostering the very innovation the Commission claims to support."

"The Commission's exploration may seem measured, but the direction is unmistakable," Morris concludes. "They're building a framework for policies that would treat our cultural heritage as free raw material. We call on the Government to reject this direction and support Australia’s creative sector to be at the heart of the success of AI development in this country."