TLDR: The Australian Society of Authors (ASA) is strongly opposing a proposal by the Productivity Commission to introduce a text and data mining exception to Australia’s Copyright Act. The ASA argues that this exception would permit technology companies to utilize copyrighted works for training artificial intelligence models without providing compensation to the original creators, thereby undermining authors’ livelihoods and the creative economy.
The Australian Society of Authors (ASA) has voiced staunch opposition to a controversial proposal put forth by the Productivity Commission, which seeks to amend Australia’s Copyright Act to include a text and data mining exception. This proposed change, detailed in the Commission’s interim report titled ‘Harnessing data and digital technology,’ is currently under consideration as a potential pathway to allow the training of artificial intelligence (AI) models on copyrighted works.
According to the ASA, such an exception would grant tech companies unfettered access to copyrighted material, enabling them to train their AI models and profit from these endeavors without any obligation to compensate the creators. Lucy Hayward, Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Society of Authors, articulated the organization’s grave concerns, stating, ‘Copyright is how authors earn a living. A text and data mining exception would give tech companies a free pass to use their work to train artificial intelligence models – and profit from it – while Australian creators get nothing.’
The Productivity Commission’s report acknowledges that large AI models have already leveraged content from Australian creators without their explicit consent or remuneration. Despite this, the report suggests that a text and data mining exception could be a viable path forward. However, the ASA vehemently disagrees, asserting that such an exception would not benefit creators, Australian culture, or even the technology companies in the long term. Hayward further elaborated, ‘Text and data mining exceptions don’t benefit creators, Australian culture, or even tech companies, who need writers and artists to survive and continue to create high-quality books to develop and improve their AI tools. It undermines existing and potential licensing markets which give tech companies access to the material they need, and remunerate creators in a sustainable economy.’
Hayward also warned of the potential for significant negative implications in the long run, noting that ‘Generative AI models will continue to scale and be monetised. A text and data mining exception will effectively give away the intellectual property of Australian creators allowing tech giants to entrench their dominant positions in the market and continue extracting value from the Australian economy. It would be a strikingly unreasonable recommendation for proponents of a fair market to make. A fair market requires a fair exchange.’
Also Read:
- Bloomsbury Considers AI Licensing with Author Opt-In, Sparks Royalty Debate
- Mediavine Urges U.S. Copyright Office for Stronger Creator Protections Against Generative AI
While the Productivity Commission estimates that AI could contribute over A$116 billion to the Australian economy in the next decade, it has also recommended a pause on mandatory AI guardrails until existing legal ambiguities are clarified. This proposal has drawn criticism from other key Australian industry groups, including the Australian Publishers Association, ARIA, and PPCA, who echo the ASA’s concerns about the potential harm to local creators and the disproportionate advantage it would provide to international technology companies. The debate intensified following public outrage in March when Australian authors discovered their works had been used without consent by overseas AI companies for training purposes.
