As some of the biggest musical organisations in the country push for local copyright changes to remain unchanged in the face of AI and big tech companies, new data shows that the vast majority of Australians feel the same.
Launched recently, the Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence is currently underway in Sydney, and is seeking to look at just what opportunities and risks AI presents in Australia.
The likes of ARIA's Annabelle Herd has been present at the Committee, issuing a warning in which she noted that new proposals designed to attract AI companies to train their models in Australia could put the work of local creatives at risk, and ultimately devastate the local industry.
"This concept that the status quo isn’t working is being used as an argument by AI companies to change our copyright law," she explained. "You don’t address a systemic problem of mass piracy by changing the law to legalise that piracy on an ongoing basis.
"In Australia, we have a very clear system where, if you can’t rely on a fair dealing exception, you can’t copy. The law is very certain. It is very simple for these companies to come to us and say, ‘We’d like to license your content.’ They should come to the negotiating table, not to the Prime Minister’s office."
Likewise, APRA AMCOS' Dean Ormston responded that, "As AI technology advances, so too does the need to defend the simple principle at the heart of copyright: creators must retain the right to control the use of their work and be paid when that work is used.
"Our position remains clear and simple: permission and payment," he added.
However, ARIA, APRA AMCOS, and AMPAL aren't the only ones stating their beliefs regarding the need for copyright to remain in favour of artists.
ARIA today released new research from RedBridge Group which spoke to 1,524 Australian adults earlier this month in regard to the topic at hand. The overwhelming majority – 78% – agreed that the requirement for AI companies to get permission before using Australian creative work should be retained, even if some AI companies chose not to train their models in Australia.
In opposition, a mere 9% stated they would change the law.
Elsewhere in the research, 74% of respondents said Australian creators should have the right to decide whether their work is used to train and develop AI models, while 12% disagreed.
Additionally, 78% argued that an AI company claiming national security as a reason should still need permission to use Australian creative work (with 9% saying it should not), while 68% said they trust AI companies less after an OpenAI agent accessed non-public Australian Government files without authorisation (with 6% saying they trusted them more).
"If there was ever any doubt about where Australians stand on AI and copyright, this polling settles it: the AI industry has made its best arguments and Australians have rejected every one of them," said Annabelle Herd in response.
"Australians want creators to decide how their work is used and they will not trade that away for promises of investment or claims around national security.
“In July the Prime Minister said no company should use Australian books, music, art or news to build or train AI without the artist’s control and that anything less is theft. Australians agree with him by more than eight to one. That’s what our law currently says and it needs to stay that way.”
Herd continued:
Last week the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence told Australians our copyright law isn’t working. They’re wrong. Australian copyright law gives creators control. It is the only thing standing between major American AI companies and unchecked access to the world’s content right here from Australia.
This is not a market failure. It is a failure to acknowledge the market that already exists. AI companies are signing licensing deals with the music industry around the world. Goldman Sachs’ Music in the Air 2026 – released only last week – forecasts that AI licensing, creation tools and new ways to make money from music could add around 10 per cent to global recorded music revenues by 2035.
That money only reaches creators if AI companies have to ask permission and negotiate for what they want to use in their models. The proposals on the table right now would make sure they never have to sign a licensing deal with anyone ever to train on the world’s content in Australia.
Whatever AI companies say, Australians don’t want creators’ rights traded away.
“In years of polling I have rarely seen public opinion this clear and this defined," said Redbridge Group Director Kos Samaras. "Australians have picked a side, and it is the side of the musicians, writers and artists who make up our creative economy.
"The weight of these results reveal a massive social licence challenge facing all governments. A challenge they need to treat seriously.”
The new research also coincided with a new statement from the Australian Independent Record Labels Association (AIR) in which they made clear their opposition to Government’s copyright reform proposals for AI training.
Noting they welcome new legislation in the AI field that "protects and preserves human creativity", AIR claimed these nascent proposals miss the mark in their current form, presenting a situation which would be a "very damaging exception to Australia’s exclusive copyright rights".
"Copyright is not a barrier to AI development; it is the foundation of innovation, enabling it by balancing rights and protections," said AIR Chief Executive Officer Maria Amato.
"Exceptions that would strip Australian creators of their rights are not needed to serve AI development, and they would jeopardise creators’ ability to earn a living."
Specifically, AIR maintained that any use of music and creative content at any stage of AI development must seek the necessary permissions and approvals from rights holders, pointing out that "responsible AI developers" have already reached agreements with licensing bodies, and individual labels and publishers on an 'opt-in' approach.
“Partnerships between rights holders and AI developers are already happening under existing laws," Amato continued. "Introducing new exceptions is not only unnecessary, but risks undermining our efforts to foster ethical AI development and a fully functioning marketplace for music and AI.
"Australian independent music businesses play a key role in promoting diversity and creativity. They are true innovators who embrace new technologies and the vast potential of AI for music production, distribution, and promotion.
"If the rights of creators are not protected, we risk a future where AI eventually displaces human labour across all creative fields."
The Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence is expected to report on their findings in late November.
