Global music body warns Albanese against weakening AI copyright law

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), a global peak body representing the music recording industry, has warned that Australia weakening copyright protections to support artificial intelligence companies would be “ridiculous and dangerous”. The organisation expressed concerns over how the Albanese government is responding to requests from big tech firms to alter existing laws.

While local creative sectors have highlighted constitutional concerns and signalled potential political opposition, the IFPI noted that its members are worried about Australia potentially agreeing to demands that have been rejected by other nations. Victoria Oakley, the chief executive of the IFPI, questioned why a sophisticated democratic nation with significant cultural power would choose to disregard its own creativity to satisfy a few large AI companies.

Oakley told Guardian Australia that she did not believe Australia wanted to be the “weakest link” by giving in to these promises and throwing creativity “under the bus”. She warned that because a single “safe harbour” could allow for the training of models on music from anywhere in the world, the issue was not restricted to Australian culture but affected music globally.

The Labor government is currently considering copyright adjustments as part of a broad policy overhaul concerning AI, which also covers data centres, workforce issues, energy, online safety and the economy. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has previously promised “the strongest possible protection”, warning that failing to pay creatives for their work would be “theft”. However, creative industries remain alarmed after AI firms requested that copyright laws be relaxed to allow for training on Australian material.

Some AI companies have argued that making licensing agreements under current copyright law is too difficult. Anthropic has proposed an “opt-out” model, which would permit the scraping of content unless the rights holders actively object. Large AI firms claim they require legal certainty on copyright matters before they will commit to further investments or model training within Australia.

Oakley stated that these companies had put forward similar proposals in the UK, the US and other countries, and insisted that Australia should not accept such a bargain. She rejected the idea that a country must yield to the demands of AI companies to be seen as pro-innovation or to secure investment and growth.

“We’ve been talking to capitals around the world, saying ‘are you seeing what’s going on in Australia?’ We think this is a disaster for creativity,” Oakley said. She added that she is concerned about AI and copyright “everywhere” but fears that Australia is “threatening to do something really ridiculous and dangerous”.

The attorney general, Michelle Rowland, stated through a spokesperson last week that the government remains “committed to supporting” creatives. She pledged that “any future copyright changes deliver meaningful control and fair compensation”.

Oakley expressed concern regarding a potential “contagion” of copyright relaxation if Australia were to cave in, noting that copyright material from across the world could be impacted. While she declined to speculate on potential constitutional or legal challenges mentioned by the Australian Recording Industry Association, she warned that such a move would cause reputational damage to Australia’s standing in the global creative community.

In response to questions from independent senator David Pocock regarding a parliamentary committee on AI, OpenAI claimed that Spotify has a “different business” that primarily transmits “un-transformed copyrighted content”, and thus it should be expected to license the content it streams. However, Oakley countered this by pointing out that music labels have already signed dozens of licensing deals with smaller AI firms globally.

“It is perfectly possible to license. I’m almost shocked that these words are coming out of the mouths of some of the larger AI companies … We already know how to license music to tech platforms because that’s exactly how Spotify works, or Amazon Music, Apple, or Tidal,” she said. Oakley concluded that there is a ready set of rights holders with a history of licensing in the streaming world, adding: “Let’s let the market do what it needs to do. Come to us and we’ll make it work.”