The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, which represents recording-industry bodies worldwide, has warned that Australia’s consideration of weaker copyright rules to accommodate artificial-intelligence firms could be “ridiculous and dangerous”. The body is watching closely how Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s government reacts to demands from large tech companies seeking broader access to Australian creative material.
Victoria Oakley, chief executive of the IFPI, told Guardian Australia that “Why would Australia do this? Why would a sophisticated, democratic country… choose to buy into the promises of a few large AI companies and throw away their own culture and creativity?” She added that the nation should not become the “weakest link” by sacrificing creative rights.
The Labor government is reviewing a suite of policies that span AI regulation, datacentres, online safety, workforce development, energy and the broader economy. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has pledged “the strongest possible protection” for creators, warning that failing to pay them would amount to theft. Nonetheless, several AI firms have asked for a relaxation of copyright law to train on Australian works, with Anthropic proposing an “opt-out” system that would scrape content unless rights holders object.
Large AI developers argue that clear legal frameworks are essential before they commit investment or begin model training in Australia. Oakley noted that comparable proposals have surfaced in the United States, the United Kingdom and other jurisdictions, and warned that acquiescing would set a dangerous precedent. She emphasized that growth and innovation do not require surrendering fundamental copyright protections to satisfy a handful of tech firms.
Attorney-General Michelle Rowland, speaking through a spokesperson, affirmed the government’s commitment to supporting creators and pledged that any amendment to copyright law would provide “meaningful control and fair compensation”. The statement underscored the administration’s intent to balance technological advancement with the protection of artistic and cultural output, signalling that wholesale dilution of rights is not on the agenda.
Oakley warned that Australia’s move could trigger a “contagion” effect, encouraging other nations to relax their own copyright regimes. She argued that such a shift would damage Australia’s reputation as a cultural leader and could affect copyrighted material worldwide, not just domestic works. The IFPI chief cautioned that the potential loss of creative value far outweighs any short-term economic incentives offered by AI firms.
When questioned by a parliamentary committee, OpenAI explained that music-streaming service Spotify primarily transmits un-transformed copyrighted content, and therefore would be expected to secure licences for the material it streams. Oakley countered that music labels have already signed dozens of licences with smaller AI firms globally, and that licensing models already exist for platforms such as Amazon Music, Apple and Tidal, making the AI companies’ refusal to negotiate puzzling.