The peak body for Australian authors has rejected what it calls an attempt to legitimise the greatest act of copyright theft in history.
The Australian Society of Authors (ASA), speaking against a proposal by the Productivity Commission's for a text and data mining exception to copyright laws, is calling for mandatory rules governing AI companies operating in Australia.
The body, representing more than 4,200 writers and illustrators, submitted a response to the commission's Harnessing Data and Digital Technology Interim Inquiry Report.
The proposal by the Productivity Commission to change copyright law to allow AI to freely mine content without payment has met with strong opposition from owners of content.
"Instead of seeking ways to legitimise the greatest act of copyright theft in history, the commission should support the ethical, responsible, and sustainable development of AI, which relies upon the appropriate licensing of copyright work," said Lucy Hayward, chief executive of the ASA.
The ASA argues the proposed exception would destroy emerging licensing markets, decrease productivity, breach international treaty obligations, undermine Indigenous cultural and intellectual property, and contradict commitments made under the National Cultural Policy.
The submission highlights what it describes as key omissions in the commission's interim report, including lack of acknowledgement that using copyright works for AI training is contested and litigated worldwide, and absence of analysis regarding productivity of copyright industries.
"Big tech's past conduct demonstrates they will favour unpaid, extractive practices – including using pirated material – if they can get away with it," Hayward said.
"The government has the right and the obligation to set the standards we impose on these companies in Australia, to protect creators' livelihoods, safeguard Australians against misconduct, and ensure the future of Australian culture."
The ASA proposes a mandatory code of conduct requiring AI developers to disclose copyright works used to train models, pay ongoing compensation to Australian creators whose works have been used without consent, and ensure any use of copyright material is subject to licensing arrangements.
The federal government has previously stated its support for copyright as creators' income source.
The ASA argues the equitable approach involves introducing policy measures facilitating licensing, ensuring authors can consent or refuse AI training use of their work and receive compensation if they agree.
"It is not in Australia's national interest to enrich multinational companies at the cost of Australian creators," Hayward said.
"We're not asking for anything unreasonable – simply that AI companies should license and pay for the copyright content that makes their technology possible.
“The Productivity Commission should not support what amounts to wage theft for the creative industries as the path to greater productivity."
The organisation describes the situation as a watershed moment requiring ethical and sustainable standards for AI development to counter information asymmetry and unequal bargaining power between creators and technology companies.
Have something to say on this? Share your views in the comments section below. Or if you have a news story or tip-off, drop us a line at adnews@yaffa.com.au
Sign up to the AdNews newsletter, like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter for breaking stories and campaigns throughout the day.