The Albanese Government has commenced consultations on updates to Australia’s copyright laws in light of emerging challenges presented by Artificial Intelligence (AI), while explicitly ruling out introducing a broad Text and Data Mining (TDM) exception.
This decision is framed as providing certainty for Australian creators by preventing AI developers from using creators’ works without permission or payment for training purposes.
Key snapshot
 |
 |
 |
| The Labor Government opens consultations on AI-related copyright reform but rules out a broad Text and Data Mining (TDM) exception. | Copyright and AI Reference Group (CAIRG) have met to examine paid collective licensing for AI uses, clarify the status of AI-generated material, and explore a small-claims forum for lower-value infringements | The announcement sits alongside the Productivity Commission’s Interim Report, which canvasses options on AI and copyright and seeks feedback. The Albanese Government’s position narrows reform to licensing, legal certainty and accessible enforcement |
Copyright and AI Reference Group
The Government is moving to prepare the legal framework for AI-related copyright challenges through the CAIRG, which will meet over the to examine three priority areas:
- Encouraging fair, legal avenues for AI uses of copyright material: Considering a new paid collective licensing framework under the Copyright Act for AI training and uses, versus maintaining voluntary licensing.
- Improving legal certainty: Exploring clarification or updates on how copyright applies to AI-generated material.
- Lower-cost enforcement options: Assessing a potential small-claims forum to handle lower-value copyright disputes more efficiently.
The Attorney-General’s position
Attorney-General Michelle Rowland describes AI as a significant economic opportunity but stresses creators must share in the benefits.
 |
|
|
| She notes that ‘Artificial Intelligence presents significant opportunities for Australia and our economy,’ while adding ‘it’s important that Australian creatives benefit from these opportunities too.’ | She underscores that creatives are ‘world class’ and ‘the lifeblood of Australian culture,’ and reiterates there are ‘no plans to weaken copyright protections when it comes to AI.’ | She calls on technology companies and the creative sector to find ‘sensible and workable solutions’ that ‘support innovation while ensuring creators are compensated,’ confirming ‘the Government will support these next steps through the renewed focus tasked to the Copyright and AI reference group.’ |
The Government’s stance and consultation agenda directly intersect with the themes raised in the recent Productivity Commission Interim Report ‘Harnessing Data and Digital Technology’ (the Interim Report) particularly on copyright settings for AI, regulatory method, and enforcement.
Regulatory method (outcomes based, technology neutral)
The Interim Report prefers completing ‘gap analyses’ and using existing legal frameworks where possible, with AI-specific rules a last resort.
The Government’s choice to progress issues through CAIRG, rather than legislate a broad exception, reflects that approach.[1]
Copyright and AI focus
The Interim Report’s ‘copyright in the age of AI’ case study situates AI training within existing copyright architecture and recognises CAIRG as the standing stakeholder forum.[2]
Access pathways: collective licensing
The Report identifies collective licensing via collecting societies as a scalable pathway to enable lawful, remunerated access for AI uses.
This directly aligns with CAIRG’s brief to test a paid collective licensing framework under the Copyright Act.[3]
Enforcement: lower cost remedies
Building on the Copyright Enforcement Review, the Interim Report points to options that reduce barriers for ‘small value’ infringements.
This aligns with the Government’s exploration via CAIRG of a small claims forum as a key priority area.
Like many themes in Australian copyright reform, a small claims forum for copyright claims has been repeatedly proposed and then stalled. We will monitor developments here closely.
TDM exception
The Report canvasses expanding fair dealing to cover text and data mining as one policy option.[4] Noting however, ‘a TDM exception would not be a ‘blank cheque’ for all copyrighted materials to be used as inputs into all AI models’ and ‘must also be considered “fair” in the circumstances’.[5]
By contrast, the Government has categorically ruled out a TDM exception and is steering toward paid licensing and clearer rules.
Economic context: AI opportunity
The Interim Report notes AI’s potential to lift labour productivity and cites an estimated $116 billion contribution to GDP over a decade.[6] The Government’s package positions licensing, certainty on AI outputs and accessible enforcement as the near‑term, practical levers.
Non-commercial or lawful access
While the Albanese Government has ruled out a broad TDM exception, earlier reform bodies left the door open to more flexible reform.
The ALRC’s Copyright and the Digital Economy (Report 122, 2013) recommended a fair use exception — rather than the status-quo fair-dealing regime — and discussed the specific challenge of data and text mining, observing that at present no specific exception covers it in the Copyright Act.
The 2013 ALRC report also acknowledged that text and data mining plays a critical role in socially beneficial research, from health and science to public policy, and noted that some stakeholders wanted such uses limited to non-commercial or public institutions:
Data and text mining is becoming increasingly important in a number of research sectors, including medicine, business, marketing, academic publishing and genomics … Researchers and research institutions have highlighted the value of data mining in paving the way for novel discoveries, increased research output and early identification of problems.[7]
Similarly, the Productivity Commission observed in its 2016 Intellectual Property Arrangements Final Report that, with reform, ‘medical and scientific researchers will be able to better utilise text and data mining’. In a world long before generative AI was in public consciousness, the Productivity Commission said:
New business models and research tools, such as those based on text and data mining, and open access, have the capacity to promote inventions and creativity, and provide for greater access to information and creative works.[8]
How resolute — and unconditional — the Albanese Government’s ‘no TDM’ policy is remains to be seen. Consultation may yet support a more qualified fair dealing exception.
Takeaways
With a TDM exception off the table, the near‑term reform path is clearer: consultation will focus on paid licensing for AI training, clarifying how copyright applies to AI‑generated outputs, and lower‑cost avenues to enforce rights.
Read alongside the Productivity Commission’s Interim Report the signal is an outcomes‑based, technology‑neutral approach may prioritise creator remuneration.
Stay tuned as we monitor developments in relation to the proposed licensing framework, any amendments to the Act for ‘certainty, and lower cost remedies’.
Featured image: ‘Time Travel 10’ by Min Ray.
[1] Interim Report, p. 20; see also the discussion to pause economy‑wide ‘mandatory guardrails’ pending gap analyses, p. 21.
[2] Ibid p. 24.
[3] Ibid p. 25.
[4] Ibid p. 28
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid p. 96.
[7] ALRC Report 122, [11.58]
[8] Productivity Commission, Intellectual Property Arrangements (2016), p. 93.
