UK creative industries warn Australia against weakening AI copyright protections

The UK Alliance for Intellectual Property has warned the Australian government against proposed copyright reforms that could allow AI developers to use protected works under an opt-out licensing framework, raising questions about creator remuneration, international licensing, and the balance between innovation and intellectual property protection.

The UK’s creative industries have raised concerns about proposed changes to Australia’s copyright framework that could make it easier for artificial intelligence (AI) developers to train models on copyrighted material without securing permission from every rights holder.

In a warning reported by The Australian on October 19, the Alliance for Intellectual Property (AIP) urged the Australian government to reconsider proposals that could weaken existing copyright protections. The organization represents UK creative and intellectual property-intensive industries, with its membership including organizations such as the Premier League and other creative industry groups.

The reported proposals include arrangements under which AI companies could access copyrighted material through an opt-out mechanism, alongside licensing or payment requirements. Critics argue that such a system could shift responsibility onto creators and rights holders to prevent their works from being used for AI training. The dispute highlights a growing international conflict over whether AI developers should obtain permission and negotiate licenses for copyrighted training material, or whether governments should introduce mechanisms that facilitate broader access to protected works.

Proposed licensing framework raises concerns

Australia’s Attorney-General’s Department has reportedly explored options that would allow AI companies to train models on online content unless rights holders opt out.

According to an ABC News investigation published in September, one proposal would allow AI developers to use eligible online material after making payments to a central body and meeting specified conditions. Another would permit training following agreements with a minimum number of rights-holder organizations or companies. Both options contemplated opt-out provisions, with additional safeguards including transparency, auditing, and penalties for disregarding rights reservations. 

These proposals were presented during consultations and should not be confused with enacted legislation or a final government decision. An opt-out framework could affect the practical ability of creators and businesses to control the use of their intellectual property. The effectiveness of any system would depend on how rights reservations are communicated, how AI developers are required to comply, and how payments and enforcement mechanisms operate.

For the creative industries, the central concern is whether a framework designed to facilitate AI development would preserve meaningful control over copyrighted works and provide fair remuneration for their commercial use.

Australian government says copyright protections remain a priority

The Australian government has previously ruled out introducing a broad text and data mining exception to copyright law.

In October 2025, then Attorney-General Michelle Rowland confirmed that the government was not considering such an exception, which could allow AI developers to use copyrighted material for training without permission or payment. The government instead identified potential paid collective licensing arrangements, voluntary licensing, greater legal certainty, and more accessible enforcement as areas for further consideration. 

In September 2026, the Attorney-General’s Department was reported to have presented more specific opt-out proposals during stakeholder consultations. These proposals have prompted renewed debate about whether a licensing framework could provide sufficient protection for creators while addressing AI companies’ demands for access to large volumes of training data.

The government’s position is therefore more nuanced than a straightforward move toward a general copyright exemption. The reported proposals remain subject to the policy process, and their precise legislative status and eventual scope should be confirmed against the latest official documentation.

Implications for international rights holders

The debate has implications for rights holders operating across national borders. Copyrighted material can be made available online in one jurisdiction and used by AI developers operating in another, creating questions about applicable laws, licensing obligations, and the practical enforcement of rights.

For publishers, music companies, film studios, sports organizations, and brand owners, AI training raises questions about the commercial value of protected content and the extent to which rights holders can negotiate the terms of its use.

Brand owners may also have an interest in how advertising materials, product imagery, and other creative assets are incorporated into training datasets. The relevant rights will depend on the material involved and the applicable legal framework, but the wider policy debate reinforces the importance of transparency and effective licensing mechanisms.

The proposed Australian approach could also affect international licensing markets if it changes the incentives for AI developers to negotiate directly with rights holders or collective management organizations. The extent of any impact on overseas rights holders will depend on the final design of the framework and how it applies to foreign-owned works.

A wider international debate over AI and copyright

The dispute echoes the United Kingdom’s own examination of copyright and AI.

In its March 2026 report on copyright and artificial intelligence, the UK government concluded that a broad copyright exception with an opt-out mechanism was no longer its preferred policy approach, following substantial opposition from creators and concerns about the practical effectiveness of rights reservations. The government committed to gathering further evidence and considering alternative approaches. (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/report-and-impact-assessment-on-copyright-and-artificial-intelligence/report-on-copyright-and-artificial-intelligence)

The UK has not, however, established a general rule requiring an express license for every use of copyrighted material in AI development. Its policy position remains under consideration, making it important to distinguish the UK’s current direction from any final Australian reforms. The AIP’s warning adds an international dimension to the debate, highlighting concerns that changes in one jurisdiction could affect licensing practices and expectations elsewhere.

For now, the key questions are whether Australia will advance the reported opt-out proposals, what safeguards would apply, and how the government intends to balance AI investment with the rights of creators and other intellectual property owners. The outcome could have wider implications for the relationship between copyright protection, commercial licensing, and the development of AI systems.

← Back to News