The Australian Writers Guild (AWG) has warned against weakening Australia’s copyright laws to address AI after the federal productivity committee proposed text and data mining exceptions under the fair trading system.
The committee released an interim report on the use of data and digital technology overnight after inviting submissions from stakeholders. The report is part of a new investigation to “monitor and review whether existing regulations are appropriate regarding AI technology,” taking into account “there are issues and shortages, even if there are current regulatory arrangements.”
The report acknowledges that PCs have expressed concern about the misuse of copyrighted materials to train AI models before considering how they can address these prior to copyright licenses.
Regarding the latter option, the report focused on the work of the Attorney General’s Division, which conducted a copyright enforcement review in 2022-23, and found that additional regulatory measures were needed to achieve an effective copyright enforcement regime. As a result of “continued” work, PC said copyright enforcement was not “within the scope of this investigation.”
However, the committee is seeking feedback on the possibility that text and data mining (TDM) to train AI models may be an exception under Australia’s fair trading regime.
Claire Pullen, CEO of AWG.
Unlike US copyright laws, which operates on a fair use system, Australia is one of several countries that employ a fair trading regime featuring six exceptions – news reports. Criticism or review; parody or satire; personal research or research; judicial procedures or professional advice. Access by people with disabilities.
While PCs suggest that AI models built as part of their research may fall within the scope of “research or research” exceptions, please note that regions such as Singapore and the UK have TDM exceptions that apply to non-commercial research.
The report states that the TDM exception is not a “blank check” for all copyrighted material used as input to all AI models. This use must also be considered “fair” in circumstances.
After the government has proposed 10 essential AI guardrails that apply in high-risk settings, it is necessary to legally obtain the data used to train AI systems without particularly containing illegal and harmful materials, and its data sources must be disclosed.
However, PC reports recommend that AI-specific regulations should only be considered as a last resort for AI use cases that meet two criteria. This is when existing regulatory frameworks cannot be fully adapted, and technology-neutral regulations cannot be realized.
This is a point of continued competition between AWG and its author-collecting society, and in joint submissions with several other screen guilds, copyright infringement of creative workers was violated as a major concern for technology.
In a statement released in response to the interim report, CEO Claire Pullen expressed disappointment at the proposed TDM exception.
“The Productivity Commissioner asked, ‘Is our law suitable for purposes with AI?’ But the real question is, why should we change the law to make things easier for Australian workers, the people who actually produce things in Australia? ” she said.
“The Productivity Committee recognizes that large AI models are already trained on copyrighted materials owned by Australians. High-tech companies should follow Australian law and stop stealing from creative workers responsible for industries that contribute more than $6 billion to the economy.”
“It’s a shame to see feedback requests on how things can be easier for big technicians, but nothing deals with the lost productivity and revenue of Australia and Australian creatives as a result of the already-occurring breaches.
“It’s clear that the Productivity Committee supports weakening existing legislation.”
Her feelings are reflected by Apra Amcos, with APRA Chairman Jenny Moror saying the direction of the committee is clear while the report is presented as a policy exploration.
“It’s already widespread theft that lays the foundations to justify what they themselves recognize,” she said.
“We have seen wholesale ingestion of Australian works by American AI companies, and the conditions currently have more than 30 lawsuits challenging this practice.”
AMCOS Chairman Jaime Gough said the committee risks damaging “the licensing market is extremely important for Australian creators as AI becomes more common.”
*update
