‘The Implications Are Global’: International Music Publishers Welcomes Australian Government’s ‘Landmark’ Statement on AI
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has pledged that AI and tech companies will not be permitted to use copyright-protected creative works without consent, credit and fair payment, a stance that has been strongly welcomed by the international music publishing industry. Speaking at the University of Sydney, Albanese said no company should use Australian books, music, art or news to train AI systems without the creator's control, including over pricing, describing anything less as "theft" — a declaration seen as a significant win for artists worldwide amid fears that governments might carve out copyright exemptions for AI developers.
The International Confederation of Music Publishers (ICMP), which represents around 90% of the world's commercially released music, said the "implications are global" and that its industry "fully agrees" with the government's approach. The announcement follows sustained lobbying from Australian bodies including AMPAL, ARIA, AIR and APRA AMCOS, who had warned that weakening copyright protections could put over 60,000 years of First Nations cultural heritage at risk. Albanese rejected proposals from tech leaders including Microsoft's Satya Nadella and Anthropic's Dario Amodei for a compensation fund in lieu of licensing, and instead announced a new "Office of AI" to help develop Australian standards for the technology.
In short
- Albanese vows AI firms can't use Australian creative works without consent
- Global music publishers hail move as a "landmark" copyright stance
- Government rejects tech industry calls for an AI compensation fund
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The government's strong stance protects fundamental creator rights and ensures artists, musicians and cultural institutions receive fair compensation for their work. Copyright exists to incentivise creation, and allowing AI companies to freely train on protected works without consent or payment undermines this principle and risks reducing artists' ability to earn sustainable incomes. For culturally sensitive material, especially First Nations heritage, creator control is essential to prevent exploitation.
The case against
AI systems require access to vast training datasets to function effectively, and requiring explicit individual licensing for every work would create impractical barriers to development and potentially entrench the dominance of large tech companies with resources to navigate complex licensing. A well-designed collective compensation fund, as proposed by tech leaders, could provide fair payments to creators whilst enabling innovation that benefits society broadly. Overly restrictive rules risk disadvantaging Australian tech development relative to other countries with more flexible approaches.
Explained simply
AI companies have been using copyrighted creative works—music, books, artwork and journalism—to train their systems without asking creators' permission or paying them. This practice raises fundamental questions about how creators should be compensated when their work helps develop new technologies, and whether copyright law provides adequate protection in the age of artificial intelligence.
Musicians, authors, artists and journalists depend on copyright protections to earn a living from their work. The music publishing industry has particular concerns that weakening copyright rules could undermine the value of their members' creations and put cultural heritage at risk.
Governments worldwide are currently deciding how to regulate AI companies' use of copyrighted material. Some technology companies have proposed paying compensation funds as an alternative to obtaining individual licences for each creative work, but creators argue this would undervalue their work and remove their control over how it is used.
Art Culture Entertainment Government Music Politics