Australia is considering copyright reforms that could allow AI companies to train models on publicly available online material unless rights holders actively opt out, triggering a new debate over how much control creators should retain over work placed on the internet.
ABC News reported that confidential government consultation slides titled “AI on Australian Terms” set out two possible models for giving AI developers greater access to copyrighted material. Under both approaches, copyright owners would have an opt-out mechanism.
The proposals are under consultation and have not been adopted as Australian law.
One proposal would create collective licensing routes
According to ABC, one option would allow AI companies to use online material whose owners had not opted out if the companies made payments to a central body and met other conditions. That body would then distribute payments to registered copyright owners.
The same option would allow AI companies to obtain licenses through Australian collecting organizations representing copyright holders.
ABC reported that those licenses could cover works belonging even to people who were not members of the collecting groups receiving payment, while companies would be expected to make “best efforts” to avoid pirated material.
The documents describe the issue as the copyright “long tail”: the enormous amount of publicly accessible material for which negotiating individual licenses may be difficult or impractical.
Creators fear losing direct control
The proposal has drawn concern from Australian creative industries.
APRA AMCOS chief executive Dean Ormston told ABC that creators were worried their rights could be weakened as Australia seeks investment from AI companies building large model-training infrastructure.
The Human Impact issue goes beyond professional artists.
The Guardian reported that the proposed framework could affect online photographs, writing, music, videos and social-media material if those works fall within whatever final access regime is adopted.
That changes the practical meaning of putting material online. Under an opt-out system, individuals may need to take active steps to prevent eligible material from being included in AI-training datasets rather than being asked for permission first.
Australia previously rejected a broad mining exception
The current discussion is notable because the Australian government previously took a firmer position.
In October 2025, Attorney-General Michelle Rowland said the government was not considering a broad text-and-data-mining exception that would allow AI developers to use Australian creators’ work for free and without permission.
Australia’s Copyright and Artificial Intelligence Reference Group has instead been examining issues including licensing arrangements, AI-generated material and copyright enforcement.
For AI companies, easier access to large datasets can reduce legal uncertainty and the cost of model development.
For creators and ordinary internet users, the same rules determine whether publishing something online also makes it available for machine training.
That is the deeper technology-policy trade-off: AI needs enormous quantities of data, but scaling access to that data can also shift the burden of protecting creative work from companies to the people who made it.
