Tag: Australia and Copyright

AI Training and Copyright Licensing: The Changing Tide

Sunset over the ocean with golden reflections on the wet sand and gentle waves lapping at the shore.

Image: Author (Tofino, BC)

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese caught global attention in mid-July with his speech at the University of Sydney, “AI in Australia’s Interests”. That address, which outlined the Australian government’s approach to AI, included important statements regarding the work of Australia’s creative community, which Albanese declared is “not up for grabs”. Having previously ruled out the creation of a copyright loophole for AI training, known in the trade as a “Text and Data Mining” (TDM) exception, Albanese went on to say that;

“Australian writers, musicians, artists and journalists must retain ownership and control of their work…No company should use Australian books, music, art or news to build or train AI without the artist’s control…of the price and value of their work. Anything less is theft.”

Bravo! Hopefully this means what it says, that rightsholders will retain control and receive compensation on their terms if their works are used for AI training, even though there is still strong pressure from segments of the AI world for Australia to loosen its terms of copyright protection. Anthropic is dangling a $20 billion carrot in the form of potential investment in AI data centres in Australia but only if there is a copyright carve-out for AI training. One Anthropic proposal was for the creation of a $350 million fund to compensate rightsholders, paid for by the AI industry, but it was unclear how this would operate or if rightsholders would be required to opt-out if they didn’t want their content used. For creators to be able to control their work within the accepted framework of copyright law, they must have the ability to accept or reject voluntary licensing and not be required to opt-out of a compulsory scheme where what they receive is decided by bureaucrats on the basis of limited contributions to a common fund. The commitments that Albanese made in his speech indicate that voluntary licensing is the preferred solution, but the issue remains under study (hopefully this will be done with full transparency, following suggestions earlier this year of secret dealings on this critical matter of public interest). Nonetheless, the bright line that Albanese has drawn with regard to creatives retaining control of their work is welcome and will hopefully encourage other governments who are developing AI policy to do the same.

As noted, the AI industry never gives up. Having been clearly told that creators should retain control over how their work is used, and be paid for that use, some companies are floating new objections based on the supposed “long tail” argument. “Long tail” is the term being used to describe the many small rightsholders who create and therefore (in theory but maybe not in practice) control use of their content, as opposed to larger rightsholders such as major publishers of books, journals and newspapers, music labels, film studios and so on with whom it is easier to engage in licensing discussions. The argument is that, even if the AI industry wanted to license the content that it uses in training (by no means a given with every company), it can’t possibly deal with the myriad of small rightsholders. Elsewhere, some AI developers have dealt with this problem by ignoring it, simply helping themselves to whatever content they wanted, without licence. In some cases, they even used pirate libraries as sources, almost daring rightsholders to bring legal challenges. Anthropic is a high-profile culprit that got caught doing this.

One idea currently being promoted by Anthropic is to create a statutory licence that would be restricted just to Australian rightsholders, with funds directed only to them. It is hard to see how this is a viable solution. Not only would it violate international norms that Australia has committed to by discriminating against foreign rightsholders in the Australian market, if it is applied universally, it would lead to a stream of royalties flowing out of Australia while doing little to help local creators. Elsewhere, various non-statutory collective licensing schemes have been proposed to deal with the issue of small rightsholders, although to date none have emerged that provide true one-stop shopping for AI developers. But a compulsory licence cannot be the solution. These large companies with stratospheric valuations (especially those getting ready to launch an IPO!) surely have the wherewithal to find ways to license the content they use and will continue to use as they develop and refine their AI models.

For the past several years the tech community has followed the “better to ask for forgiveness after rather than permission before” approach when appropriating copyright protected content to develop AI platforms. The inevitable result has been a spate of lawsuits, most of which are still ongoing, with results varying from case to case and jurisdiction to jurisdiction. A second front opened by some AI platforms has been to attempt to weaken copyright protection through legislation, focussing particularly on the introduction of a broad TDM exception. As a result of this push, many countries began studying whether to bring in a TDM carve-out, or if they had a narrow TDM exception (e.g. for non-commercial research purposes) whether to widen it. From the perspective of rightsholders, it began to look like a race to the bottom. Now, the tide seems to be changing. Albanese’s speech is a good example of the shift, but Australia is not alone in taking a more considered and balanced approach.

Hong Kong is a case in point. Hong Kong has always had one of the stronger intellectual property regimes in the region, a source of competitive advantage. But under the pressure of blandishments from the tech community, it issued a consultation paper in 2024 that, among other things, proposed a TDM exception–including for commercial purposes. When the paper went out for public comment, the predictable suspects urged adoption of a TDM provision while rightsholder groups argued that existing law and voluntary licensing was suitably flexible to handle issues arising from new technologies. Now the Hong Kong Government has concluded there is no pressing need to pursue a TDM exception through legislation. The priority will be to issue best-practice guidelines grounded in the existing legal framework, providing reference for stakeholders on copyright protection and infringement liability relating to AI-generated works. Voluntary licensing arrangements between copyright owners and AI developers are seen as the answer.

I noted in a blog post last year that the TDM issue was under review in a number of Asian jurisdictions, including India, Malaysia and Korea. In India, a government-commissioned working group recommended a compulsory licence scheme that displeased just about everyone, from the tech gurus to India’s cultural creators, although to the working group’s credit, it also rejected a TDM exception for India. The lack of momentum for this idea means that current copyright legislation continues to apply, albeit with Indian courts starting to weigh in, (but unfortunately in ways that could potentially undermine India’s fair dealing balance). Malaysia continues to attract significant investment from the hi-tech sector despite not yet adopting a TDM exception, in stark contrast to neighbouring Singapore. In Thailand, which has one of the richest cultural traditions in Asia through its audiovisual and music sectors, the tech sector has been agitating for introduction of a TDM, as elsewhere. This would put at risk a content sector that is a significant contributor to national GDP as well as driver of the all-important tourist industry.

Korea is another country where the AI industry is bringing pressure to bear. Korea’s unique and thriving culture is one of its national assets, along with a domestic innovation and hi-tech industry that is second to none. To allow offshore tech companies to plunder Korea’s rich cultural tradition would be a shortsighted and shameful sellout. But neither Korea, nor Thailand, nor Malaysia, India or Australia are opposed to the development of AI, and all want their share of the benefits of this emerging if not already emergent industry. All recognize that AI development requires vast amounts of content, including the kind of high-quality content produced by their respective creative sectors.

There is a proven path for the AI industry to access this rich content. It is called voluntary licensing, and it already exists within the established four corners of copyright law. Moreover, it is increasingly becoming the solution as AI developers finally come to realize (a) that it is not worth risking the viability of the company on an unpredictable lawsuit that could result in crippling damages (or as in the case of India, years of court trials) and (b) equally important, their global push to get a legislated copyright loophole through TDM provisions in national law is going nowhere. In fact, the TDM tide is receding, as the examples of Australia and Hong Kong clearly show.

As the TDM tide goes out, the voluntary licensing tide flows in, floating the boats of both the creative and hi-tech sectors. Australia hoisted the first signal, but other jurisdictions in Asia seem ready to follow.

© Hugh Stephens, 2026. All Rights Reserved.

AI Training and Copyright: Australia Gets it Right—Now it’s Canada’s Turn

Flags of Australia and Canada displayed side by side, showcasing their national colors and symbols.

Image: Shutterstock

In early June Canada issued its national AI strategy paper, “AI for All”. As I noted in a blog post at the time,  while the strategy covered many elements of AI in its 50 pages outlining policy objectives and planned actions, it managed to avoid using the word “copyright” even once. Australia has just come out with its own updated AI policy statement “AI in Australia’s interest”, which builds on its own “National AI Plan”, released last December. But whereas the Carney government in its AI strategy managed to completely avoid putting copyright into the AI equation, Prime Minister Albanese, after discussing the importance of developing AI for Australia, had this to say;

“But let me make this crystal clear: not everything produced in Australia is up for grabs.

Not at all.

Australian writers, musicians, artists and journalists must retain ownership and control of their work.

Our laws will spell that out, plain as day.

An artist’s creative endeavour is their work and their property.

No company should use Australian books, music, art or news to build or train AI without the artist’s control.

That includes the artist’s control of the price and value of their work.

Anything less, is theft.”

Blunt, clear and refreshing. If Australia can protect its cultural community while promoting policies for sensible AI adoption and development, then so can Canada.

Both Canada and Australia currently have no Text and Data Mining (TDM) exception in their copyright law. This legal loophole would allow AI developers to appropriate content without permission for training purposes. In both countries there have been calls from the tech community to introduce a TDM exception, a carte blanche that would allow AI companies to ingest copyrighted content without authorization, payment or even acknowledgement. In its December “National AI Plan”, which is much more analogous to Canada’s “AI for All” than Albanese’s recent short AI policy statement–in that it outlined a range of detailed policy proposals for AI adoption in Australia– the Australian government nonetheless managed to grasp the copyright nettle unambiguously.

Among the issues highlighted under “AI Risks and Harms” was the following:

“Reviewing application of copyright law in AI contexts: The Attorney-General’s Department is engaging with stakeholders through the Copyright and AI Reference Group to consult on possible updates to Australia’s copyright laws as they relate to AI. The government has provided certainty to Australian creators and media workers by ruling out a text and data mining exception in Australian copyright law” (emphasis added)

Just as the Australian government has sensibly ruled out a TDM option. Canada needs to do the same, as called for Canadian cultural umbrella groups, such as the Coalition for Diversity of Cultural Expression (CDCE).

So far Canada has danced around the issue. Heritage and Identity Minister Marc Miller has said that “the current copyright law does and should protect those that have created material, and people need to be compensated properly”, but he is just one minister among several. Evan Solomon, Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation, and Minister of Industry Melanie Joly, both have a big piece of this file. One can expect that both can be counted on to be more sympathetic to tech bros than cultural mavens. What is needed is a prime ministerial pronouncement clarifying that Canada’s creative community–artists, writers, publishers, musicians, filmmakers, photographers, journalists and more– is not going to be thrown under the bus on the pretence of keeping Canada competitive in the global AI game.

In the wake of Australia’s announcement that a TDM exception was off the table, the tech industry tried a new approach by suggesting the creation of a centralized fund that would be used to compensate rightsholders for the permissionless use of their works in AI training. Specifically, AI company Anthropic reportedly tied a proposed $15 billion USD ($21.6 billion AUD) investment in data centres in Australia to creation of the creatives fund in order to allow to access Australian content without licensing or negotiation with rightsholders. Australia’s creative community quickly mobilized. Their concerns were heard. Along with setting clear guardrails ruling out the unauthorized use of copyrighted creative works, Albanese has created a new Office of AI within the Prime Minister’s Office, recognizing the need for policy coordination given the breadth of AI’s policy impact. This is something that Canada might consider. It has Evan Solomon, Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation, but there seem to be very few cultural community voices within Solomon’s hearing range.

Australia has the same goal as Canada of getting its fair share of the AI pie while managing AI adoption and its impact on society. But there is one big difference. In so doing, the Australian government has made it clear it will pursue its AI goals while simultaneously respecting and protecting its culture and its creators. Canada’s cultural and creative community deserves no less consideration.

© Hugh Stephens, 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Litigation vs. Licensing for AI Training

Scrabble tiles spelling 'LITIGATION vs LICENSING' on a game board.

Image: Author

There is an ongoing struggle between the tech world of AI training and the cultural world of content creation. It has led to lots of litigation but also an increasing number of licensing agreements, the obvious market solution. Litigation has helped convince AI companies to share some of the wealth by pursuing licensing. Yet the AI world continues to try to find ways to avoid the basic step of seeking permission from rightsholders for using their valuable content to create their products.

Anyone who has seen the striking graphic “Who is Suing Whom in AI”, created by the design website Information is Beautiful, will be struck by the enormity and breadth of the issue which is so cleverly displayed, with the big AI developers such as Perplexity, Anthropic, Meta, Google, Open AI, Midjourney, Cohere and others at the centre with the creators (every content entity from Conde Nast, Getty Images, Universal Music Group, CNN, Disney and Thomson Reuters to Elsevier, Dow Jones, New York Times and others) ranged around the periphery, a stunning visual encompassing more than 100 lawsuits in the United States. That graphic was up-to-date as of June 26 of this year. Since then, at least one more major lawsuit has been filed, by a group of textbook authors against Meta. The graphic does not include the first such case in Canada where a group of media organizations (Canadian Press, Torstar, The Globe and Mail, Postmedia and CBC/Radio-Canada) is suing OpenAI, or the Getty Images case in the UK, or indeed any cases outside the US. From this graphic, it would seem that to resolve the issue of how copyrighted content is going to be used in AI development and training, litigation is the inevitable route. But is it?

As far as I am aware, Information is Beautiful has not created a similar graphic to display the range of licensing deals that have taken place, many of them between some of the same actors that appear on the litigation chart. If they did it would be similar, but encompassing even more licensing agreements than lawsuits. Licensing deals are being struck so frequently it is just as hard to keep up with them as it is to track all the litigation underway. The University of Glasgow’s CREATe Centre says it has documented 274 licensing deals and has a chart that tracks 109 of them. Whatever the number, it is a lot and it is growing. That is not to say that the AI industry has finally accepted the need to pay for the content they are using to create their products, just as they pay for software engineers or data processing capacity. This is where the link between litigation and licensing becomes interesting.

In a perfect world, AI developers would obtain their inputs through the market on the basis of permission, which would encompass both compensation (in most cases) plus transparency or accountability, i.e. documenting what content was used. But we don’t live in a perfect world, which is why we have the rule of law and courts to enforce those laws. In some cases, AI platforms did begin negotiations with rightsholders but when it was not possible to reach an agreement, the AI industry switched tactics and took the content anyway, arguing it was legal to do so for a variety of reasons. This is precisely the scenario that led to the New York Times suing OpenAI. These cases are even more egregious because there was initially a tacit acknowledgement by the user that the content had value. Then, when the price or conditions did not suit the potential licencee, suddenly it was okay to take the content anyway under the guise of fair use. Various arguments have been deployed ranging from the claim that no copying actually occurs, to the dubious assertion that what is copied is data not content, to the invocation of the US “transformation” doctrine.

On the issue of copying, a study by the Atlantic (AI’s Memorization Crisis: Large language models don’t “learn”—they copy. And that could change everything for the tech industry) convincingly demonstrated the uncomfortable truth that LLMs can reproduce long excerpts from books they have been trained on. The inputs are not just ones and zeros, they are content— someone else’s content that was taken without permission. Whether the use was fair according to US fair use interpretations is still an open question. US courts and other countries are trying to come to grips with this issue. In countries such as Canada or Australia, where there is no statutory copyright exception for Text and Data Mining (TDM) that would permit permissionless AI training on content, the AI industry has been floating various workaround proposals. The “incentives” would include (in Australia) establishing a government-managed fund to compensate rightsholders according to some sort of formula, plus investments in AI data centres. What is missing from proposals such as this is the concept of permission from those who actually own the content, or even discussion of the proposal with them. As Prof. Rod Sims, former Chair of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, put it in a recent opinion piece in Canada’s National Post, “what other sector refuses to negotiate with suppliers and instead goes to government to bypass such a step?”

Let me use a food industry analogy to make the point even more clearly. When you run a restaurant you have labour costs, rent, taxes, etc. and the cost of ingredients to consider. You don’t get to raid the farmer’s field to obtain your inputs for free, just because you are able to root out crops without the farmer being able to stop you or even know it is happening. Setting up a fund to “compensate” farmers for their stolen crops, on terms set by the government rather than the market, doesn’t even begin to make this right. Legalization of this theft would remove any possibility of litigation or legal protection, for the farmer—or for content owners. Litigation, while protracted, costly and potentially leading to uncertain outcomes, is nonetheless the stick that is needed to facilitate licensing.

The obvious route for the AI industry to take is to license the content they want to use. That may not seem as “efficient” as just taking it for free but with the threat of litigation hanging over the proceedings, licensing suddenly becomes the more efficient alternative. It is also win/win for both AI developers and the content industries. And, it is simply the “right thing to do”.

© Hugh Stephens, 2026. All Rights Reserved

I am pleased to note that this blog was recognized by Feedspot as being among the “40 Best Copyright Blogs to Follow in 2026”. In fact, we hit the middle of the pack at No. 20. I am honoured to be included in such distinguished company.  

Feedspot is an RSS Reader that lets readers subscribe to blogs, news sites, and any website they wish to follow.