Would AI Be Allowed to Copy What You Post Online?
The Albanese government is looking at new copyright rules that would let AI companies copy almost anything Australians put online to train their systems.
Nothing is final. As of 17 September 2026 the proposals were not settled and the government was still consulting, after a leaked government document was tabled in the Senate on Tuesday setting out the ideas being examined, as detailed by the Guardian.
There are three ideas. The first would let AI developers use anything online that is not locked, as long as they first sign deals with enough businesses. No lock, no protection. Enough deals, and the open web is open for training. Copy-to-train means an AI system reads huge amounts of material to learn how to write, draw or speak.
The second idea works through groups that speak for creators. An AI company would do one big deal for a whole type of work, like music or writing. That deal would cover lots of small creators, even if they were never in the room.
The third idea would make AI companies pay into a new central body. That body would then share the money with "registered" rights holders. The body does not exist yet. Sign-up, prices, sharing rules and who runs it would all need to be built.
For ordinary people, the rule would flip. Now someone must ask before using your work. Under these ideas, your work could be used unless you lock it with a password or paywall. Think of it like a padlock on a shed. No padlock, and AI can walk in. On social media, it is not your call. The platform decides for you.
Creator groups say the lock has two problems. They say some AI crawlers ignore robots.txt, the simple code that tells them to keep out. They also say if you use that code to keep AI out, you can vanish from Google search too.
There is an overseas flow-on. If Australia gave AI firms wide access, overseas creators could block Australians from seeing their music and videos. That would mean limiting access by place to defend copyright.
In July, the government said it had no plans to allow this kind of copy-to-train rule, called a text and data mining exemption, as reported by the Guardian. The leaked ideas set out that kind of broad right, with deals and payments attached.
There is more July background. A plan put to cabinet would have let AI firms use content in return for investment and a $350m fund for artists, according to earlier reporting in the Guardian. Industry wanted a copyright exemption in return for at least $50bn for datacentres, the big sheds that house computers. Senator David Pocock's office was told about that push in late June. That same month, the government said it will set Australian Standards for AI that are clear, consistent and mandatory, according to the Prime Minister's office.
Senator David Pocock criticised the idea, saying easing copyright for datacentre investment would throw creatives and copyright holders "under the bus", as reported by the Guardian. Flinders University lecturer Lisa Harrison said tech firms likely already copy online material to train AI and the changes could make that legal. The government is separately described as looking at changes that would give US big tech open access to Australian content. In Britain, the government said no to similar changes after opposition from artists including Elton John and Paul McCartney.
The broader context here is simple. The law now starts with asking. These ideas start with taking. Creators would need to lock work away. Small publishers would need to leave search. Platforms would speak for users. Overseas owners could leave Australia.
Looking at what happens next, the consultation counts more than the leak. A central money body needs easy sign-up and clear payments. A big group deal needs a group that truly speaks for small creators. And a lock-it-yourself rule needs voters to accept that a photo, a poem or a council note posted online trains AI unless locked. Expect the crossbench to ask about the July denial, the size of the investment offer, and how strict AI standards fit with open copying. The government says it is still consulting. It will need to show its working.
