Labor's AI copyright trade for datacentres, explained
The Albanese government is considering giving American AI companies default access to Australian creative work to secure datacentre investment.
Independent Senator David Pocock aired the claim in the Senate, saying Labor's compromise would throw protections for creatives and copyright holders "under the bus" in pursuit of datacentre funding. The Guardian
Pocock tabled a document titled "AI on Australian Terms" in the Senate on Tuesday, described as screenshots of the government's consultation proposals on AI and copyright.
What the papers propose
The consultation document states that voluntary deals between AI companies and the vast number of small individual online creators "is not realistic/possible". It points to too many rights holders and too many small posts, images and tracks for one-by-one licensing to work.
Three broad options follow from that starting point. One would require rights holders to "digitally protect" their material to stop AI models training on it. Material left unprotected online could be used. Another would let AI companies train on any unprotected online material as long as they have made deals with enough businesses. What counts as enough is not settled in the tabled material. A third would let AI companies make deals with rightsholder organisations that cover even creators who are not members. That would extend one licence for music or text across many small creators. People who follow copyright will know this as extended collective licensing, applied to model training.
Companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic would be allowed to train models on online content without paying creators under proposals reported by ABC News. ABC News
What the government says
Senior staff from OpenAI met with Labor ministers and warned Australia's copyright laws were stopping the company training models locally. Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles confirmed the federal government spoke with tech companies in San Francisco in the past fortnight about copyright and AI collaboration.
Attorney-General Michelle Rowland is running the government's ongoing consultation with affected organisations on AI and copyright. Industry Minister Tim Ayres said on Monday the government's coming AI rules would "in no way" involve a reduction in copyright protection.
OpenAI said Australia would become the first country to host AI model training if copyright could be resolved. SMH Data Centres Australia stated in a NSW Government filing that Australian copyright law is a barrier to training AI models on Australian content in Australia.
A proposal to allow AI companies to mine content has been put to cabinet, with the July proposal linking permission to mine content to investment and a $350m fund to compensate artists.
Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young described suggestions of a copyright compromise for AI as "abhorrent".
Why the politics is volatile
The broader context here is familiar in Canberra. Governments promise investment and protection at the same time. Creators listen for the second promise. Tech companies listen for the first.
In my view, the argument comes down to who does the hard work. An opt-out based on "digitally protect" leaves the job with individual writers, artists, photographers and musicians. A test based on deals with enough businesses suits firms big enough to bargain. An extended licence gives power to collecting bodies, with hard questions about rates, distribution and consent for non-members. Labor says protection will not be cut, while the papers describe default access unless material is protected. Both can only be true if ministers count a difficult opt-out plus bulk deals as protection. For readers watching this, check three things. First, what counts as digitally protected and who sets the standard. Second, what number of commercial deals triggers wider access and who audits it. Third, whether any extended licence includes enforceable payment, openness over training sets and a workable exit for individuals. Pocock has put the documents in the open. Rowland owns the consultation. The government wants the sheds, servers and jobs.
