Music publishers accuse AI firms of pressuring Australia over copyright
The organisation representing music publishers around the world has accused artificial intelligence companies of trying to strong-arm Australia into loosening copyright rules on AI training.
The International Confederation of Music Publishers (ICMP) set out the claim in comments reported on October 20. ICMP is the global trade body for publishers, the companies that look after songwriters' rights, license songs for use and collect royalties for writers and rights holders. Its membership includes Sony Music Publishing, Universal Music Publishing Group and Warner Chappell Music, Music Business Worldwide.
ICMP director general John Phelan said AI companies were asking policymakers to “legitimize larceny”. He said firms were putting an “if you don’t do this, we won’t invest” message to Australian policymakers.
The row centres on training, the process in which AI models learn patterns from large amounts of existing material. ICMP claimed AI models have already been trained on songs by Australian artists including Kylie Minogue and Nick Cave. No payment was made to rightsholders, the publishers say.
As supporting material, ICMP gave Guardian Australia examples in which Google’s Gemini could produce lyrics to songs by Minogue, G Flip and Nick Cave. Guardian Australia first reported the claims on October 19. The Line of Best Fit also reported the allegation that music by Minogue and Cave had been used in training, attributing it to publishers.
That contrasts with a separate position taken by the AI industry. According to Guardian Australia, the AI industry has claimed that its models are not trained on Australian content because of copyright rules.
Phelan said 62 countries including Australia have considered changes to copyright law sought by AI firms. ICMP said Australia appears to be the only country among dozens lobbied by AI firms for weaker copyright protections that is still considering the idea.
For readers, this comes down to permission and payment. Copyright decides who must ask first and who gets paid when a song is copied or reused. Publishers argue that training on songs without a licence breaches that principle. Australia’s decision will decide how that rule applies to AI development there.
