APRA AMCOS has accused AI companies of refusing to negotiate licensing deals for creative work used in training generative AI models, after OpenAI argued Australia's copyright laws were blocking its plans to build a local training centre. The music rights body said no multinational AI platform operating in Australia has approached it about a training licence in nearly four years, despite paying for every other input at market rates.
"Every other ingredient in these products is paid for at market rates, without complaint. They pay Nvidia for the chips. They pay for the power, the water, the land and the construction. They pay their engineers, and they pay their army of lawyers and lobbyists. Creative work is the only ingredient they refuse to pay for, and it is the one ingredient without which none of it functions," said APRA AMCOS CEO Dean Ormston.
The clash comes as the Australian Government weighs potential copyright reforms that could allow generative AI and LLM developers to train on some online copyrighted material without individual licences, including an opt-out model. OpenAI's vice president of global policy, Ann O'Leary, had earlier told government consultations that existing copyright settings were preventing the company from investing in Australian AI infrastructure.
A century of licensing battles
Ormston pointed to APRA AMCOS's 100-year history of licensing music as evidence that the machinery to build agreements already exists. "We have licensed music in this country for 100 years and very little of it came easily. Commercial radio, television, streaming services, the digital platforms. Every one of them argued with us, several fought us for years, and some of it was settled in court. That is how a price gets set, and it has always ended in the same place. A licence is built, and money reaches the people who wrote the songs."
He said the refusal to even begin discussions was the real barrier. "Describing copyright as a barrier, having never once tested it, does not stand up."
Intellectual property as a national asset
APRA AMCOS is pushing the Federal Government to commission a study quantifying the value of Australian intellectual property and copyright before further negotiations with AI developers. Ormston argued that Australian IP is one of the few locally owned inputs in AI development, with chips imported and models foreign owned.
"What is being proposed is that we hand over the part we hold for nothing, in exchange for infrastructure that could be relocated at any time," he said. "Investment that is conditional on a country rewriting its property law is not investment." Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles has rejected suggestions that OpenAI's stance amounts to a threat, saying the government believes it can pursue AI investment while protecting rights holders.
Ormston added: "No one has ever measured what this asset is worth. It appreciates when it is licensed into AI development and it depreciates every time it is stolen without a licence. Government should know the value of what is being brokered before anyone sits down to discuss it."
Why this matters for creatives
The dispute signals a fundamental tension over whether your work becomes training fuel by default or through paid licensing. APRA AMCOS's position is that the licensing frameworks that eventually forced payment from radio, television, and streaming platforms can work for AI too - but only if governments treat creative output as an asset worth protecting, not a free resource. The outcome of Australia's copyright consultation will set a precedent for whether creators get a seat at the table or an opt-out checkbox.
Your membership also unlocks:
