Australian authors, musicians, and media figures gathered at Parliament House on July 1 to demand the Albanese Government maintain the country's copyright framework and compel AI companies to negotiate licensing deals. The unified push comes as big tech firms spend heavily on lobbying for legislative changes that would let them train AI models on creative work for minimal compensation, a practice industry leaders likened to wage theft.
Creators demand licensing, not exemptions
Lucy Hayward of the Australian Society of Authors cut through the complexity often invoked by tech lobbyists. "Despite what tech might tell you, copyright is simple. If you want to use someone's work, you need to ask permission. And copyright is also how authors earn a living," she said. She accused large technology companies of bypassing rightsholders entirely, instead pushing Canberra for rules that would grant broad access to copyrighted material for trivial sums.
Annabelle Herd, CEO of ARIA, pointed to the infrastructure already in place to compensate creators fairly. "Behind the written music that you hear online, whether you're in Australia or anywhere else, there is a very sophisticated, very official licensing system that ensures that the creator of that work and the rightsholder gets paid," she said. Herd stressed that deals with AI firms are happening globally and urged the government to let the market function rather than intervene to weaken protections.
Art as culture, not raw data
Mahalia Barnes, the singer and songwriter, framed the debate in human terms. "This is not just data. This is truly art. This is our culture, it's the essence of our nation," she said. Barnes rejected the idea that machine output can match creative work. "Artists can never be replaced by technology and AI because art is essentially about humanity." Her statement underscored the central argument from the assembled group: that creative labour produces cultural value that licensing markets can price, and that treating it as free training material devalues both the work and the worker.
The event drew names from across the spectrum-authors, composers, performers, and publishers-including William Barton, Paul Dempsey, Andy Griffiths, and Holly Rankin, alongside industry bodies such as APRA AMCOS, the Copyright Agency, and Free TV Australia. For professionals navigating the intersection of creativity and machine learning, understanding the licensing landscape is increasingly essential, as explored in resources like AI for Creatives.
Why this matters for writers
The dispute signals that the default position-requiring permission before using copyrighted text for AI training-is under active threat. If governments allow exceptions or weak compensation schemes, writers lose control over how their articles, books, and scripts are ingested and monetised. The Australian pushback shows that collective action can keep licensing negotiations alive, which directly affects the income stream of any writer whose work might be scraped or modelled. Pay attention to how your professional associations are positioning themselves on copyright law, because the outcome will shape the economics of writing for years to come.
Your membership also unlocks:
