Australia's decision to ban AI mining of creative works without consent emphasizes the importance of protecting artists' rights, highlighting a crucial aspect of media education that fosters understanding of copyright and ethical use of creative content.
A songwriter might spend years perfecting a melody. A filmmaker will spend hours trying to perfectly capture a fleeting moment of light. A First Nations artist will channel generations of cultural knowledge into a single piece. These acts of creation are deeply human, fragile, and invaluable. Yet in the digital age, they are also data – scrapable, replicable, and, in the eyes of some tech companies, freely mineable.
It's this conundrum that sits at the heart of a landmark decision made overnight. The Albanese Government has announced that it will not introduce a Text and Data Mining (TDM) exception into Australian copyright law. Effectively, the Australian government have said: creative works are not raw material for algorithms without consent. And that’s a stance worth unpacking.
Why did the Government reject a TDM exception?
Their position is straightforward: copyright is not a barrier to progress, but a foundation of both creative and digital economies.
Attorney-General Michelle Rowland’s refusal to introduce the exception is being hailed by the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) and the Phonographic Performance Company of Australia (PPCA) as a turning point.
The decision affirms that creators retain the right to decide how their work is used—and that consent, control, and compensation remain central. It’s not just about protecting today’s artists but also safeguarding the cultural heritage of First Nations communities, which could otherwise be exploited by unchecked AI systems.
Does copyright really hold back AI innovation?
Tech companies argue that exceptions are necessary for AI research to thrive. But is that true? Australia’s current licensing systems suggest otherwise. They already enable deals between artists and AI firms that want to use content ethically. In fact, Annabelle Herd, CEO of ARIA and PPCA, points out that a growing number of AI companies are striking such agreements without needing loopholes.
"The current copyright licensing structures are proven and reliable, but also flexible, fast and supportive of creativity and innovation," Herd says."IP laws are what tech companies rely on to protect and monetise their products and they drive innovation. The growing number of music licensing deals with ethical AI companies make that irrefutable."
Framing copyright as an obstacle overlooks the reality: innovation can flourish when built on transparency and fair negotiation. What slows progress is not the law but the unwillingness of some players to respect it.
Could loopholes undermine cultural sovereignty?
Herd also cautions against complacency. Even with this win, the pressure from global tech giants to water down protections will likely continue. The Copyright and AI Reference Group (CAIRG) is preparing to argue in Canberra that any new exceptions risk eroding the principle of creative agency.
The broader danger is cultural sovereignty itself. If algorithms can absorb Australian works without consent, then the nation’s creative output risks being subsumed into anonymous global datasets – stripped of its origin, meaning, and value.
What does this all mean for Australian creatives?
This moment positions Australia as an important case study. Can a nation champion its artists while also encouraging technological innovation? The government’s decision suggests the answer is: yes. By choosing creators over loopholes, Australia has set a precedent that culture is not just a resource for machines but its own living economy that deserves protection.
what's on in november
adults season 2
