Potential changes to Australian copyright law allowing artificial intelligence companies to scrape creative work have prompted warnings of constitutional challenges and substantial compensation claims. Coalition senators and recording industry leaders argue that weakening protections for music, books and journalism could affect property rights, with consequences extending to copyright owners overseas.
The Labor government is considering copyright measures alongside broader AI reforms covering datacentres, online safety, employment, energy and the economy. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has promised strong protections for creators and said using their work without payment would constitute theft. Creative industries remain concerned about requests from AI companies to loosen copyright restrictions so they can train their systems on Australian material.
Some AI businesses have argued that negotiating licences under existing laws is too difficult. Anthropic has proposed an opt-out approach under which content could be scraped unless its owner used digital protections to signal an objection. Critics question whether such a change could engage section 51 of the constitution, which gives the commonwealth power to legislate for the acquisition of property on just terms.
Nationals senator Ross Cadell, a member of the federal parliamentary committee on AI, said an opt-out system raised questions about the acquisition of intellectual property rights. He warned that the government could face compensation demands from rights holders around the world. At a committee hearing on Friday, attorney general’s department officials acknowledged their awareness of the constitutional concerns but did not directly answer his questions about overseas claimants and potential liability.
Anne Twomey, professor emerita of law at the University of Sydney, said a constitutional issue could potentially arise if legislation gave AI companies new rights to use copyrighted work while reducing owners’ rights. However, she stressed that the question was highly complex and that no legislative proposal had been presented. Previous high court cases involving copyright and property acquisition had produced differing outcomes, and the court had recognised exceptions to section 51.
Twomey said the legislation’s wording would matter and expected the government to be closely alert to the issue. She also said permitting AI companies to train in Australia on international data could potentially give foreign rights holders grounds to bring legal proceedings in Australia. A spokesperson for attorney general Michelle Rowland said the government supported creators and would ensure future copyright changes provided meaningful control and fair compensation.
Australian Recording Industry Association chief executive Annabelle Herd argued that allowing AI companies to scrape copyrighted material would amount to an acquisition of property. She questioned how compensation could adequately address rights being transferred for AI companies to monetise and said such a proposal appeared open to constitutional challenge.
Mushroom Records chief executive Chris Maund said existing copyright law was functioning and that AI companies should negotiate licensing agreements. He pointed to AI-related deals already being made by companies including Spotify. Maund warned that training in Australia could allow AI businesses to circumvent copyright laws elsewhere, and said international rights holder organisations had urged Labor to retain existing protections.
Shadow attorney general Michaelia Cash said the Coalition supported AI’s benefits and wanted investment, while insisting that creators’ interests must be protected. She said the opposition would examine the constitutional implications once the government presented its proposals.
