Music Industry Body IFPI Warns Australia Against Loosening Copyright for AI Training

Victoria Oakley, chief executive of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), told Guardian Australia that such a change would be "ridiculous and dangerous". She said the federation had been raising the issue with other governments. "We've been talking to capitals around the world, saying 'are you seeing what's going on in Australia?'" she said. "We think this is a disaster for creativity."

The dispute matters well beyond Australia because the terms on which AI developers can use copyrighted material are among the most contested commercial questions in the industry. They decide whether model builders pay licence fees or rely on legal exceptions. Oakley's case is that one jurisdiction's rules could in effect become everyone's. "You just need one safe harbour, because then you can train on music from anywhere in the world," she said. "So this isn't just about Australian music and Australian culture; it's about music and culture everywhere."

According to the Guardian, the Labor government is considering copyright changes as part of a wider set of AI policy reviews that also cover data centres, online safety, the workforce, energy and the economy. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has promised "the strongest possible protection" for creators and has said it would be "theft" if they were not paid for their work. Creative industries became alarmed after AI companies asked for the law to be relaxed so they could train on Australian material.

Some AI companies have said licensing under existing copyright law is too difficult. Anthropic proposed an "opt-out" model that would allow it to scrape content unless rights holders objected, the Guardian reported. Large AI developers argue that they need legal certainty on copyright before investing in Australia or training models there.

The current review follows an earlier position that appeared settled. In October 2025 the government ruled out a text and data mining exception for AI training. Attorney-General Michelle Rowland said at the time that "this government has repeatedly said that there are no plans to weaken copyright protections when it comes to AI," Mediaweek reported. Last week a spokesperson for Rowland said the government was "committed to supporting" creators and that "any future copyright changes deliver meaningful control and fair compensation".

Oakley rejected the argument that countries must accept AI companies' terms to attract investment. "I just don't think it's true that you will only get investment or growth, or be seen as pro-innovation, if you entirely give in to the demands of AI companies," she said. She said similar proposals had been put to the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries, and that Australia should not be "the weakest link".

She also challenged the claim that licensing is impractical. In written answers to a parliamentary committee on AI, OpenAI was asked by independent senator David Pocock why it could not strike the kind of deals Spotify has made. The company said the streaming service "has a different business, where it primarily transmits un-transformed copyrighted content, so would be expected to license content that it streams". Oakley replied that record labels have already signed dozens of licensing agreements with smaller AI companies around the world. "It is perfectly possible to license," she said. "Come to us and we'll make it work."

The Australian Recording Industry Association has raised possible legal and constitutional challenges. Oakley declined to speculate on those but said a relaxation would damage Australia's reputation in the creative world. The government has not said when it will announce its decision on copyright, which creators and AI developers in other markets are now watching.