APRA AMCOS and NATSIMO have rejected the Productivity Commission's text and data mining proposal for AI training.
The Australian Performing Right Association (APRA AMCOS) and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Music Office (NATSIMO) have expressed strong opposition to the Productivity Commission’s interim report suggesting changes to Australia’s Copyright Act. The proposed text and data mining exception would allow AI companies to use copyrighted works without permission or payment when training their systems.
The music industry bodies warn that APRA AMCOS and NATSIMO’s rejection comes as the sector faces significant challenges from unregulated artificial intelligence. Industry projections suggest that 23% of music creators’ revenues could be at risk from unregulated AI by 2028, threatening Australia’s $9 billion music industry.
Keep up with the latest music news, features, festivals, interviews and reviews here.
“The Commission may couch this as policy exploration, but their direction is clear,” says APRA Chair, Jenny Morris MNZM OAM. “They’re laying the groundwork to legitimise what they themselves acknowledge is already widespread theft. We’ve witnessed the wholesale ingestion of Australian works by AI companies in the US, where over 30 court cases are currently underway challenging this practice.”
NATSIMO National Director, Leah Flanagan, expressed particular concern about Indigenous artists and creators: “This interim report exposes a glaring double standard. In the Commission’s 2022 Aboriginal arts and crafts report, they rightly called for firm action against fake Indigenous art and new cultural rights legislation. They recognised that Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP) has intrinsic value. Yet now they seem content to allow the digital theft of ICIP that exists in our songs and music.”
The Commission’s 116-page interim report acknowledges that large AI models are already being trained on unlicensed copyrighted materials, with over 30 court cases currently underway in the United States challenging this practice. Rather than supporting enforcement of existing rights, the Commission is exploring ways to retrospectively legitimise unauthorised use.
APRA Chair Jenny Morris has criticised the Commission’s approach, describing it as laying groundwork to legitimise widespread theft of creative works. The organisation represents over 124,000 members including songwriters, composers and music publishers across Australasia.
NATSIMO National Director Leah Flanagan highlighted concerns about Indigenous artists and creators, pointing to what she described as a double standard in the Commission’s approach. She referenced the Commission’s 2022 Aboriginal arts and crafts report, which called for firm action against fake Indigenous art and new cultural rights legislation recognising the intrinsic value of Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property.
The interim report continues a pattern established by the Productivity Commission’s controversial 2016 intellectual property report, which proposed reducing copyright terms from 70 years to just 15 years and importing the United States fair use system. That report was widely criticised by Australia’s creative community.
APRA AMCOS’s landmark AI and Music report found that 82% of music creators expressed concerns about AI preventing them from making a living. However, 38% of creators have already embraced AI in their work, with 54% agreeing it can support the creative process.
“Artists have been innovators for millennia, constantly embracing new technologies,” adds Morris. “We’re not afraid of AI and our members are early adopters who see its potential. We have members who are working with AI platforms that respect copyright and seek proper licensing. The Commission’s approach threatens to undermine this collaborative progress by removing incentives for ethical AI development.
“The Commission admits that most AI training happens overseas and that their proposed exception is ‘unlikely to affect whether AI models continue to be available and used in Australia.’ This raises serious questions about the real purpose of this exploration. If it won’t change practical outcomes, why pursue it except to provide legal cover for existing unauthorised practices?”
The music industry bodies argue that the Commission’s proposal would undermine existing market solutions, noting that collecting societies are already investigating licensing frameworks for AI use. They contend that the proposed exemptions would remove incentives for ethical AI development and transfer value from Australian creators to global technology companies.
Australia’s creative economy contributes $112 billion to national prosperity, with copyright protection serving as its foundation. The organisations warn that weakening these protections would damage rather than boost productivity.
“The Commission’s exploration may seem measured, but the direction is unmistakable,” Morris concludes. “They’re building a framework for policies that would treat our cultural heritage as free raw material. We call on the government to reject this direction and support Australia’s creative sector to be at the heart of the success of AI development in this country.”
For more information, head here.
