Australian Authors Call for Stronger AI Copyright Protections
The Australian Society of Authors has urged the federal government to strengthen copyright enforcement and require AI developers to license protected works used for training. In submissions to two parliamentary inquiries, the…
The Australian Society of Authors has urged the federal government to strengthen copyright enforcement and require AI developers to license protected works used for training. In submissions to two parliamentary inquiries, the organisation raised concerns about the unauthorised use of books and illustrations, the economic consequences for creators and the difficulties of pursuing overseas technology companies. The Australian Writers' Guild has separately raised related concerns about writers' rights and AI development.
Australian Authors Call for Stronger AI Copyright Protections
The Australian Society of Authors (ASA) has called for stronger copyright enforcement and mandatory licensing arrangements for artificial intelligence developers, submitting its proposals to two Australian parliamentary inquiries.
In a statement published on September 30, the organisation confirmed its participation in the Environment and Communications References Committee's inquiry into AI and data centres and the Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence.
The ASA argues that copyrighted works have been used to train commercial AI systems without obtaining permission from authors and other rights holders. It maintains that existing intellectual-property protections should be enforced more effectively rather than weakened to accommodate AI development.
Among its proposals is a mandatory industry code requiring multinational AI developers to license copyrighted material as a condition of operating in Australia, regardless of where their models are trained.
The organisation also suggests changes to the Copyright Act that would allow Australian rights holders to pursue claims involving AI models trained overseas. Additional proposals include statutory damages, greater transparency about training materials and protections for Indigenous cultural and intellectual property.
The Australian Writers' Guild has separately expressed concerns about the use of literary and dramatic works in AI training. Both organisations have emphasised the importance of permission, attribution and remuneration when copyrighted material is used commercially.
The debate concerns the relationship between existing copyright protections and the development of generative AI systems. Questions about licensing obligations, the legal status of training practices and the treatment of material obtained from outside Australia remain subjects of regulatory discussion and litigation in several jurisdictions.
The ASA also warns that AI-generated material could affect authors' earnings, publishing opportunities and demand for commissioned creative work. These economic consequences form part of the organisation's argument for stronger safeguards.
The submissions represent the positions of writers' organisations rather than an announced change to Australian law. No new licensing requirement or copyright amendment resulted directly from the September 30 statement.
The development adds another formal contribution to Australia's ongoing examination of how artificial intelligence should interact with copyright, publishing and the commercial rights of creators.