Australia Says No to an AI Copyright Exemption. Leaked Slides Show an Opt-Out Option.

Australia has become a clear test case this year for a question every music market faces. Must AI companies ask before they train on songs, or must creators say no first? The government's public line is that permission comes first, while documents reported in September suggest officials have also been testing a softer design.

This article separates what has been announced from what has only been reported, because the two are easy to blur.

What the government has said

On July 15, 2026, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced that Australia will bring in mandatory national AI standards. According to the law firm Hamilton Locke, he said: "No company should use Australian books, music, art or news to build or train AI without the artist's control." The government ruled out a text and data mining exception, which would have allowed AI training on local content without permission.

The package includes a new Office of AI inside the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, with legislation to be introduced to Parliament in early 2027. Hamilton Locke reports that three licensing models are under consideration: statutory licensing, collective licensing and voluntary arrangements. TechTimes added that Attorney-General Michelle Rowland had already rejected a text and data mining exception in October 2025.

How the debate got here

The fight did not start this year. In August 2025, Beat reported that Australia's Productivity Commission had floated a text and data mining exception in an interim report. The performing rights society APRA AMCOS and the First Nations music office NATSIMO rejected it, and APRA chair Jenny Morris said the Commission was laying "the groundwork to legitimise what they themselves acknowledge is already widespread theft."

ABC News reported in July that the government promised in October 2025 that protections would not be weakened. Musicians told ABC they were watching to see if that holds.

Dave Faulkner of the Hoodoo Gurus, who said he found his band's catalogue in AI training datasets, asked: "What deal? Someone wants to rob you, so you let them in the front door?" Singer-songwriter Paul Dempsey said: "I expect them to stick to their word."

What the leaked slides show

On September 15, ABC News reported on confidential Attorney-General's Department consultation slides titled "AI on Australian Terms." The slides set out two options, and ABC describes both as opt-out by default, meaning creators would have to act to keep their work out.

In the first option, AI companies could train on content whose owners had not opted out if they paid into a central distribution body and met conditions, or if they negotiated directly with collecting groups. In the second, companies would strike deals with a minimum number of rights holders for a minimum period, with "no additional $ payable to creators beyond negotiated deals." Both options listed safeguards, including penalties for ignoring opt-outs, transparency and audit requirements, and "best efforts" to exclude pirated material.

Why opt-out is the sticking point

Under a permission-first system, the AI company has to get a license before using a song. Under opt-out, the song is available unless its owner objects, so the work of objecting falls on the owner. Senator David Pocock told ABC that "the burden should not fall on Australians to defend the rights over content they hold."

OpenAI told ABC it is "committed to engaging constructively" on "an approach that is practical, sustainable and right for Australia." The slides are consultation material, not policy, and the sources reviewed here do not report a final decision.

The United Kingdom offers a comparison. The Next Web reported on September 27 that the UK government dropped a similar opt-out plan in March 2026, with Technology Secretary Liz Kendall saying it no longer had a "preferred option," after only 3% of more than 10,000 consultation respondents backed opt-out. Campaigners Beeban Kidron and Ed Newton-Rex have since warned Australia not to repeat the idea.

What it means for independent songwriters

Nothing changes in law today. The announced position favors permission, and the draft legislation is still months away.

The details would decide whether small catalogs benefit. If a central body or collecting groups handle payments, a songwriter who is not represented by one could be left outside the system.

If the second option's wording about payments only through negotiated deals became law, creators without a seat at those negotiations might see little. These are questions to watch, not conclusions.

One habit helps under any regime: keep clear, dated records of who wrote each song and which rights organization it is registered with. Collecting societies and registries are likely to work from exactly that kind of paperwork.

If you are outside Australia, the debate still matters. The UK and Australian outcomes are being watched by other governments weighing the same choice, and the design of any opt-out, including whether it is a simple machine-readable signal or a registry, affects how much work an independent artist must do to be protected.

Where licensed catalogs fit

A permission-first rule is, in practice, a licensing rule. The Starchild catalog is built on songs by professional songwriters, and every license comes with a certificate naming the writers, which anyone can check at /verify. For artists who want a clear paper trail on the songs they record, see how licensing for artists works, and read our earlier piece on how AI transparency works in music licensing.

Sources

• Hamilton Locke: No free pass for AI, Australia confirms copyright will be protected under new mandatory framework
• TechTimes: Australia rejects AI copyright carve-out, PM calls unlicensed training theft
• Beat: AI to get free pass for widespread theft of Australian music under new proposal
• ABC News: Musicians making their voices heard in AI copyright war
• ABC News: AI companies could use creators' work without paying them under leaked government copyright proposal
• The Next Web: UK campaigners who beat AI copyright plan warn Australia