ARIA and PPCA Push Back Against Parliamentary Committee's AI Copyright Claims

ARIA and PPCA have criticised comments made by the co-chairs of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Artificial Intelligence this week, disputing suggestions that Australia's copyright framework needs to change to ensure creators benefit from AI.

The response follows comments made on live television by committee co-chairs Jo Briskey and Jono Duniam, who argued that existing copyright laws were not working and risked leaving Australian creators out of emerging AI opportunities.

ARIA and PPCA CEO Annabelle Herd rejected that assessment, arguing that the current system already allows music companies and artists to negotiate commercial agreements with AI developers. 

“The statement made by the Co-Chairs of the Parliamentary Committee is wrong. Moreover, it ignores substantial evidence provided to the Committee,” Herd said. “Australian copyright law gives creators control. It is the only thing standing between major American AI companies and unchecked access to the world’s content right here from Australia.”

At the centre of the disagreement is whether Australia's existing copyright framework can adequately support licensing arrangements between rights holders and AI companies, or whether legislative changes are needed as the technology develops.

ARIA pointed to its submission to the committee, which identified 18 licensing agreements between major AI companies and the global music industry. The organisation says a further nine agreements have been announced since its submission, with Australian artists and locally headquartered record companies involved in the emerging market.

Herd argued that these agreements demonstrate that licensing arrangements can operate within existing copyright frameworks, without requiring changes that could weaken rights holders' control over their work.

“The deals being done now prove global licensing works. That is how artists and rightsholders retain control and negotiate terms including remuneration,” she said.

“Record labels and music publishers have also brought copyright infringement action against AI companies for copyright infringement in the US. That is how enforcement works, it occurs in the jurisdiction where the infringing copying occurs. We are not asking the Australian parliament to solve overseas piracy by AI companies.”

The debate comes as Australia's music industry continues to grapple with the implications of generative AI, particularly the use of copyrighted recordings and compositions to train AI models.

While AI companies are increasingly entering licensing agreements with music rights holders, questions remain over how widely those arrangements will extend across the industry and whether existing protections are sufficient for independent artists and smaller rights holders.

ARIA and PPCA maintain that voluntary licensing, rather than changes to copyright law, offers the best path forward for creators seeking compensation when their work is used commercially by AI companies.

“The Committee seems to have ignored this evidence and that of other rightsholder representatives to support the convenient argument that our law must be changed to suit AI companies, otherwise Australian artists will miss out,” Herd said.

“Voluntary licensing is how creators will retain control and be remunerated when AI exploits their work for commercial gain. Australian and international record labels are already negotiating and signing AI licensing deals. It is early days, but the licensing market is developing at pace.”

The latest intervention follows earlier warnings from Herd about the potential consequences of relaxing Australian copyright protections for AI developers.

For ARIA and PPCA, the growing number of licensing agreements is evidence that the market is already developing without legislative intervention. “The evidence is clear that this is not a market failure. It is a failure to acknowledge the market that already exists,” Herd said.

“Why would AI companies do deals in Australia while they are confidently pressuring our Parliament to secure a change in our copyright law that means they won’t ever have to?”