ABC Radio Interview - AM with Sabra Lane

E&OE

Subjects: Copyright; Artificial Intelligence.

SABRA LANE, HOST: The Federal Government's decided the big tech companies should pay Australian authors and creatives for copyrighted material used to train artificial intelligence computer models. The Government's main economic adviser, the Productivity Commission, had recommended the tech giants be allowed to do that but not pay any compensation. Many in the creative sector described that as theft on a grand scale. The music industry supports the government's decision today; the Australian Recording Industry Association's Chief Executive is Annabelle Hurd.

ANNABELLE HURD, ARIA CEO: [Grab] It's absolutely a critical step in the right direction. The Government has stood up and backed in copyright law as well as artists, creators and rights holders. Basically what they're saying is we will not agree to dilute and weaken our copyright laws so that a small number of very large tech companies can have free and open access to very important and valuable cultural works.

LANE: Consultations will now happen on how artists will be paid and what process should be set up to allow rights holders to sue companies that don't without triggering an expensive, protracted legal process. The Federal Attorney-General is overseeing the changes. Michelle Rowland, thanks for joining AM.

MICHELLE ROWLAND, ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Pleasure.

LANE: The tech giants, including Atlassian's Scott Farquhar, were pushing the Federal Government to include a text and data mining exception to the Copyright Act, which would have enabled these companies to use copyrighted work to train AI models freely without any compensation for a couple of months. The Government has let that argument run. Why wasn't it ruled out weeks ago?

ROWLAND: We made it clear from the outset Sabra, that there would be no weakening by this Government of Australia's copyright laws when it came to artificial intelligence. We have undertaken the task as an appropriate Government would, in terms of consulting widely across the sector and understanding that artificial intelligence has great potential, but also poses a number of risks and challenges to our existing regulatory and legislative environments. To that end, there is a body of work to do around what the copyright environment looks like in the AI world, but we are making it very clear that we will not be entertaining a text and data mining exception. That gives certainty to the environment, but it also enables the creatives of Australia to have that certainty going forward. This is fundamental to their right as people who are generating works to ensure that fairly remunerated for that and that there are fair terms of use.

LANE: This caused a great deal of anxiety because the Productivity Commission recommended that the tech giants be allowed to do this freely. What's changed? What was the compelling argument that convinced you and the Government that the creative sector should be compensated?

ROWLAND: Well, again, I'll say from the outset that we have been very clear that we would not be introducing any changes that would water down the Copyright Act. Those protections are fundamental to Australian creatives and to our sector.

LANE: Sorry to interrupt, but that recommendation was made more than two months ago, and it's caused a great deal of anxiety. If that's the case, why didn't the Government say from the outset they will be protected?

ROWLAND: Firstly, I would say that the Productivity Commission report remains in an interim stage. They were consulting on that. We've also had the opportunity to have a number of public Senate hearings on this very issue. In that time, somewhere around three months, this Government has been working closely both with the tech sector and with our creative sector to ensure that we have not only the right settings in place, but also the right pathway going forward. We are convening today and tomorrow, we'll have the reconstituted Copyright and AI Reference Group within my Department. It is very clear that whilst there is work to do there - that is going to be done in an environment that does not involve a text and data mining exception. That certainty has been welcomed by Australian creators, and I look forward to both the tech sector and business and our Australian creators moving forward with certainty on how AI can be best utilised for the benefit of all Australians in future.

LANE: What happens for those creatives and authors who do not want their work used full stop? Can they stop the tech giants from using their material? Some have already had their works, whole books taken without compensation to train their AI models.

ROWLAND: Well, again, the Copyright Act in Australia is one that is robust, but it is also one that needs to adapt in order to accommodate those challenges of AI. That's precisely what the Copyright and AI Reference Group is looking at. So, for example, those fair legal avenues for copyright use, whether there should be, for example, a new collective licencing framework, or should there be a voluntary framework improving the certainty about how copyright applies to material that might be generated by an Australian creator utilising AI. But one of the key aspects that has come up in the past few months is around enforcement. So, the potential for a small claims forum as an option to better address especially those lower value copyright infringement matters, so it doesn't take the vast amounts of time and money in order to enforce one's legal rights. So, the point you raise is very valid. This is an area where the whole world is grappling with a new disruptor that will not go away in the form of AI. But what we have announced today is making it very clear to not only the sector, Australian creators, tech, but also to the world, that Australia is a place where we value our creators and we will not be enabling the use for free without permission and basically without risk of infringement.

LANE: It's still not clear to me if authors do not want their books taken full stop, they don't want these tech companies to use their creative work to create anything else. Will they have any way or means of saying that cannot happen?

ROWLAND: Well, currently, under the Copyright Act, there are avenues to be able to do that, but there is a lot of conjecture around whether or not the law is clear enough on that front. That is precisely what the reference group is looking at. We will go forward as a Government with an ambitious set of reforms, again with the outcome of making sure that our copyright laws are fit for not only the digital environment as they have been to date, but also in the world of AI.

LANE: Is there a timeline by which you want this done, and do you think that AI created books and songs, for example, should be clearly labelled AI made so that consumers know and they can make that choice to either pay a machine or pay a real life person for their creative output?

ROWLAND: Well, on the second point, I won't offer an opinion on that because that will end up being, I think, not only a question for the reference group, but also a question of legal interpretation. But I will make this point - a number of people whom we have consulted with over the past few months have had a variety of views on that, and these are very valid. They're obviously groups that have been intimately involved with licencing and with ensuring their own copyright protection, so, we will let that run. We'll ensure that there is proper consultation on that, but in terms of timeframes, this is one in which we want to get done expeditiously. We should be clear that the Productivity Commission interim report only came out in the last few months. We are five months or so into this term, but we know that AI is moving rapidly. I can say that across Government and across departments, as across all of the private sector, everyone is looking at the issue of AI and how they need to adapt and potentially what rules or changes need to be put in place. Governments around the world, as I said, are grappling with this as well. So, it's something that we are seeking to do expeditiously, but it's one that we're seeking to do in a very informed way. I can tell you that the collaboration not only with the sector will be important, but we continue to have very strong collaboration right across our Government.

LANE: Ok, expeditiously. Do you want these changes before Parliament by the end of the year, or by the end of June next year? Is there a timeline?

ROWLAND: I'm not putting a timeline on it today. I think that it's important for the reference group to do its work. We will be in part guided by what they see as realistic in terms of whether changes come forward in trenches. But firstly, we need to determine what those changes will be.

LANE: Attorney-General, thanks for talking to AM.

[ENDS]​