August 7, 2025

The Australian Government’s Productivity Commission thinks that creating the ability for AI companies to legally mine Australian artists’ IP, and train their machines on that IP, will be good for the economy.

This week, the Commission released an Interim Report titled 'Harnessing Data and Digital Technology', in which it has put forward a proposal to that effect, by suggesting a new fair dealing exception in the Copyright Act for text and data mining (TDM). 

It should go without saying how much cultural damage this would do to the Australian identity. As our peers at APRA AMCOS and ARIA/PPCA have already highlighted, this proposed exception is extremely detrimental and infringes upon the very basis of valuable IP created by Australian artists (Australian songs, stories, art, research and creative works, etc).  And similarly, as the Australian Association of Voice Actors (AAVA) have stated, it “leaves the door open for AI developers to use the biometric data of every Australian whose voice or image has been recorded to train AI applications that can digitally reproduce their likeness, create deep fakes and voice clones”.

What makes this proposal especially alarming, is the multitude of data and reports (some from the government itself) that highlight how crucial this area is to protect right now, such as:

• The Senate Select Committee’s final report on Artificial Intelligence that highlighted the urgent need for guardrails to protect IP, not threaten it.

• The Commission’s 2022 Aboriginal arts and crafts report which called for firm action against fake Indigenous art, new cultural rights legislation, and the importance of protecting Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP).

• APRA AMCOS’s award-winning AI and Music report which called for urgent regulation, or else we could see a 23% in music revenues (approx. $519M) due to the very practice that the Commission is looking to enable (reproduction of music by generative AI platforms).

But what has left us ultimately confused, is the main motivations behind why the Commission would want to implement this exception in the first place.

The Commission estimates that AI adoption could contribute around A$116 billion in economic gains over the next decade. This figure, however, is a total estimate of AI-driven economic gains, not specifically tied to text and data mining. It aggregates gains from efficiency, automation, new business models, and technology diffusion—not exclusively from copyright inputs or creative content. There is no explicit attribution to TDM or copyright exceptions. There is no published sub-estimate for how much comes from training AI with licensed music, books, academic articles, or creative works. So if this figure (or an unknown contribution to it from TDM) is a motivation for this proposed exception, is that worth completely decimating the entire creative and cultural industries in Australia - and Australia’s cultural sovereignty at that? The financial incentive is not accurate here, especially when countered by the economic damage that would be done to the creative industries…

As per the Bass Line Report (commissioned by Music Australia), in FY24, the Australian music industry alone generated $8.78B in revenue. Over 10 years (without growth), that’s $87.8B from one cultural industry. APRA AMCOS’ AI & Music report predicts 23% drop in music revenues over four years due to unchecked AI scraping (and that’s just the unchecked kind!).

This does not include the broader creative economy: publishing, screen, games, visual arts, and more. The wider creative industries represent over $17B/year in direct economic value, and more in indirect and cultural value. If AI training (enabled by TDM exceptions) leads to a 20–30% loss across multiple sectors, the cumulative economic harm could outweigh AI productivity gains.

Aside from the massive economic and cultural damage to this country, those that would be hit hardest are Australian-owned IP and SMEs, not offshore platforms. In fact, it’s off-shore Big Tech platforms that have everything to gain from this proposal. The proposed TDM exception is intended to help Australian indie developers and start-ups access data to build competitive AI tools, but it simply shifts the problem from one group of small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) to another - namely, Australian artists, musicians, writers, and other creators. These are also SMEs, but ones who will have even less power to protect their rights when big tech companies mine their work without consent or compensation. Instead of levelling the playing field, the proposal risks further entrenching power imbalances by enabling global platforms to extract value from Australian creative IP with no meaningful safeguards for those who created it.

Another argument for this proposal by the Commission is that TDM is “vital for research, discovery, and innovation in science and medicine” (Interim Report, p. 132) which is critical to public interest research organisations, universities, and start-ups. But in no world, should creative works be included in these utilitarian examples; something which the Copyright Law already acknowledges by ensuring that companies can’t have carte blanche access to all Australian art.

The Productivity Commission’s $116B figure deceivingly presents their proposal as a net positive for Australia’s economy, but we question whether an accurate cost-benefit analysis has taken place. The proposed change, looped under the banner of vast economic gain, masks the real economic damage a text and data mining exception would cause to IP-driven sectors like music, publishing, film, and art. The commission’s modelling is too vague, too general, and too disconnected from the economic realities of the industries it proposes to deregulate.

The Commission assumes that the economic and social benefits of AI, if this proposed exception is implemented, will outweigh the damage. But we are the industries that will be directly affected by this proposal, and we are all saying that it will result in catastrophic losses for Australia’s cultural and creative industries, and the economy alike. It doesn’t make sense, and we call for it to be rejected.

The Commission is accepting feedback to the Report via written submissions HERE until 5pm AEST Monday 15 September 2025. If you agree with our position, please make it known.

For any further queries, please contact the AAM Executive Director Maggie Collins on maggie@aam.org.au.