Australia's music industry is pushing back against proposals that could allow artificial intelligence companies to train models on copyrighted material without first obtaining permission from rightsholders. Annabelle Herd, Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) and Phonographic Performance Company of Australia (PPCA), spoke before an Australian parliamentary committee in October 2026, arguing that AI developers should negotiate licenses with rightsholders rather than seek broad copyright exceptions or opt-out arrangements.
ARIA is the trade association representing Australia's recorded music industry, including record labels and recording companies.
PPCA is a music licensing organization that collects and distributes public performance and broadcast royalties for sound recordings on behalf of recording rightsholders and eligible artists.
Herd summarized her position by stating, “They should come to the negotiating table, not to the Prime Minister’s office.” Industry representatives maintain that existing copyright protections provide an established foundation for licensing and compensation.
For record labels, publishers and songwriters, the outcome could help determine whether AI training develops into a negotiated licensing market or becomes an activity permitted under statutory exceptions. The distinction is economically significant: a licensing requirement allows rightsholders to negotiate compensation and contractual restrictions, while a broad exception could reduce their control over how copyrighted works are used.
Different approaches are already emerging internationally. In the United States, courts are examining whether AI training on copyrighted material qualifies as fair use. The United Kingdom considered a broad AI-training copyright exception with an opt-out mechanism but stated in March 2026 that this was no longer its preferred approach. The European Union permits certain text-and-data-mining activities under copyright exceptions, including a general exception subject to rightsholders reserving their rights, while introducing additional AI transparency obligations. Japan permits certain uses of copyrighted works for information analysis under Article 30-4 of its Copyright Act, subject to limitations protecting rightsholders' interests. These differences could influence where AI companies train their models, how licensing agreements are negotiated and whether music creators receive compensation for the use of their works.
What Happens Next?
The Australian parliamentary inquiry is scheduled to deliver its final report by November 30, 2026. The committee is examining the relationship between artificial intelligence, copyright protections and the interests of Australian creators and businesses.
The report may include recommendations addressing whether existing copyright law should remain unchanged, whether AI developers should obtain negotiated licenses, or whether Australia should consider alternative approaches to training permissions and compensation.
The committee's recommendations will not automatically become law. Any proposed legislative changes would require further government consideration and, where necessary, parliamentary approval.
For music publishers and rightsholders, the next significant development will be whether the committee recommends preserving existing licensing requirements or introducing exceptions that could change the negotiating position of copyright owners.
Until then, the industry's existing legal framework remains in place, and no new general AI-training copyright exception has been enacted as a result of this inquiry.
Join the discussion