AI copyright changes risk constitutional breach and global compensation claims, experts warn
Proposed Australian laws allowing AI firms to scrape copyrighted content may violate constitutional property rights and expose the government to massive compensation claims.
At a glance
- Proposed Australian copyright changes allowing AI scraping may breach constitutional property rights under section 51.
- Legal experts including Anne Twomey warn the government could face massive compensation claims from global rights holders.
- The attorney general's department is reviewing concerns raised by Coalition senators and the recording industry.
Proposed changes to Australian copyright law that would let AI companies scrape music, books and journalism face potential constitutional challenges and could expose the government to massive compensation claims, legal experts and Coalition senators have warned.
The attorney general's department acknowledged it was "extremely alive" to the issue, while constitutional law expert Anne Twomey said there was "potentially" a concern that granting AI firms permission to use copyrighted material could amount to an acquisition of property by the government under section 51 of the constitution.
The debate centres on whether such changes would require "just terms" compensation for rights holders, echoing the legal principles explored in the film The Castle. Nationals senator Ross Cadell warned that Australia could be liable for compensation for every rights holder globally if an opt-out model is adopted.
Shadow attorney general Michaelia Cash cautioned the government against "selling out" Australian creators in a rush to attract AI investment. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has previously stated that failing to pay creatives for their work would amount to "theft".
Some AI companies, including Anthropic, have proposed an opt-out system where content can be scraped unless rights holders deploy digital protections. However, critics argue this could breach constitutional protections around property acquisition.
Anne Twomey noted that while no formal legislative proposal has been released, the government would need to be "quite confident" about whether section 51 applies before enacting any changes. She referenced previous high court cases involving copyright and property rights, including those related to video games and plain packaging.
The Australian Recording Industry Association's Annabelle Herd described any move to allow AI scraping as "clearly an acquisition of property", warning it could lead to "the biggest compensation rights case in history".
Chris Maund of Mushroom Records expressed concern that international rights holders could take legal action in Australia if copyright law is weakened, allowing AI companies to train on Australian-hosted data while circumventing protections elsewhere.
A spokesperson for Attorney General Michelle Rowland reiterated the government's commitment to supporting creatives and ensuring any copyright changes deliver "meaningful control and fair compensation".
Source: The Guardian World
Questions and answers
- What constitutional issue could AI copyright changes cause in Australia?
- Allowing AI companies to scrape copyrighted material may constitute an acquisition of property by the government under section 51 of the constitution, requiring just terms compensation.
- Who has raised concerns about the proposed AI copyright changes?
- Coalition senators, constitutional expert Anne Twomey, the recording industry, and the attorney general's department have all expressed concerns about potential constitutional breaches.
- What model are AI companies like Anthropic proposing?
- Anthropic has suggested an opt-out model allowing AI scraping unless rights holders deploy digital protections signaling objection to their content being used.
