Australian culture, resources and democracy for $4,300 a year? Thanks for the offer, tech bros, but no thanks; The Guardian, December 15, 2025

Peter Lewis , The Guardian; Australian culture, resources and democracy for $4,300 a year? Thanks for the offer, tech bros, but no thanks

"According to the Tech Council, AI will deliver $115bn in annual productivity (or about $4,300 per person), rubbery figures generated by industry-commissioned research based on estimates on hours saved with no regard for jobs lost, the distribution of the promised dividend benefit or how the profits will flow.

In return for this ill-defined bounty, Farquhar says our government will need to allow the tech industry to do three things: build a data and text mining exemption to copyright law, rapidly scale data centre infrastructure and allow foreign companies to use these centres without regard for local laws. This is a proposition that demands closer scrutiny.

The use of copyrighted content to train AI has been a burning issue since 2023 when a massive data dredge saw more than 190,000 authors (including me) have our works plundered without our consent to train AI. Musicians and artists too have had their work scraped and repurposed.

This theft has been critical in training the large language models to portray something approaching empathy. It has also allowed paid users to take this stolen content and ape creators, devaluing and diminishing their work in the process. Nick Cave has described this as “replication as travesty”, noting “songs arise out of suffering … data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing.”

The sense of grievance among creators over the erasure of culture is wide and deep. A wave of creators from Peter Garrett to Tina Arena, Anna Funderand Trent Dalton have determined this is the moment to take a stand.

It is not just the performers; journalists, academics, voiceover and visual artists are all being replaced by shittier but cheaper automated products built on the theft of their labour, undermining the integrity of their work and will ultimately take their jobs.

Like fossil fuels, what is being extracted and consumed is the sum of our accumulated history. It goes from metaphor to literal when it comes to the second plank of Farquhar’s pitch: massive spending on industrial infrastructure to accommodate AI.

This imperative to power AI is the justification used by Donald Trump to recharge the mining of fossil fuels, while the industry is beating the “modular nuclear” drum for a cleaner AI revolution. Meanwhile, the OpenAI CEO, Sam Altman, is reassuring us that we don’t need to stress because AI will solve climate change anyway!

The third and final element of Farquhar’s pitch is probably its most revealing. If Australia wants to build this AI nirvana, foreign nations should be given diplomatic immunity for the data centres built and operated here. This quaint notion of the “data embassy” overriding national sovereignty reinforces a growing sense that the tech sector is moving beyond the idea of the nation state governing corporations to that of a modern imperial power.

That’s the premise of Karen Hao’s book The Empire of AI, which chronicles the rise of OpenAI and the choices it made to trade off safety and the public good in pursuit of scale and profit."

Proposal to allow use of Australian copyrighted material to train AI abandoned after backlash; The Guardian, December 19, 2025

Patrick Commins , The Guardian; Proposal to allow use of Australian copyrighted material to train AI abandoned after backlash

"The Productivity Commission has abandoned a proposal to allow tech companies to mine copyrighted material to train artificial intelligence models, after a fierce backlash from the creative industries.

Instead, the government’s top economic advisory body recommended the government wait three years before deciding whether to establish an independent review of Australian copyright settings and the impact of the disruptive new technology...

In its interim report on the digital economy, the commission floated the idea of granting a “fair dealing” exemption to copyright rules that would allow AI companies to mine data and text to develop their large language models...

The furious response from creative industries to the commission’s idea included music industry bodies saying it would “legitimise digital piracy under guise of productivity”."

Eminem sues Australian beach brand 'Swim Shady'; BBC, November 18, 2025

Harry Sekulich, BBC; Eminem sues Australian beach brand 'Swim Shady'

"US rapper Eminem has taken legal action against an Australian beachwear company called Swim Shady, saying its name is too similar to his trademarked rap pseudonym Slim Shady. 

In September, Eminem – whose real name is Marshall B Mathers III – filed a petition to the US Patent and Trademark Office, calling for it to cancel a trademark that was granted to the company. US law requires the company to respond to the petition by next week."

Federal government rules out changing copyright law to give AI companies free rein; Australian Broadcasting Corporation, October 26, 2025

Maani Truu, Australian Broadcasting Corporation; Federal government rules out changing copyright law to give AI companies free rein

"In short: 

The government has definitively ruled out introducing a copyright exemption for artificial intelligence companies training their models on Australian creative works.

Such a carve-out has been fiercely rejected by the creative sector, after it was floated in a Productivity Commission report.

What's next?

A government working group on artificial intelligence and copyright will meet over the next two days to examine whether the current laws need a refresh."

Watering down Australia’s AI copyright laws would sacrifice writers’ livelihoods to ‘brogrammers’; The Guardian, August 11, 2025

 Tracey Spicer, The Guardian; Watering down Australia’s AI copyright laws would sacrifice writers’ livelihoods to ‘brogrammers’

"My latest book, which is about artificial intelligence discriminating against people from marginalised communities, was composed on an Apple Mac.

Whatever the form of recording the first rough draft of history, one thing remains the same: they are very human stories – stories that change the way we think about the world.

A society is the sum of the stories it tells. When stories, poems or books are “scraped”, what does this really mean?

The definition of scraping is to “drag or pull a hard or sharp implement across (a surface or object) so as to remove dirt or other matter”.

A long way from Brisbane or Bangladesh, in the rarefied climes of Silicon Valley, scrapers are removing our stories as if they are dirt.

These stories are fed into the machines of the great god: generative AI. But the outputs – their creations – are flatter, less human, more homogenised. ChatGPT tells tales set in metropolitan areas in the global north; of young, cishet men and people living without disability.

We lose the stories of lesser-known characters in remote parts of the world, eroding our understanding of the messy experience of being human.

Where will we find the stories of 64-year-old John from Traralgon, who died from asbestosis? Or seven-year-old Raha from Jaipur, whose future is a “choice” between marriage at the age of 12 and sexual exploitation?

OpenAI’s creations are not the “machines of loving grace” envisioned in the 1967 poem by Richard Brautigan, where he dreams of a “cybernetic meadow”.

Scraping is a venal money grab by oligarchs who are – incidentally – scrambling to protect their own intellectual property during an AI arms race.

The code behind ChatGPT is protected by copyright, which is considered to be a literary work. (I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.)

Meta has already stolen the work of thousands of Australian writers.

Now, our own Productivity Commission is considering weakening our Copyright Act to include an exemption for text and data mining, which may well put us out of business.

In its response, The Australia Institute uses the analogy of a car: “Imagine grabbing the keys for a rental car and just driving around for a while without paying to hire it or filling in any paperwork. Then imagine that instead of being prosecuted for breaking the law, the government changed the law to make driving around in a rental car legal.”

It’s more like taking a piece out of someone’s soul, chucking it into a machine and making it into something entirely different. Ugly. Inhuman.

The commission’s report seems to be an absurdist text. The argument for watering down copyright is that it will lead to more innovation. But the explicit purpose of the Copyright Act is to protect innovation, in the form of creative endeavour.

Our work is being devalued, dismissed and destroyed; our livelihoods demolished.

In this age of techno-capitalism, it appears the only worthwhile innovation is being built by the “brogrammers”.

US companies are pinching Australian content, using it to train their models, then selling it back to us. It’s an extractive industry: neocolonialism, writ large."

Weaving "Indigenous knowledge" with science crucial for coral; Oceanographic, December 12, 2024

WORDS BY ROB HUTCHINS; PHOTOGRAPHY BY AIMS/PHIL SCHOUTETEN; ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHY BY AIMS/ MARIE ROMAN, Oceanographic; Weaving "Indigenous knowledge" with science crucial for coral

"In a programme that will “weave the knowledge of Australia’s Traditional Owners” with the western sciences, the Institute has since embarked on a new partnership programme that will both empower and inform Traditional Owners and members of Indigenous communities with the practical science behind coral reef management and restoration, while learning about cultural and spiritual connections to these environments in return.

“Australia’s Traditional Owners are the first scientists, farmers, engineers, innovators, and conservationists,” said Anna Marsden, Great Barrier Reef Foundation managing director. “They have successfully nurtured and protected their environment through changing seasons and climates, guided by Traditional Knowledge and customs passed down through generations.

“Weaving this knowledge with western science will help overcome key challenges to protecting our Reef – scaling reef restoration efforts.”"

AI can make up songs now, but who owns the copyright? The answer is complicated; The Conversation, May 13, 2024

Wellett Potter, Lecturer in Law, University of New England , The Conversation; ; AI can make up songs now, but who owns the copyright? The answer is complicated

"With the rapid development of this technology, it is timely to debate whether a similar right of publicity should be introduced in Australia. If so, it would help to safeguard the identity and performance rights of all Australians and also protect against potential AI voice crimes."

Internet Archive’s digital library has been found in breach of copyright. The decision has some important implications; The Conversation, August 22, 2023

Agata Mrva-Montoya, Lecturer, Department of Media and Communications, University of Sydney, The Conversation; Internet Archive’s digital library has been found in breach of copyright. The decision has some important implications

"The outcome of the court case may affect the fate of controlled digital lending more broadly."

Prosecraft has infuriated authors by using their books without consent – but what does copyright law say?; The Conversation, August 9, 2023

Dilan Thampapillai Associate Professor, University of New South Wales, UNSW Sydney , The Conversation; Prosecraft has infuriated authors by using their books without consent – but what does copyright law say?

"In amending its laws, Australia legislated that parody or satire could form the basis of a fair dealing exception. A specific transformative use exception was not created. 

So, it is significantly less clear as to whether the use contemplated by Prosecraft or Shaxpir would be considered fair dealing in Australia. 

Australia has either missed a trick or dodged a bullet by failing to include transformative use as a fair dealing exception. It depends where you stand in the ongoing conflict between AI tech and human authors. But Australia’s laws are less AI-friendly than the US.

For the moment, published human authors are banking on the idea that if they can knock out the shadow library, they can hobble the reach of AI tech."

Intellectual property waiver for COVID vaccines should be expanded to include treatments and tests; The Conversation, November 21, 2022

Deborah Gleeson, Associate Professor in Public Health, La Trobe University, Dianne Nicol
Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Tasmania, James Scheibner
Lecturer in Law, Flinders University, The Conversation;

 Intellectual property waiver for COVID vaccines should be expanded to include treatments and tests

"Low and middle-income countries have been impacted disproportionately by the pandemic so far, suffering 85% of the estimated 14.9 million excess deaths in 2020 and 2021. 

Globally, progress in reducing extreme poverty was set back three to four years during 2020–21. But low-income countries lost eight to nine years of progress.

Expanding the WTO decision on COVID vaccines to include treatments and tests could be vital to reduce the health burden on poorer countries from COVID and enable them to recover from the pandemic. The Australian government should get behind this initiative and encourage other countries to do the same."

Aboriginal flag copyright transferred to Commonwealth, as artist agrees to make flag freely available to all; ABC News, January 24, 2022

Jake Evans, ABC News; Aboriginal flag copyright transferred to Commonwealth, as artist agrees to make flag freely available to all

"The iconic flag that has become a symbol of Aboriginal Australia is now freely available for public use, after its designer agreed to transfer copyright to the Commonwealth following long negotiations.

Luritja artist Harold Thomas created the flag in 1970 to represent Aboriginal people and their connection to the land, and it has been an official national flag since the end of the last century — but its copyright remained with Mr Thomas.

Anyone who wanted to use the flag legally had to ask permission or pay a fee.

Indigenous Affairs Minister Ken Wyatt said following negotiations with Mr Thomas, the flag now belonged to all Australians...

Copyright issues with the flag had repeatedly drawn conflict, such as when Mr Thomas handed the rights to use the flag on clothing to a non-Indigenous company, which later threatened legal action against the NRL and AFL for using the flag on player uniforms.

That led to Mr Wyatt encouraging football fans to drape themselves in the Aboriginal flag in protest.

Mr Thomas will retain moral rights over the flag, but has agreed to give up copyright in return for all future royalties the Commonwealth receives from flag sales to be put towards the ongoing work of NAIDOC.

The government has also agreed to establish an annual scholarship in Mr Thomas's honour worth $100,000 for Indigenous students to develop skills in leadership, and to create an online history and education portal for the flag."

Australia to reform copyright laws in face of digital and COVID-19 world; ZDNet, August 13, 2020

Campbell Kwan , ZDNet; Australia to reform copyright laws in face of digital and COVID-19 world

The changes include a new fair dealing exception that allows cultural and educational institutions, governments, and other persons engaged in public interest or personal research to quote copyright material.

"The Australian government has announced it will make reforms to the nation's copyright laws in a bid to better support the needs of Australians in an increasingly digital environment.

The decision comes after two years of industry consultation and is the government's response to copyright recommendations made by the Productivity Commission four years ago...  

"The need for change has been further highlighted during COVID-19, with schools, universities, cultural institutions, and governments moving more services online."  

The proposed copyright reforms are focused on five main measures: Introducing a limited liability scheme for use of orphan works; a new fair dealing exception for non-commercial quotation; amendments to library and archives exceptions; amendments to education exceptions; and streamlining the government's statutory licensing scheme."

Explainer: who owns the copyright to your tattoo?; The Conversation, August 10, 2020

Marie Hadley, The Conversation; Explainer: who owns the copyright to your tattoo?

"So, why don’t tattooists sue over copying?

In some art industries, there can be a big gap between holding rights and exercising them. 

To tattooists, appropriation is mostly seen as a matter of ethics or manners rather than law...

These norms aside, copyright law does apply to tattoos. Whether or not more tattoo enthusiasts will seek an appropriate licence, as occurred in the case of Jarrangini (buffalo), or a copyright owner will sue for a rights violation, is another matter."

Bondi Beach at centre of trademark tussle between Sydney cosmetics company and Abercrombie & Fitch By Jano Gibson; ABC, July 26, 2017

Jano Gibson, ABC; Bondi Beach at centre of trademark tussle between Sydney cosmetics company and Abercrombie & Fitch

"The United States retailer, which has no presence in Australia, is the registered owner of the 'Bondi Beach' trademark in the US for a range of products, including beauty lotions, body sprays and fragrances.

When Sydney company Bondi Wash applied to trademark its name in the US, it was prevented from doing so because of the similarity to Abercrombie & Fitch's existing rights.

The case has raised concerns about foreign companies gaining exclusive ownership of high-profile Australian place names in their branding."

Amazon takes on small WA retailer Live Clothing in 'Glamazon' trademark stoush; ABC, July 24, 2017

Frances Bell, ABC; Amazon takes on small WA retailer Live Clothing in 'Glamazon' trademark stoush

"Live Clothing has been the registered owner of the Glamazon trademark for clothing, footwear and headgear since 1999, but has recently applied to extend the trademark to a wider range of retail and wholesale services.

But documents lodged with IP Australia show the application has been opposed by Amazon Technologies, which owns the trademark for the name "Glamazon fashionweek".

Glamazon is also the name of an internal Amazon social group for LGBTIQ employees, promoting diversity in the workplace."

Fair Use Vs Fair Dealing: How Australian Copyright Law Differs; Lifehacker, July 18, 2017

Nicolas Suzor, Lifehacker; Fair Use Vs Fair Dealing: How Australian Copyright Law Differs

"Copyright law sometimes allows you to use someone else’s work - as long as it’s fair. In Australia this is called “fair dealing”, and it’s different to the law in the US, which is called “fair use”. We explain the difference.

These exceptions are safety valves in copyright law – they allow lots of beneficial uses that society has agreed copyright owners should not be able to charge for, or worse, prevent.

There’s a serious ongoing debate about whether Australia should update its copyright laws and introduce fair use. The current law is not easy to understand – our research shows that Australian creators are often confused about their rights – and many think we already have fair use.

Fair dealing: What can you do in Australia?

The key difference between “fair use” and “fair dealing” is that Australia’s “fair dealing” laws set out defined categories of acceptable uses. As we will see, “fair use” in the US is much more flexible.

Australian copyright law sets out five situations where use of copyrighted material without permission may be allowed:

• research or study
• criticism or review
• parody or satire
• reporting the news
• provision of legal advice.

We’ll explain the first four, as they’re most useful to the average Australian."

Intellectual Property: Copyright rules make us break the law 80 times a day, says Productivity Commission; Sydney Morning Herald, 12/20/26

Peter Martin, Intellectual Property: Copyright rules make us break the law 80 times a day, says Productivity Commission:

"If you are anything like the typical Australian, you probably break the copyright law 80 times a day, according to figures included in the Productivity Commission's final report to the government on intellectual property.

Most of the breaches are harmless, things such as including a copy of an email in the reply to an email. But the commission says that laws that are routinely flouted are bad laws, bringing themselves into disrepute.

In place of the labyrinthine system of complicated rules governing what can or can't be copied, the report released on Tuesday recommends the US system of fair use, under which the use of copyrighted material is legal so long as it is fair, taking into account the purpose of the use, the nature of the work, the amount copied and the effect on the potential market value of the work."

Piracy discussion paper focuses on copyright stick not content carrot; Gen Why? via ZDNet, 7/31/14

Josh Taylor, Gen Why? via ZDNet; Piracy discussion paper focuses on copyright stick not content carrot:

"If we are to understand the government's move to crack down on online copyright infringement from its now-officially-released discussion paper, the plan is to disproportionately address the symptoms without addressing the underlying causes.

Censoring websites and forcing ISPs to police their consumers' internet use seems to be the main thrust of the questions arising from the discussion paper released by Attorney-General George Brandis and Communications Malcolm Turnbull yesterday...

For now, it seems like any new legislation brought in will be all about making it harder for customers and ISPs. As one executive remarked to me recently, the government is being very small government when it comes to the copyright industry, and very big government when it comes to consumers and the telecommunications industry."

WIPO Director General Election: How It Works; Intellectual Property Watch, 2/3/14

William New, Intellectual Property Watch; WIPO Director General Election: How It Works:

"On 6 March, the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization will hold its once-every-six-year election for a director general, a prized post in the multilateral system. Tomorrow (4 February), the candidates will face member states and answer their questions. Intellectual Property Watch explains the election process.

On 6-7 March, the WIPO Coordination Committee, a rotating executive body of 83 WIPO member states (out of nearly 200), will hold an extraordinary meeting to decide on a director general (DG)...

The new DG will take over in October 2014, until 2020...

There are four candidates running for the DG post (IPW, WIPO, 6 December 2013), having been nominated by their governments by the December deadline.

The candidates are current DG Francis Gurry (Australia), Deputy DG Geoffrey Onyeama (Nigeria), Amb. Jüri Seilenthal (Estonia), and Amb. Alfredo Suescum (Panama)."

Telstra left hanging on copyright ruling; Sydney Morning Herald, 8/23/10

Clare Kermond, Sydney Morning Herald; Telstra left hanging on copyright ruling:

"TELSTRA faces an anxious wait, likely to be several months, to learn the fate of its legal battle to protect the copyright of its Yellow Pages and White Pages directories."

http://www.smh.com.au/business/telstra-left-hanging-on-copyright-ruling-20100822-13aud.html