Leaked documents suggest the Albanese government is considering a new approach to copyright that would change how AI companies use Australians’ online content. The proposal, called an “opt-out model”, would let companies use the material unless people take action to stop them.
That could include every family photo posted online, small business websites, written work and other websites. Under current Australian law, a company must ask for permission before using someone’s content. The proposed model would reverse that position and put the responsibility on individuals to opt out.
From permission first to refusal later
Holly Rankin described the issue as a question of control over personal work and property. “This is about protecting the rights of all people to keep their right to decide how their content – their photos, their websites, their written word – is used by AI companies,” she said.
Her concern is simple: the proposal would give AI companies access first, leaving Australians to find out how to refuse. “Right now, under Australian law, a company has to ask for permission if it wants to use your content,” Rankin said. “This proposal would mean it doesn’t.”
She added: “And it would give AI companies rights to your content until you choose to say no.”
AI companies have already scraped billions of pieces of content around the world to train their models. More than 200 cases are live around the world, with writers, journalists, artists, record labels and publishers seeking to prove that this kind of training is illegal.
That legal fight matters because copyright law protects individuals and their property. Every other industry, sector, company and individual has to ask for permission before using content. Rankin argues that trillion-dollar AI companies must follow the same rule.
The pressure on copyright rules
The Australian debate is taking place as governments face pressure from AI companies over access to training material. Last year, the UK decided to hold firm on copyright law when faced with similar pressure. Artists including Elton John, Dua Lipa and Paul McCartney led a campaign there against changes to copyright law.
That example gives Australians a clear comparison. One path keeps permission at the centre of copyright. The other gives AI companies access by default and asks individuals to protect their own work after the fact.
Rankin also questions what the proposal would say about the companies seeking this access. “If the most powerful companies in the world can’t properly licence the content they are training on, or if they can’t create the technology to license their training content properly, we must seriously question their technical and civil competency,” she said.
She put the challenge in even stronger terms: “They can solve diseases, fight wars, they might kill us all, but they can’t licence the content that makes their model ‘intelligent’ in the first place?”
The question is not only whether AI companies can use online material. It is whether they can license their training content properly, or whether they are unable to build systems that respect those permissions. Copyright law is a start for regulating that process.
Why the decision reaches beyond copyright
The proposal would affect more than professional writers, artists and publishers. It could reach ordinary Australians who post family photos, run small business websites or share written work online. Under an opt-out system, those people would need to understand the policy, locate the opt-out process and use it before their content receives protection.
That shift raises questions about fairness. A person who has not given permission could still see their content used unless they take a separate step to prevent it. The government and the Coalition are asking Australians to weaken their rights for the benefit of AI companies, Rankin said, and they must explain that benefit transparently.
“If the Albanese government and the Coalition are requesting that the Australian people weaken their own rights for the benefit of the world’s biggest technology companies, they must explain the benefit transparently to Australians,” she said.
Rankin also described unrestricted access to online material as a national security concern. “Giving AI companies access to every piece of content that Australians have shared online without their permission or consent is a matter of grave concern for national security itself,” she said.
That leaves the Albanese government with a basic public choice. Australians can be asked whether AI companies should train on every piece of content they have ever put online without permission and consent, or whether the government should enforce legal training based on consent.
Rankin’s proposed question is direct: “The Albanese government must put this to the Australian people – do Australians want to let AI companies train on every piece of content they have ever put online, without permission and consent? Or do Australians want the government to be a global leader and force AI companies to train their models legally and with the consent of the people?”
Based on
- Your photos, your words and your work: why is Labor making it easier for AI companies to take them for free? | Holly Rankin — theguardian.com
- As Australia faces an AI-generated future, a human rights act is needed more than ever | Julianne Schultz | The Guardian — theguardian.com
- Why won’t Donald Trump regulate AI? – Decoding America podcast | AI (artificial intelligence) | The Guardian — theguardian.com
