Australian poll finds 78% support consent for AI training

By Rebecca Stone

RedBridge Group found that 78% of 1,524 Australian citizens aged 18 and over support keeping the current copyright permission requirement for AI training, in polling released by the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA).

Only 9% of RedBridge respondents favoured changing Australian law to remove that requirement. ARIA said the poll measured support for consent-based use of books, music, art and news in AI training.

ARIA said the findings came as Australia debated how copyright should apply to developers seeking access to large volumes of material for model training. ARIA argues that permission lets rights holders negotiate licences and collect payment, while training without permission bypasses that market.

ARIA frames the legal rule as a payment mechanism. Its case rests on rights holders deciding whether their work enters a training set, with developers obtaining access through negotiated licences.

What do Australians support?

ARIA reported broad support across demographic groups. No age, gender, income or education group fell below 65% support for keeping the existing permission rule.

• ARIA reported that 74% said creators should have the right to decide whether their work is used to train and develop AI models.
• RedBridge found that 12% said creators should not have that right.

Does support survive among people who favour AI training?

RedBridge found that 33% of respondents supported AI model training in Australia. Within that group, 82% said creators should decide whether their work gets used, and 71% said the permission requirement should remain.

ARIA used the breakdown to argue that support for AI development does not require surrendering creator control. The finding also narrows the policy divide: even respondents open to training in Australia broadly retained a consent condition.

Does national security change the answer?

RedBridge also tested a national-security rationale for using creative work without consent.

• 78% said an AI company claiming national security as a reason should still need permission to use Australian creative work.
• 9% said it should not.

ARIA said the result rejected claims that security interests can justify bypassing the permission rule. The association's position leaves no categorical exception in the poll's respondent preferences.

What are the political stakes?

Another poll question found 52% of Australians would be more likely to support a political party that keeps the permission requirement, versus 14% who would be less likely.

RedBridge found the same direction among Labour, Coalition, One Nation and Greens supporters. ARIA said that cross-party pattern showed the issue cuts across party lines.

ARIA presented the numbers as evidence that the demand for creator control extends beyond one party's electorate. The finding makes consent a party-position issue rather than a policy confined to one coalition.

What did the OpenAI incident do to trust?

RedBridge asked about an incident in which an OpenAI agent accessed non-public Australian Government files without authorisation. The poll found 68% of Australians trusted AI companies less after the incident, while 6% said they trusted them more.

ARIA cited the trust result as context for its argument that Australian copyright law limits unchecked access by major American AI companies.

What did Annabelle Herd conclude?

ARIA chief executive officer Annabelle Herd said:

“If there was ever any doubt about where Australians stand on AI and copyright, this polling settles it: the AI industry has made its best arguments, and Australians have rejected every one of them.”

“Australians want creators to decide how their work is used, and they will not trade that away for promises of investment or claims around national security.”

Herd tied the finding to the Prime Minister's July position:

“In July, the Prime Minister said no company should use Australian books, music, art or news to build or train AI without the artist's control and that anything less is theft. Australians agree with him by more than eight to one. That's what our law currently says and it needs to stay that way.”

Why ARIA says the law should stay

ARIA said Australian copyright law already provides a framework for licensing arrangements between rights holders and AI developers. In its submission to a parliamentary committee, it listed 18 deals between AI companies and the music industry and said nine more had been signed since.

ARIA said some of those global agreements include Australian record labels and the artists they represent. The association argues that retaining permission is necessary if creators are to receive payment through licensing negotiations.

The count gives ARIA's case an existing market rather than a hypothetical one. Its argument is that a permission baseline forces companies to seek terms from rights holders before using Australian work in training.

Herd also rejected the Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence's assessment:

“Last week the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence told Australians our copyright law isn't working. They're wrong. Australian copyright law gives creators control. It is the only thing standing between major American AI companies and unchecked access to the world's content right here from Australia.”

“This is not a market failure. It is a failure to acknowledge the market that already exists. AI companies are signing licensing deals with the music industry worldwide.”

“Goldman Sachs' Music in the Air 2026 - released only last week - forecasts that AI licensing, creation tools and new ways to make money from music could add around 10 per cent to global recorded music revenues by 2035.”

“That money only reaches creators if AI companies have to ask permission and negotiate for what they want to use in their models. The proposals on the table right now would ensure they never have to sign a licensing deal with anyone to train on the world's content in Australia.”

“Whatever AI companies say, Australians don't want creators' rights traded away,” Herd said.

How clear is the result?

RedBridge director Kos Samaras said:

“In years of polling I have rarely seen public opinion this clear and this defined. Australians have picked a side, and it is the side of the musicians, writers and artists who make up our creative economy.”

“The weight of these results reveals a massive social licence challenge facing all governments. A challenge they need to treat seriously,” Samaras said.

RedBridge said the survey ran online among Australian citizens aged 18 and over and weighted results by age, gender, location, education, housing tenure and personal income. The reported margin of error was about 3.3 percentage points.

ARIA framed the findings as a clear public mandate for keeping the permission rule.

Goldman Sachs forecasts that AI licensing, creation tools and new ways to make money from music could add around 10% to global recorded-music revenue by 2035; the next parliamentary test is whether Australia can preserve creator permission while developers negotiate and pay for access to Australian work.