IFPI warns Australia against 'ridiculous and dangerous' AI copyright weakening

The global peak body for the music recording industry has warned the Albanese government that weakening copyright protections for AI companies would be "ridiculous and dangerous" and a "disaster for creativity."

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), which represents recording industry bodies worldwide, said its members are watching with concern as the Australian government weighs big tech's demands for relaxed copyright rules — demands other nations have rejected.

IFPI CEO Victoria Oakley posed the question directly: "Why would Australia do this? Why would a sophisticated, democratic country that has a phenomenal cultural power of its own, choose to make this very odd decision and buy into the promises of a few large AI companies, and throw away their own culture and creativity?"

Oakley, speaking to Guardian Australia, framed the stakes in national terms.

"I don't think Australia wants to be the weakest link in this situation, the one that believed the promises and gave in and threw creativity under the bus on behalf of everyone else. That doesn't feel very Australian to me," she said.

Her sharpest warning concerned jurisdictional reach. A relaxed Australian regime would not stay confined to Australian music.

"You just need one safe harbour, because then you can train on music from anywhere in the world. So this isn't just about Australian music and Australian culture; it's about music and culture everywhere," Oakley said.

Why is Australia reconsidering copyright now?

The Labor government is considering copyright changes within a broader suite of AI policy overhauls covering datacentres, online safety, the workforce, energy and the economy. The review has drawn submissions from AI companies arguing they need looser rules to train models on Australian material.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has publicly promised "the strongest possible protection" for creatives and warned it would be "theft" if creative workers were not paid for their work. But creative industries grew alarmed after AI companies formally requested a weakening of copyright law to permit training on Australian content without prior licensing.

Some AI companies have rejected licensing agreements under existing copyright law, arguing the process is too difficult. Anthropic suggested an "opt-out" model: it would scrape content by default unless rights holders actively signalled an objection. That inversion of the traditional permission-first copyright structure is the crux of the dispute.

Large AI companies say they require legal certainty on copyright before committing investment in Australia or training models on Australian soil. The implicit argument is that weak copyright protections would attract AI investment; strong ones would repel it.

What is IFPI's counter-argument?

Oakley rejected that bargain outright. She said AI companies have made identical proposals in the US, the UK and other nations, and that Australia should not be the government that accepts them.

"I just don't think it's true that you will only get investment or growth, or be seen as pro-innovation, if you entirely give in to the demands of AI companies," Oakley said.

She said IFPI has been briefing governments internationally on the Australian debate.

"We've been talking to capitals around the world, saying 'are you seeing what's going on in Australia?' We think this is a disaster for creativity," she said.

Oakley said she worries about AI and copyright "everywhere," but fears "Australia appears to be threatening to do something really ridiculous and dangerous."

Creative industries also fear a "contagion" effect, she said — if Australia caved in, other governments could follow, and copyright material from anywhere in the world could be swept into AI training sets. That is the mechanism behind her "one safe harbour" warning: a single permissive jurisdiction can serve as the training ground for models used globally.

What has the government actually said?

Attorney General Michelle Rowland said via a spokesperson last week that the government is "committed to supporting" creatives and pledged that "any future copyright changes deliver meaningful control and fair compensation."

That statement leaves open the central question: whether "meaningful control and fair compensation" is compatible with an opt-out regime, or whether the government will hold the existing opt-in licensing line. Local creative industries have raised constitutional issues and threatened political backlash over any weakening, while IFPI has added international pressure.

Oakley declined to speculate on potential legal or constitutional challenges, which the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) has raised. But she said capitulation would damage Australia's standing in the creative world.

"It would be a huge mistake, and I think the prize is not worth what you're throwing away," she said.

Can licensing actually work?

The dispute has produced a concrete clash over feasibility. In recent answers to a parliamentary committee on AI, OpenAI responded to questions from independent senator David Pocock about why it could not replicate the kind of deals Spotify has made. OpenAI argued the music streaming giant "has a different business, where it primarily transmits un-transformed copyrighted content, so would be expected to license content that it streams."

The implication: because AI models transform the material they ingest, Spotify-style licensing is not the right template.

Oakley called that position untenable. Music labels have already signed dozens of licensing deals with smaller AI companies around the world, she said, proving the market can function.

"It is perfectly possible to license. I'm almost shocked that these words are coming out of the mouths of some of the larger AI companies … We already know how to license music to tech platforms because that's exactly how Spotify works, or Amazon Music, Apple, or Tidal," Oakley said.

Her argument rests on precedent. The recorded music industry spent two decades building licensing machinery for streaming platforms, and that machinery already works for AI firms willing to use it.

"You have a ready, willing set of rights holders who want to license with a history of licensing in the streaming world, but also current evidence of licensing to AI firms. Let's let the market do what it needs to do. Come to us and we'll make it work," she said.

What happens next?

The government's AI policy package — spanning copyright, datacentres, online safety, workforce, energy and the economy — remains under consideration. Rowland's pledge of "meaningful control and fair compensation" will be tested against the AI industry's demand for an opt-out regime and its warning that investment depends on legal certainty.

The decision carries weight beyond Australia. As Oakley noted, one permissive jurisdiction gives AI developers a lawful base to train on music from every market, which is why IFPI is lobbying capitals worldwide to watch the Australian outcome. Whether Australia follows the US and UK in rejecting the AI companies' terms, or becomes what Oakley called "the weakest link," will shape licensing pressure on rights holders far outside the country.