Kylie Minogue and Nick Cave songs already trained AI, music body warns

Songs by Kylie Minogue and Nick Cave have already been used to train artificial intelligence without any payment to the artists, according to the International Confederation of Music Publishers (ICMP). The claim lands as Australia's government faces a warning not to buckle under "strong-arming" from technology companies that want copyright law weakened.

The ICMP is not a fringe voice. It represents Sony, Warner and Universal, plus thousands of independent publishers spread across six continents. When a body of that reach says Australia is becoming an outlier, governments tend to listen.

What exactly has ICMP claimed?

The core allegation is straightforward. AI systems have been trained on the works of Australian artists — Kylie Minogue and Nick Cave are named — and nobody compensated the rightsholders. That training happened under current law, before any reform, which is precisely why the publishers' group is raising the alarm now.

ICMP says tech firms have approached dozens of countries asking them to water down their copyright laws. Its reading of the situation: Australia appears to be the only one actually considering it.

That single word — "appears" — matters. The body is describing an observed pattern, not issuing a legal verdict. But the comparison is the point. Dozens of governments have heard the same lobbying pitch, and in ICMP's assessment, only Canberra is entertaining it.

The takeaway: the music industry believes Australia is moving in a direction no other approached country has taken.

Why does this matter beyond Australia?

Copyright is what turns a song into an income stream for the people who wrote it. If a government narrows that protection so AI developers can train on creative works without paying, the economics of songwriting shift — not just for global stars, but for the publishers and writers beneath them.

The ICMP's membership explains the stakes. Sony, Warner and Universal sit alongside thousands of independents on six continents. A rule change in one English-speaking country can become a template elsewhere, and publishers' groups know it. That's why a body headquartered far from Canberra is wading into Australian policy.

There's also a negotiation dynamic at work. The phrase "strong-arming" — used in warnings about the tech companies' approach — signals that the music industry sees this as pressure, not persuasion. The claim that dozens of countries were approached, and only Australia is considering concessions, is designed to make the Australian government look like the exception rather than the norm.

The takeaway: the fight is about whether AI training on creative work requires payment, and Australia has become the test case.

Who is on each side of this fight?

On one side sits the ICMP, representing the major publishers — Sony, Warner, Universal — and thousands of independents. Its position is that existing copyright law already covers AI training, and that works by artists like Kylie Minogue and Nick Cave have been used without compensation regardless.

On the other side are the technology companies. Their ask, as characterised by the music body, is for governments to water down copyright laws — presumably to clear a legal path for training AI on creative works at scale.

The Australian government sits in the middle. It has been warned, in ICMP's framing, against giving in. No commitment either way has been announced in the material reported here.

Artists themselves carry the practical weight. Minogue and Cave are named as examples of Australian creators whose works have reportedly already been absorbed into AI training data. For them, the debate isn't theoretical — the use has allegedly happened, without payment, under the law as it stands today.

The takeaway: publishers say the harm has already occurred; tech firms want the rules loosened; the government holds the deciding vote.

What happens if Australia does water down copyright?

ICMP's warning implies a sequence. If Australia becomes the first of the dozens of approached countries to relax its copyright laws, it sets a precedent. Other governments watching the outcome gain a worked example — either of a country that resisted the lobbying, or one that didn't.

For Australian artists, the immediate question is compensation. The claim that Minogue's and Cave's works were used without payment suggests that even current law hasn't prevented uncompensated training. Weaker law would make recovery harder still.

For the AI industry, the stakes run the other way. Training data is the raw material of models, and music is a significant part of it. A country that permits training without licensing lowers the cost of building music-capable AI — which is exactly why publishers fear it.

The reported facts give the next milestone: whether the Australian government acts on ICMP's warning, or becomes, in the body's words, the outlier it has already flagged. With dozens of countries having received the same approach and, per ICMP, none other considering a rollback, whatever Canberra does next will be read as a signal well beyond Australia's borders.

The takeaway: one government's decision could shape how AI companies and music rightsholders deal with each other for years.

By Sophie Lindqvist