Australian authors are expressing strong opposition to a recent interim report from the Productivity Commission (PC) that suggests artificial intelligence (AI) could contribute $116 billion to the Australian economy over the next decade. A key recommendation in the report is to create a text and data mining (TDM) exception to the Copyright Act, which would allow technology companies to use copyrighted materials for AI training without permission from the authors.

Former Atlassian CEO Scott Farquhar previously advocated for a similar TDM exception, claiming it could attract billions in investments to Australia. However, the PC report, titled "Harnessing Data and Digital Technology," has drawn significant backlash from the literary community.

Lucy Hayward, CEO of the Australian Society of Authors (ASA), criticized the proposal, stating it would give a "free pass" to major tech companies like Google, Meta, and OpenAI to exploit authors' works without compensation. "Why should we create a situation where billion-dollar tech companies can profit off authors' work, but not the creators who made the work? It's an entirely absurd proposition," Hayward said.

Arts Minister Tony Burke has yet to provide a formal response to the report but emphasized that unauthorized use of copyrighted material for commercial purposes is theft. "We have copyright laws. We have no plans, no intention, no appetite to be weakening those copyright laws based on this draft report," Burke stated during a speech at the 2025 BookUp conference in Sydney.

Concerns have been raised about tech companies already using unauthorized copyrighted material to train AI systems. Reports have revealed that Meta utilized pirated books by Australian authors, including Hannah Kent and Charlotte Wood, to develop its AI language model. This follows earlier disclosures that databases of pirated content were used to train various AI models, including Meta's Llama and Bloomberg's BloombergGPT.

The proposed TDM exception would allow such practices without compensating authors or obtaining their consent. Commissioner Stephen King, one of the report's authors, acknowledged that the technology could lead to job losses, stating, "There will be people who will lose their jobs because of this technology and those people need to be looked after."

Danielle Clode, an author and ASA board member, expressed her concerns about the report's implications for the arts sector. She argued that the economic framework used by the Productivity Commission is unsuitable for creative industries. "They are asking us to accept wage theft and for an illegal act to be sanctioned retrospectively, which I think is appalling," Clode said.

Copyright fees are a crucial income source for authors, who earn an average of just $18,200 annually in Australia. Clode emphasized the importance of a well-regulated copyright system, stating, "In Australia, we have a very fair and well-regulated copyright system which gives clarity to everybody who uses it."

Wenona Byrne, the inaugural director of Writing Australia, echoed these sentiments, asserting that any weakening of copyright laws would be detrimental to the industry. "We think the copyright law is fit for purpose. It has sustained the industry since 1968 and has accommodated a lot of technological change in that time," she said.

Byrne also highlighted the precarious financial situation many authors face, noting that a TDM exception could further diminish their income and discourage them from creating new works. "It would also disincentivize them to create the work in the first place," she warned.

The rise of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT presents an additional threat to authors. Alice Grundy, a visiting fellow at ANU, questioned the value of the projected economic boost compared to the potential harm to the arts industry. "The potential costs to creatives would far outweigh the relatively small economy-wide benefit that they claimed there would be," Grundy said.

Kate Kruimink, a novelist, found her work listed in a database of pirated content and expressed concern about the future of creative writing. "The end result is going to be that there will be a glut of AI-generated creative works on the market," she said. "It's going to be so much harder to survive as a creative worker."

Geelong writer Rhett Davis emphasized the need for compensation for authors whose work is used for AI training. "If you're going to use something, there needs to be an agreement to pay for it. It's a pretty basic copyright principle," he stated.

A 2025 study by Macquarie University found that 79 percent of authors would refuse permission for their work to be used in AI training. Hayward countered claims that copyright laws hinder innovation, asserting that Australia is a leader in tech and AI development. "We're in the top five global destinations for data centres; we're a world leader in quantum computing," she said.

Hayward believes the PC report fails to recognize the economic opportunities that licensing arrangements could provide for authors. "Instead of considering ways to legitimise this theft, why aren't we exploring ways to protect [authors'] rights?" she asked.