Australia has taken a significant step in the ongoing debate over how technology companies can use copyrighted content to train artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Attorney General Michelle Rowland announced that the country will consult on revisions to its copyright laws but will not include a Text and Data Mining (TDM) exception. This decision comes amid growing pressure from the AI sector in Canada, where there is currently no TDM exception in the Copyright Act.

In Canada, the government is seeking public input on a consultation paper regarding AI. The Canadian cultural sector is mobilizing to protect creators' rights, urging the government to avoid modifying the Copyright Act to allow TDM or any exceptions that would enable technology developers to use protected works for training generative AI systems without authorization or compensation. This stance mirrors the strong opposition from Australian creators against a proposal from the Productivity Commission, which suggested adopting a TDM exception in its August report.

AI technology is increasingly reliant on vast amounts of content for training, often favoring copyrighted material. Historically, AI developers have opted to use this content without permission, leading to numerous lawsuits worldwide. A notable case involved Anthropic, which recently agreed to a $1.5 billion settlement in a class-action lawsuit filed by authors in the United States.

In the U.S., AI developers argue that their use of copyrighted material falls under fair use. However, they are also beginning to license content from various sources, including media, music, and image companies. Internationally, AI companies are advocating for broad TDM exceptions to avoid negotiating with content owners. Despite this, voluntary licensing agreements are becoming more common.

Australia's rejection of a TDM exception aims to prevent the creation of a "get out of jail free" card for the tech industry, which could undermine the emerging licensing market. The future of Australia's AI and copyright review remains uncertain, but it will not include TDM. The review will consider options like collective licensing, which could help ensure that individual rights-holders are compensated fairly, as opposed to agreements made solely with large corporate entities.

However, Australia must avoid compulsory licensing, which would strip copyright owners of their rights to withhold consent or impose limitations on the use of their work. A voluntary licensing framework is seen as a more equitable solution.

Both Canada and Australia share a commitment to protecting their unique cultural identities amid global cultural homogenization. This shared goal underscores the importance of carefully navigating the intersection of technology and copyright law as the landscape continues to evolve.