ABC Rejects AI Copyright Carveout as Tech Giants Push for Access: Who Should Pay?
Synopsis
Australia's ABC rejects an AI copyright carveout, says current laws are adequate, and believes tech giants have probably already scraped its content for training.
Key Highlights
- Australia’s national broadcaster, the ABC, told a parliamentary inquiry on Tuesday that there is no need for a carve-out, with current copyright laws being enough to handle AI.
- OpenAI and Anthropic have called for Australia to relax its copyright laws so they can access locally produced content.
- The ABC does not have definitive evidence that its content was “scraped” for AI training, but believes it probably has been.
- The ABC says there are no plans to replace its newsreaders with AI.
What Happened
The ABC challenged the idea that it is too difficult for AI companies to strike licensing agreements to use its content. Kate Gilchrist, the ABC’s head of content and legal operations, told a parliamentary inquiry into AI that the copyright system is entirely suitable to run the business of AI. AI companies can negotiate with rights holders for the licences they need, she said.
This follows calls from OpenAI, and Anthropic, to ask Australia to loosen its copyright laws so AI companies can access locally produced content.
Media reports say the government is considering an “opt-out” clause. Under such a system, AI companies could use content unless the owner objects. Gilchrist said this would put the burden on rights holders.
We cannot scour the internet and ensure that we are opting out on all those sites. It simply does not work, she said.
Asked whether the ABC believed AI companies had used its content without paying, Gilchrist said there was no definitive evidence that scraping had taken place. However, she said the ABC expected that it probably had.
The enquiry is being conducted by the Joint Select Committee on artificial intelligence, one of at least four state and federal enquiries currently examining the technology in Australia. Representatives from OpenAI and Anthropic are also scheduled to appear before the same inquiry later on Tuesday.
Why It Matters
This is ultimately a fight over who carries the responsibility.
Under an opt-out system, creators would have to find every place where their work appears online and object, one site at a time. Under the current approach, the AI company has to seek permission first. The ABC argues that this system is fairer and already works.
The ABC’s admission also highlights a much bigger problem. Even a major broadcaster cannot say with certainty whether its content has been taken and used for AI training. If an organisation of that size struggles to track where its content goes, smaller creators and businesses are in an even weaker position.
What Founders Can Learn From This
Whether you publish blogs, videos, reports or product guides, your content has value, and someone else may already be using it.
The ABC’s situation shows that the rules around AI and copyright are still being shaped. The outcome could ultimately determine who gets paid for the content they create.
If you're a founder who is using AI tools for their business, the lesson for you is quite different. Not knowing where your AI tool is getting its data from can become a business problem when a customer, a partner and a regulator start asking questions.
The Inspirepreneur Question
Should the creator have to pay the cost of protecting their intellectual property, or should that responsibility fall on the company that wants to use it?
Source: Reuters
At Inspirepreneurs Magazine, covering entrepreneurship, business failures, and the human stories behind the world's most ambitious founders. She writes at the intersection of strategy and storytelling.
