Australian poll backs AI training in-country if creators are paid

Forty-nine percent of respondents supported changing copyright law so AI could be built in Australia under Australian rules while sharing the benefits[1]. Twenty-seven percent preferred keeping current copyright law, even if that made local AI training harder and overseas training on Australian work continued without payment[1]. Another 24 percent were unsure[1]. YouGov conducted the survey of 1,500 people for Diffusion from Sept. 23 to Oct. 1[1]. The poll measures views after presenting a specific scenario; it does not establish support for every possible reform.

Respondents were asked to consider AI systems used in Australia that are mostly trained in the United States on Australian creative work, for which creators are generally unpaid[1]. The scenario said Australian law requires permission to train on creators’ work in Australia but does not cover training overseas[1]. The Albanese government had been working for more than a year on a policy to allow AI training in Australia[1]. It was also open to allowing online content to be scraped by default unless creators opted out, an approach favored by AI companies including Anthropic[1].

The committee prioritized creators retaining control, receiving payment, and having AI systems reflect Australian values and culture[1]. Albanese said creators should control their intellectual property and receive proper payment when it is used[1]. At the same time, music labels and AI platforms have struck licensing deals with Nine Entertainment, the Guardian, Australian Associated Press and News Corp[1]. A counterargument in the evidence rejects the claim that the licensing regime is not working[1]. The evidence also says current arrangements are not facilitating licensing deals for Australian culture and content[1].

The committee result was described as reading like Labor’s own talking points[1]. Independent senator David Pocock said he believed the prime minister’s office had heavily vetted the committee letter, citing tracked changes in the document[1]. Another concern is that a framework enabling dataset importation into Australia could make the country a data-laundering center[1]. The policy debate also includes proposed protections such as penalties for ignoring opt-outs, safeguards for Indigenous cultural and intellectual property, and transparency and audit requirements[3].