APRA AMCOS Rejects ‘Disappointing’ AI Loophole In Productivity Commission Report

APRA AMCOS and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Music Office (NATSIMO) give a thumbs-down to the Productivity Commission’s interim report, which the organisations say gives the upper hand to AI business and leaves creators at a massive disadvantage.

The controversial amendment is outlined in the Productivity Commission’s 116-page document Harnessing Data and Digital Technology, which recommends a new fair dealing exception in the Copyright Act to allow for text and data mining. 

As it stands, APRA AMCOS and NATSIMO warn, the paperwork provides legal cover for AI companies to use copyright-protected works without permission or payment for training their systems,

In short: the proposal would “legitimise digital piracy under guise of productivity.”

The Commission “may couch this as policy exploration, but their direction is clear,” says APRA Chair Jenny Morris. “They’re laying the groundwork to legitimise what they themselves acknowledge is already widespread theft. We’ve witnessed the wholesale ingestion of Australian works by AI companies in the US, where over 30 court cases are currently underway challenging this practice.”

ARIA and PPCA and The Australian Association of Voice Actors (AAVA) are singing from the same industry hymn sheet, arguing that the floated change would undermine copyright protections and devalue Australian creative works.

“Not only does this move put the responsibility on Australian creatives to shoulder legal battles against multi-billion-dollar tech companies who have stolen or misused their work,” AAVA President Simon Kennedy says, “it also leaves the door open for AI developers to use the biometric data of every Australian whose voice or image has been recorded to train AI applications that can digitally reproduce their likeness, create deep fakes and voice clones”. 

The Commission’s approach is “particularly disappointing,” claims APRA AMCOS, given their acknowledgment that large AI models are already being trained on unlicensed copyrighted materials and that lawsuits have already been brought against technology companies on this type of activity.

“Rather than supporting enforcement of existing rights,” a statement reads, “they’re exploring ways to retrospectively legitimise unauthorised use.”

The interim report “exposes a glaring double standard,” explains NATSIMO National Director, Leah Flanagan. “In the Commission’s 2022 Aboriginal arts and crafts report, they rightly called for firm action against fake Indigenous art and new cultural rights legislation. They recognised that Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP) has intrinsic value. Yet now they seem content to allow the digital theft of ICIP that exists in our songs and music.”

Artificial intelligence is the most urgent issue facing the creative industries. Speaking at the 2025 Indie-Con last week, Dr Richard Burgess, President and CEO of A2iM, immediately responded when asked the most important issues for the independent music community — “AI, AI, AI.”

He added, “I’m not personally intimidated by AI…I don’t want to see it disrupt the copyright or IP communities.” Burgess called on the independent music community to “stick together” and to find a “way to communicate” with major labels, who, he remarked, are mostly aligned with the indies on what can be done to protect copyright.

Following its publication, AMCOS Chair Jaime Gough notes the interim report risks “undermining the very licensing markets that will be crucial for Australian creators as AI becomes more prevalent.” He continues, “They acknowledge that AI companies generate billions in revenue from models trained on copyrighted works, while creators receive nothing. Instead of addressing fair compensation, they’re exploring legal exemptions that would lock in this imbalance.”

Gough adds: “The Commission perpetuates the myth that copyright stifles innovation, a favourite talking point of Big Tech companies seeking free access to creative works. WIPO studies consistently demonstrate that copyright protection drives innovation by creating economic incentives for creativity. Weakening these protections won’t boost productivity, it will simply transfer value from Australian creators to global tech giants.”

Artists are at the cutting edge. And with AI, at the front line. Those issues are explored in granular detail in APRA AMCOS’s award-winning AI and Music Report, which found that, without urgent regulation, the widespread copying and reproduction of music by generative AI platforms could lead to a 23% loss in music revenues within just four years, amounting to an estimated $519 million.

Separately, the Senate Select Committee’s final report last November on AI highlighted the urgent need for guardrails to protect intellectual property. The Australian music industry widely welcomed its findings and recommendations, which included the implementation of a credentialing system for AI-generated content; transparency from tech platforms; and targeted regulatory reforms to prevent the misuse of AI in the creative industries.

The Commission’s fresh document, reckons APRA AMCOS, exposes a “clear preference for weakening copyright protections to benefit AI platforms and devastate Australia’s $9 billion music industry”.

Its exploration “may seem measured,” says Morris, “but the direction is unmistakable. They’re building a framework for policies that would treat our cultural heritage as free raw material. We call on the Government to reject this direction and support Australia’s creative sector to be at the heart of the success of AI development in this country.”