The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) has announced what it describes as a “breakthrough” agreement with the tech sector regarding compensation for using creative content in AI training. However, this claim has been met with skepticism and concern from organizations representing creative professionals.
During an economic reform roundtable, ACTU Secretary Sally McManus highlighted discussions with the Tech Council of Australia about the need to compensate creatives, journalists, and academics for their contributions. “That’s quite a significant shift, and it’s one we really welcome,” McManus stated, emphasizing the urgency as tech companies continue to utilize content for training large language models.
McManus warned, “They’ll be crawling all your data. And people whose livelihoods depend on their creative output deserve not to have that stolen from them.” She expressed optimism about the Tech Council’s willingness to collaborate on this issue, describing it as a significant step forward.
Tech Council’s Cautious Approach
Despite McManus’s optimism, Tech Council CEO Damian Kassagbi tempered expectations regarding the roundtable’s outcomes. “We are hopeful we can find a path forward on copyright that allows AI training to take place in Australia while also including appropriate protections for creators that make a living from their work,” Kassagbi said. “What that path looks like has not been determined or agreed.”
Industry groups representing creative professionals have voiced opposition to a “fair use” exemption for text and data mining under copyright law. Kassagbi, in an interview with ABC Radio National, pointed to technology’s benefits for artists, citing Spotify’s significant payouts in music royalties. However, when asked about compensation for AI training material, he admitted, “At this stage, it’s too early to answer that question.”
Creative Industry’s Concerns
Annabelle Heard, CEO of the Australian Recording Industry Association, dismissed the notion of an “agreement,” asserting that tech companies should adhere to existing copyright laws. Heard rejected the idea of granting AI firms exceptions to fair use rules, a prospect mentioned in a recent Productivity Commission report.
“Without knowing the details of what they have discussed, it’s unclear this is going to end up in a better situation for copyright owners,” Heard remarked. “Certainly, we are interested in how you can come to an agreement without copyright holders at the table.”
The Australian Society of Authors and the Copyright Agency echoed these sentiments in a joint statement, emphasizing that “responsible AI development must operate within the boundaries of copyright law.” They advocated for “licensed access” rather than unauthorized content use for AI training.
Implications and Future Steps
This development comes amid ongoing debates over how best to balance technological innovation with the rights of content creators. The discussions between the ACTU and the Tech Council are part of a broader conversation about the ethical use of data and creative works in AI development.
As the tech industry continues to evolve, the need for clear guidelines and agreements becomes increasingly urgent. The outcome of these discussions could set important precedents for how AI technologies are developed and deployed, not just in Australia but globally.
While the ACTU views the recent discussions as a positive step, the creative industry’s response underscores the complexities involved in reaching a consensus. As negotiations progress, stakeholders will need to address the concerns of all parties involved to ensure a fair and sustainable framework for AI training and content usage.
This article was amended on 22 August 2025 to clarify the position of industry groups representing creatives.
