MEDIA RELEASE - Creative workers reject proposed Text and Data Mining (TDM) exceptions for Artificial Intelligence
Australian creative workers and their royalty collecting societies expressed disappointment
at the Productivity Commission’s advocacy for a text and data mining (TDM) exception, a move that would retroactively legalise the theft of Australia’s creative workers’ intellectual property, voices, images, and work, by foreign multi-nationals.
The interim report “Harnessing data and digital technology” seeks feedback on a possible “TDM exception” to the Copyright Act, which creative workers say could devastate the local creative industries and legitimise the widespread flouting of Australian law that has already taken place. It is unclear if the Commission will go further in recommending that all Australians lose the right to own and protect their personal and private data, including their face and voice, to artificial intelligence (AI) models.
Tech companies operating Large Language Models (LLMs) have conceded that AI models rely on copyrighted works that are taken without consent or payment, and Australian workers have already seen their works stolen, including some of Australia’s most iconic plays and books. At a Senate inquiry last year, big tech companies repeatedly dodged questions about the provenance of work used in their AI models, and faced sustained questioning about the use of Australian voices, books and films in their models.
“We have already seen large-scale theft of intellectual property for commercial purposes at the expense of Australian workers”, said AWG and AWGACS CEO Claire Pullen.
Pullen notes there is a particularly acute risk to First Nations works, and any proposed TDM exception would fly in the face of the Productivity Commission’s own recommendations on fake First Nations art. Publicly available generative AI tools can be made to generate counterfeits, without regard to cultural protocols, community consent, or remuneration.
“Copyright has never been a barrier to producing good work, and in fact incentivises it, because it ensures I can pay the bills while creating popular shows,” said Peter Mattessi, AWG President. “It’s outrageous that this is even being considered, and it’s implied the onus will be on creators to test in court whether the use is ‘fair’ or not. It’s farcical to suggest any of us can afford to sue Google.” Mattessi is the co-creator and showrunner for Return to Paradise, which won Best Drama at the Logies this week.
“I oversee the collection and distribution of millions in royalties to writers every year, millions writers earn because they own the rights to their work,” says Sam Meikle, AWGACS Chair, award-winning writer and co-showrunner of Wakefield. “It beggars belief that these tech companies can steal from Australian artists, endangering our jobs and our cultural sovereignty, and then have the Productivity Commission suggest they be rewarded for it. The lost productivity from all the stolen work is where the focus should be. The benefits of AI are speculative. The benefits of creative work are not.”
“They could build AI models that fairly treat writers, artists, and musicians in Australia and around the world by paying for work. You don’t need an exception to do that. This feels like the Productivity Commission is carrying water for big tech at the expense of Australians.”
“Our submission will make clear that any TDM exception is not acceptable to creative workers.”
The AWG and AWGACS position is endorsed by the following industry guilds and collecting societies:
Australian Cinematographers’ Society (ACS)
Australian Directors’ Guild (ADG)
Australian Screen Directors Authorship Collecting Society (ASDACS)
Australian Guild of Screen Composers (AGSC)
Australian Screen Sound Guild (ASSG)
Australian Production Design Guild (APDG)
Australian Screen Editors’ Guild (ASE)
and the Australian Association of Voice Actors (AAVA)
representing cinematographers, screen directors, screen and live performance designers, screen composers, screen editors and voice actors.