AI and Copyright in Australia: Why Jimmy Barnes, Paul Kelly and Other Musicians Are Speaking Out

Artificial intelligence is changing the way we create, communicate and do business. From generating marketing content to assisting with research and design, AI is becoming an increasingly familiar part of everyday professional life.

But behind its extraordinary capabilities sits a question that is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

Who should benefit when artificial intelligence is trained using somebody else's creative work?

In Australia, that question has become the centre of a significant dispute involving some of the country's most recognisable musicians, major technology companies and the federal government.

Jimmy Barnes, Paul Kelly, Peter Garrett and Mark Seymour are among the artists calling on Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to protect Australian music from being used for AI training without appropriate permission or payment.

As reported by The Australian on 9 November 2026, the musicians have voiced concerns about the use of Australian recordings in AI training datasets and the potential weakening of protections for creators.

Their concerns extend far beyond the recording industry. The outcome of Australia's copyright debate could influence how photographers, writers, designers, publishers, filmmakers and other creative professionals protect the value of their work.

And for businesses increasingly adopting AI tools, it's a conversation worth understanding.

Why Are Australian Musicians Challenging AI Companies?

On 9 November 2026, prominent Australian musicians renewed calls for the federal government to protect copyrighted music from unauthorised AI training.

The artists argue that recordings of their work have appeared in datasets associated with AI training without their permission or compensation.

One particularly striking detail involves Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's own musical preferences.

According to the musicians, recordings of all ten songs on the Prime Minister's list of favourite Australian tracks have appeared in datasets used by AI developers.

It's an uncomfortable coincidence for a political leader who has publicly celebrated Australian music.

The very artists responsible for creating songs that have become part of our national culture are now asking the government to ensure their work retains meaningful legal protection.

Their concerns are part of a wider debate about how AI companies obtain creative material and whether the people who create it should be compensated.

The issue also extends into advertising and production. In a separate investigation, the Australian Financial Review reported on 8 November 2026 that composers Antony Partos and Nigel Westlake had raised concerns about musicians being asked to recreate AI-generated tracks for commercial use.

These developments highlight how AI copyright questions are increasingly affecting the everyday work of creative professionals.

What Does AI Training Have to Do With Copyright?

Generative AI models are developed using large collections of information and creative material.

Depending on the system, those collections may contain books, photographs, articles, audio recordings, illustrations, computer code and other content.

During training, AI models learn patterns from the material they process. Those patterns help them generate new responses or outputs.

As explained in APRA AMCOS's guide to AI and music, generative AI can analyse existing music to learn patterns involving melody, structure, rhythm and other creative elements.

The legal question is whether using copyright-protected material in this process requires authorisation from the copyright owner, and under what circumstances.

This differs from the question of whether an individual AI-generated output infringes copyright.

Training and output are connected, but they raise distinct legal and commercial issues.

For Australian creators, the concern is that their work may contribute to the development of valuable commercial products without a meaningful opportunity to consent, negotiate terms or receive compensation.

For AI developers, the challenge is obtaining workable access to large volumes of material while navigating complex copyright arrangements.

Both concerns are relevant to the policy debate. The disagreement centres on how to balance them.

The Difference Between Opt-In and Opt-Out AI Licensing

One of the most consequential questions is who should be responsible for obtaining or withholding permission.

Under an opt-in approach, AI companies generally need to secure permission or an appropriate licence before using protected material.

Under an opt-out approach, certain material may be available for use unless the copyright owner takes action to exclude it, subject to the rules of the particular proposal.

That difference may appear technical, but it has significant practical implications.

Consider an independent Australian musician who has spent years developing a catalogue of original recordings.

Under an opt-in system, the musician or relevant rights holder has an opportunity to determine whether their work should be licensed.

Under an opt-out arrangement, the musician may instead need to understand which systems are collecting their work, identify how to register an objection and monitor whether that objection is respected.

For a large organisation with legal resources, those responsibilities may be manageable.

For an independent artist, they could become a substantial additional burden.

The same concerns extend to photographers, illustrators, writers and smaller creative businesses.

The Australian Independent Record Labels Association (AIR) outlined its concerns about copyright reform proposals, arguing that the rights of independent music businesses and creators should be protected as AI policy develops.

What Is the Australian Government's Position?

Importantly, Australia has not introduced a broad AI training exemption into copyright law.

In an official announcement on 26 October 2025, the Albanese Government confirmed it had ruled out a broad text-and-data-mining exception that would allow AI developers to use copyrighted material without permission.

The government has continued examining copyright policy in response to emerging AI technologies, including questions about licensing, transparency and enforcement.

The Attorney-General's Department's Copyright and Artificial Intelligence Reference Group provides information about the consultation process and the issues under consideration.

These policy discussions should not be confused with changes already enacted into law. Different proposals may involve different arrangements, and their practical consequences depend on the final legal framework.

As at 9 November 2026, the broader debate remains ongoing.

Can AI Innovation and Creative Rights Coexist?

The debate is sometimes presented as a choice between embracing technological innovation and protecting creators.

I don't believe that framing is especially helpful.

AI can be genuinely valuable. In marketing alone, it can help businesses organise information, generate ideas, improve processes and accelerate parts of content production.

Those benefits are real.

But so is the value of original creative work.

A song isn't simply a collection of sounds. It's the result of somebody's experience, skill, decisions and creative labour.

The same can be said for a photograph, a written article or an illustration.

When that work contributes to the development of a commercial technology, it's reasonable to ask how its use should be governed.

APRA AMCOS has publicly advocated for licensing arrangements that recognise the rights of songwriters, composers and music publishers when their work is used in AI development.

Licensing arrangements already exist in many areas of the creative economy, and agreements between AI developers and rights holders demonstrate that commercial negotiation is possible.

That doesn't mean every licensing question has been solved. There are legitimate challenges involving the scale of training datasets, identifying rights holders, pricing and administering permissions.

But those challenges deserve careful solutions rather than an assumption that creators should surrender control to make AI development easier.

Why This Matters Beyond the Music Industry

Although musicians are leading today's headlines, the underlying questions affect a much wider range of Australian businesses.

Marketing agencies, designers, photographers, filmmakers, publishers and content creators all depend on intellectual property.

Businesses also commission creative work from external professionals, purchase stock assets, licence music and develop original branding.

These activities already involve expectations about ownership and permitted use.

AI introduces additional questions about what happens when that content is uploaded to third-party systems or incorporated into automated workflows.

For example, a business might use AI to assist with a marketing campaign, but still need to consider whether the source images, music, written material and brand assets involved are appropriately licensed.

The Australian Government's copyright guidance explains the general rights of copyright owners and the circumstances in which protected works may be used without permission.

The legal position will depend on the facts, the relevant rights and the AI platform's terms.

Using an AI tool does not automatically give a business permission to use every third-party work it encounters or uploads.

Likewise, generating material with AI does not guarantee that a business owns exclusive copyright in the resulting output.

These distinctions matter when businesses are producing content intended for commercial use.

What Businesses Should Consider When Using AI

The Australian copyright debate offers several practical considerations for organisations already incorporating AI into their operations.

1. Understand the Terms of the AI Tools You Use

Different AI services have different conditions governing uploaded content, data retention, model training and ownership of outputs.

Businesses should understand those terms before providing confidential documents, client material or valuable intellectual property.

2. Maintain Appropriate Licences for Creative Assets

Music, photography, illustrations, fonts and other creative resources may have limitations on commercial use, modification and redistribution.

Using AI as part of the production process does not eliminate existing licensing responsibilities.

3. Be Careful With Client-Owned Content

Agencies and service providers often have access to confidential business information and creative assets supplied by clients.

Before uploading those materials to an AI platform, consider contractual obligations, privacy requirements and any restrictions on third-party processing.

4. Preserve Meaningful Human Oversight

AI can support the creative process, but businesses still need people to evaluate accuracy, originality, suitability and legal risks.

Human judgement remains particularly important when creating material that will represent a brand publicly.

5. Follow the Policy Debate

Australian copyright law and international approaches to AI training continue to develop.

Businesses that rely heavily on AI-generated content or own substantial collections of creative material should monitor changes and seek professional legal advice where necessary.

Why Australian Creativity Deserves a Place in the AI Economy

Australia has a rich creative history, and our musicians have contributed enormously to it.

Jimmy Barnes, Paul Kelly, Peter Garrett and Mark Seymour are household names because their work has resonated with people over many years.

Their songs have accompanied celebrations, difficult moments and significant events in our lives.

The emotional value of that music is difficult to quantify, but its commercial value is obvious.

That is precisely why AI developers may want access to large collections of recordings and other creative material.

We should be able to acknowledge the extraordinary opportunities presented by artificial intelligence while recognising that creative professionals deserve meaningful consideration in how their work is used.

The key question isn't whether Australia should participate in the AI economy.

Of course it should.

It's what kind of AI economy we want to build, and whether the people whose work contributes to its development have a fair opportunity to participate in its value.

The Question Australia Needs to Answer

Australia's AI copyright debate remains unresolved, and the eventual policy settings will need to account for competing interests.

Technology companies want conditions that encourage innovation and investment.

Creative industries want meaningful protection, consent and compensation.

Businesses want access to tools that help them compete, while understanding their responsibilities when using them.

Those priorities don't have to be mutually exclusive.

The challenge is developing arrangements that are commercially workable, legally sound and fair to the people involved.

As someone who works with both AI technology and creative professionals, I want to see Australia embrace innovation without treating the work of creators as an unlimited free resource.

If Australian music is valuable enough to contribute to the development of commercial AI systems, its creators deserve a meaningful voice in how that happens.

And that is a conversation worth having well beyond the music industry.

Join the Conversation in the Moonah Marketing Studio

Should AI companies need permission before using copyrighted creative work to train their systems? Or are new licensing models needed to support both innovation and creative professionals?

In the latest episode of Moonah Marketing Studio, Sarah Newnham explores why some of Australia's best-known musicians are challenging AI copyright proposals and what the debate means for businesses, creators and the future of technology.

Join Sarah in the Moonah Marketing Studio for the full conversation.