Copyright Agency: “The cat-and-mouse dynamic has not disappeared”

In the lead-up to the 2026 Australian Book Industry Awards (ABIAs), Books+Publishing is inviting the event’s major sponsors to share little-known facts about their organisations, their top tips for booksellers and publishers, and their thoughts on the state of our industry. This week, Copyright Agency CEO Josephine Johnston writes on copyright, big tech and holding the line.

This segment is supported by the event sponsors. 

By the end of last year, many of us in the sector had the same slightly weary posture.

There had been submissions, roundtables, joint letters, inquiries and Teams meetings for days. But despite the undeniable fatigue, there was also something else – a sense that publishers, authors, agents, writers’ centres and festivals were, broadly speaking, holding the line together.

It did feel, at moments, a little like standing at the Bastille – sure, with pens instead of pitchforks, but there was a shared understanding that standing up to Big Tech is seriously consequential.

In October, the Australian Government stared these companies down and ruled out a change to our copyright settings that would have allowed free use of other people’s content for generative AI development. As the Attorney-General courageously stated, the government “stands behind Australia’s creative industries and, by ruling out a Text and Data Mining Exception, is providing certainty to Australian creators”.

The position was applauded by Australia’s creative industry sector. It was also an international first, and other governments are beginning to take a similar view. The UK Government has now backflipped on its opt-out scheme, and the recent White House AI framework states, “American creators, publishers and innovators should be protected from AI-generated outputs that infringe their protected content, without undermining lawful innovation and free expression”.

Closer to home, in December, the Productivity Commission reversed its earlier stance and recommended a “wait and see” approach for copyright settings for Australian generative AI development.

The Big Tech companies have not given up, continuing to lobby for watering down the copyright settings, but the government is holding firm.

This matters not just as a policy outcome, but also because it sets the conditions for what comes next.

The government has instead backed licensing solutions, in order to promote both ethical AI development in Australia and opportunities for Australia’s creative industry and media sectors. It is now looking at ways of enhancing these solutions, primarily via the Copyright and AI Reference Group (CAIRG). Members of CAIRG include the Australian Society of Authors, the Australian Publishers Association and Copyright Agency.

Licensing and content supply solutions are rapidly emerging internationally – and beginning to emerge in Australia.

In June last year, Copyright Agency extended its annual copyright licence for businesses to allow staff to use news media content in prompts for AI tools used in the workplace – for example, to produce reports for use in the workplace. Later this year, there will be a further extension to other types of publications, such as journals.

The licence conditions include safeguards to ensure that content is not captured outside the business, as well as that the licence cannot be used as a substitute for an available subscription. This reflects market research showing extensive and growing use of AI tools in workplaces, including with third-party content.

In the UK, there are consultations underway with publishers and authors about licensing other generative AI-related activities for both developers and other types of businesses. While most people are aware of the unlicensed use of content for training “foundation” AI models, like the ones underpinning generative AI tools like ChatGPT and Claude, there is less awareness of other types of generative AI–related activities that can be licensed, such as retrieval-augmented generation (RAG).

Copyright Agency is about to begin consultations with its members on licensing for these emerging opportunities.

The Productivity Commission’s recommendation of no change to the Copyright Act for 3 years gives the Australian sector some breathing space. It allows us to watch how these global models evolve without simultaneously navigating a fundamental rewrite of domestic law.

But while policy may have steadied, the underlying momentum has not.

The cat-and-mouse dynamic has not disappeared. As major AI players establish a visible presence in Sydney and Canberra, refresh their public posture and put serious money on the table, it is clear we are nowhere near the end of this story.

Last year demonstrated that when the Australian publishing sector speaks clearly and collectively, it can influence the policy baseline. That clarity will remain important as the commercial layer consolidates.

What comes next will require sustained attention to how licensing structures are designed, who controls them and how value is ultimately distributed.

The scale and resources of global technology companies are not diminishing. If anything, they are accelerating. That makes it even more important that publishers engage with, and help shape, licensing models that ensure fair participation.

Collective licensing has a critical role to play here. It provides a way for publishers and creators to act with scale, to negotiate from a position of strength and to ensure that value flows back to the people who create it.

Holding the line was necessary. For now, it feels more like a pause than a conclusion.

The Australian Book Industry Awards are presented for achievements in bringing Australian books to readers. 

Books+Publishing is the Australian book industry’s number-one source for news, opinions, pre-publication reviews, jobs, and advertisements.

Category: ABIA