Disquiet grows in Albanese’s back yard as Grayndler artists unite against ‘insane’ AI proposal

AI scraping involves collecting creative material available online, such as writing, images, music or other work, and feeding it into datasets used to train AI models. Training helps models recognise patterns and generate new material. The central issue is whether using that material requires permission and payment.

Under the proposal discussed in the article, AI companies could potentially access Australian creative work by default. Paradox suggested an opt-out model, meaning content could be scraped unless a rights holder objected. AI companies have argued that negotiating individual licensing agreements under existing copyright law would be too difficult.

Artists fear this turns their work into a resource for private companies without fair compensation. Lu Campbell-Smith said opting out was “outrageous” and questioned why people would keep posting online. The government’s draft laws are expected by the end of the year, with parliament considering them in 2027.

Grayndler has an unusually concentrated creative economy. More than 3,000 cultural and creative businesses operate in the Sydney inner-west seat. Ten per cent of local workers are employed in cultural and creative fields, compared with 4.2% nationally. That makes the sector more than twice as prominent locally as across Australia.

The area includes live music, theatre and artist spaces, which Anthony Albanese has highlighted with pride. The article describes venues and creative businesses around St Peters and the wider inner west. Pete Strong runs a screenprinting business there, while Tortuga Studios and the aerie operate as artist-led spaces.

This concentration makes proposed AI copyright rules especially significant in Grayndler. Many residents could be directly affected if companies use creative work by default. The dispute has already contributed to local frustration about the government, alongside opposition to a proposed datacentre at Cooks Cove.

Labor is considering copyright changes as part of a wider package covering AI, datacentres, energy and the economy. The proposal follows requests from AI companies to make it easier to train models on Australian material. Some companies say existing copyright law makes individual licensing agreements too difficult.

One proposed mechanism is an opt-out system. AI companies could use creative content unless a rights holder actively objected. Paradox suggested this approach. Coalition senators and the recording industry warned that it could amount to the government acquiring property. The article does not say the final law has been decided.

Artists worry because opting out shifts the burden onto creators. Lu Campbell-Smith called that “outrageous”, while H Morgan-Harris warned the creative ecosystem could be “decimated”. Anthony Albanese has promised the “strongest possible protection” and said unpaid use would be “theft”, but draft laws are expected by year’s end.

An opt-in licensing system starts with permission being required. An AI company would need to identify relevant work, obtain approval from the rights holder and agree on licensing terms before using it for training. Without that agreement, the work would not be available for that use.

An opt-out system reverses the starting position. Content could be collected and used unless its owner notices the use and formally objects. Paradox suggested this model, saying licensing under existing copyright rules would be too difficult. The article describes this as a proposal, not a final law.

Creators object because they may have to monitor vast amounts of online material and protect their work one piece at a time. Lu Campbell-Smith said having to opt out was “outrageous”. Coalition senators and the recording industry also warned the approach could amount to government acquisition of property.

If AI companies can use creative work without payment, artists may lose control over how their work supports their livelihoods. The article links this concern to copywriting, design, screenprinting, music, theatre and other creative fields. It also warns that the broader ecosystem supporting artists and cultural businesses could be damaged.

Lu Campbell-Smith said AI had been useful in her practice, but questioned why anyone would keep making and posting work if it became free content for an AI machine. H Morgan-Harris said her copywriting industry had already been heavily affected by AI. Pete Strong described AI as an extraction industry benefiting a few.

These outcomes are concerns expressed by people quoted, not settled results. They could make online publishing less attractive and deepen pressure on creative incomes if default use becomes law. The government is developing draft laws, expected by year’s end, for parliamentary consideration in 2027.

Grayndler has been held by Anthony Albanese for three decades and is traditionally an ultra-safe Labor seat. He has won recent elections on first preferences alone. The electorate contains more than 3,000 cultural and creative businesses, and creative work employs 10% of its workers, making the copyright dispute unusually relevant locally.

Artists and businesses are openly criticising the proposal. Pete Strong said he was completely against it and described a backlash that began with opposition to a proposed Cooks Cove datacentre. Lu Campbell-Smith and H Morgan-Harris also expressed strong concern about default AI use. Their views connect national policy to Albanese’s local political base.

At the next election, 28-year-old Hannah Ferguson, co-founder of Cheek Media, will run as an independent. No sitting member has lost a seat from such a margin, but Ferguson is betting Albanese’s popularity is waning. An Essential poll put his disapproval rating at 56%, equal to its highest since he took office.

Copyright generally gives the creator or other rights holder control over specified uses of original creative work. The owner can permit another party to use it through a licence, set conditions and seek payment. Ownership and permission are separate: a creator may retain ownership while licensing an AI company to use the work for a defined purpose.

This article focuses on a new use: training AI models on Australian material. AI companies say negotiating licences under existing law would be too difficult. Paradox suggested an opt-out model, where use would continue unless a rights holder objected. That would change the default from permission first to use first.

The article reports competing concerns rather than a final legal rule. Albanese says creators should have the strongest possible protection and be paid, calling unpaid use “theft”. Artists fear default access would shift power away from them. Draft laws are expected by year’s end, with parliament due to consider them in 2027. This explanation of general copyright principles uses established legal knowledge beyond the article.