iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Australian creator surveys show strong support among respondents for permission and payment when AI companies use creative work, but the voter claim in the original headline is not verified by the available sources. The latest reported government-consultation proposals included opt-outs and possible payment systems; they are proposals, not settled law or a confirmed government decision.
What is known about Australian public support?
No verified voter-poll source is available for the claim that Australian voters back AI copyright changes if creators get paid. The pollster, sample, fieldwork dates, exact question and result have not been established. The figures that can be cited come from surveys of authors, illustrators and collecting-society members—not a representative sample of the Australian electorate.
That distinction matters: creator surveys offer evidence about the views of the people and rights holders who responded, but cannot establish what Australian voters as a whole think.
Recommended Free Tools
What do the creator surveys say?
| Survey | Respondents and date | Reported findings |
|---|---|---|
| Australian Society of Authors | 928 authors and illustrators; 2025 survey, reported 26 November 2025 | 98% wanted AI companies to seek permission to use their work for training; nearly 85% wanted credit; 92% wanted compensation for past unconsented use; and 93% expected payment if they consented to licensing. |
| Copyright Agency | 1,304 members; report published 5 December 2024 | 86% supported a law or mechanism to compensate Australians whose material was used in offshore AI development. 70% said they would be more supportive of Australian generative AI development if creators were compensated for offshore use. |
These results show substantial support for permission, attribution or compensation among the surveyed groups. They do not verify the headline’s claim about voter opinion, and the percentages should not be presented as estimates of all Australian creators or citizens.
#1 Best Overall
What policy options have been discussed?
In an October 2025 statement, the Australian Government said it was not considering a text and data mining (TDM) exception at that time. Instead, it identified questions including paid collective licensing under the Copyright Act versus continuing voluntary licensing, clarifying how copyright applies to AI-generated material, and the possibility of a small claims forum for lower-value infringement matters. That statement describes the government’s position then; it does not settle every future proposal.
The Attorney-General’s Department describes the Copyright and Artificial Intelligence Reference Group (CAIRG) as a stakeholder process that informs policy advice. Its listed areas include licensing arrangements, legal certainty for AI-generated material, transparency and lower-cost enforcement.
Rank #2
On 15 September 2026, ABC reported that confidential consultation slides presented two proposals for using online material to train AI, both with opt-outs:
- Payment through a central body or collecting-group deals: a system could route payment through a central body or through licensing agreements with collecting groups.
- Deals with a minimum number of rights-holder companies: use would depend on agreements with at least a specified minimum number of rights-holder companies.
These are options ABC reported from consultations, not enacted rules or a confirmed government choice. The reporting does not establish final terms, the minimum number of companies, payment rates, or how any system would distribute funds to individual rights holders.
How could collective licensing and opt-outs work?
Collective licensing lets a rights-holder organisation negotiate permission and payment for a group of works, rather than requiring an AI developer to negotiate separately with every creator. A central body could likewise provide a common route for licensing and distributing fees. The government’s 2025 discussion and ABC’s later account identify these as possible approaches, but the available material does not set out a final administrator, eligibility rules, fee formula or distribution process.
Opt-outs would give rights holders a way to say that their material should not be used under a default-use arrangement. ABC reported proposed penalties for ignoring opt-outs, alongside transparency and audits. The report does not establish how creators would register an opt-out, how quickly it would take effect, or how they would verify that it was respected. Those practical details would determine whether the protection is usable, especially for individuals without representation.
Rank #4
What safeguards and trade-offs are at stake?
ABC’s account of the consultation proposals also described protections for Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property, transparency, audits and best efforts to prevent training on pirated material. These are reported proposed safeguards; their definitions, enforcement process and final legal status are not established.
The Productivity Commission’s 2025 report says the effects of AI training on creator incomes and the development of licensing markets remain uncertain. It discusses a fair-dealing TDM exception, extended collective licensing and waiting to see whether voluntary licensing develops. It notes that compensated mechanisms could be considered if uncompensated training substantially reduces creator incomes, while warning that intervention could distort licensing markets.
That leaves a policy balance rather than a settled answer: a licensing route might support compensation and give AI developers a clearer way to obtain rights, while a poorly designed intervention could disrupt emerging voluntary markets. Practical questions include which works qualify, how unrepresented or long-tail rights holders receive payment, whether creators can discover which works were used, and how disputes can be resolved without prohibitive cost. The government’s earlier interest in a possible small claims forum addresses that last issue, but no final forum is established in the cited material.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What the government has—and has not—said
In its 26 October 2025 media release, the government quoted Attorney-General Michelle Rowland: “The tech industry and the creative sector must now come together and find sensible and workable solutions to support innovation while ensuring creators are compensated.” This is the government’s stated policy aim, not evidence of voter support or an announcement that a particular payment model has been adopted.
The most accurate reading is therefore narrower than the original headline: creator-survey respondents strongly favor permission and compensation, and reported consultation options put payment and opt-outs on the table. The available sources do not verify that Australian voters support a specific copyright change.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
