Holly Rankin delivered the fifth Speaker’s Lecture at Parliament House on Monday. Photo: Speaker’s Facebook.
Singer-songwriter Holly Rankin, who performs under the name of Jack River, was in Parliament House on Monday (27 October) to deliver the annual Speaker’s lecture.
The address itself was quite powerful and to the point, basically telling politicians to be more real if they want to connect to everyday Australians (especially young people) and regain their trust.
After the lecture, however, when commenting about the Federal Government’s announcement the same day that it won’t allow tech giants to freely harvest Australian content for AI, Ms Rankin put it in a nutshell.
She said what all Australian authors, artists and content creators of all descriptions were thinking – and a sentiment shared by most Australians.
“For it to even be a question was a shock for us,” she said.
That the government was in fact considering a proposal to allow artificial intelligence trainers from international technology firms to use Australians’ work for their commercial gain, without paying the local creators, was a shock indeed.
Compounding that shock to the point of being horrific was that the very idea that AI should be exempted from Australia’s copyright laws was being pushed by the Productivity Commission.
In a report to the government in the lead-up to August’s productivity roundtable, the Australian Productivity Commission cautioned against a heavy-handed approach to regulating the use of AI.
In that report, it floated the idea of a text-and-data-mining exemption to the Copyright Act.
Such an exemption would open the door for AI trainers and platforms to legally exploit “fair dealing” on copyrighted Australian work.
That’s correct: an Australian Government body was advising the Australian Government to let tech giants from all corners of the globe rip off Australian work.
It would have made more sense if it were a plan promulgated in Donald Trump’s America, where the value of art and culture is being crushed at an ever-faster pace.
The idea seemed to catch Labor off guard, with ministers from the very top down unsure how to respond at first.
There was a lot of double-speak about the opportunities AI offers the economy, amid mumblings about commitments to also look after the artistic sector.
The Productivity Commission appeared to place no value on the work of authors, journalists, musicians and artists – including the creators of Indigenous and cultural art.
Fortunately, the arts sector rallied to protect the work itself, bringing the campaign to Canberra and telling policymakers that their work indeed had value.
The union movement mobilised as well. This was about protecting Australian work and jobs.
Even the Opposition was demanding guardrails to protect local work being exploited by international conglomerates.
A Senate inquiry into the brainwave has revealed the Commission had conducted no economic modelling on how its proposed changes to copyright law would affect Australia’s creative sector.
That prompted Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young to accuse the PC of a blatant disregard for the value of the arts to Australian society and economy.
“I am gobsmacked that the Productivity Commission issued their interim report in August without consulting all of the appropriate industries and bodies and without doing their homework,” she said.
“You consulted with MasterCard, Microsoft, Meta, OpenAI, Xero, Deloitte, you consulted with a lot of other players, but you didn’t consult with the creative industries.”
So amid all the political outcry, the parliamentary inquiry, and the earnest lobbying, a collective sigh of relief was had on Monday when Attorney-General Michelle Rowland acknowledged the value of creative work.
She ruled out a text-and-data-mining exception to the Copyright Act for AI.
“Australian creatives are not only world-class, but they are also the lifeblood of Australian culture,” she said.
“And we must ensure the right legal protections are in place.”
Ms Rankin, who had given evidence to the Senate inquiry last month, described Monday’s announcement as an “incredibly significant” decision on the part of the government.
“It means the government is saying creatives and artists should be paid for their work, and it should be licensed correctly in the age of AI,” she said.
Amen to all of that, and now to keep the government to its word.
But everyone is still reeling from the fact that the idea was even being seriously considered in the first place.
