"AI companies are scoping Australia as a country for frontier AI training outside the US," the article proposing a national scheme warns — and it lays out a tidy, time-sensitive plan to keep them here while paying creators for their work.
The Australian AI training permit
The proposal from Good Ancestors sets a central plank: an AI training permit available to entities conducting AI training in Australia. Under the permit, companies would pay a fee into consolidated revenue, be required to offer an opt-out to Australian rights holders, comply with the government's data centre expectations and meet other conditions of national interest. In exchange, permit-holders would receive legal certainty that their training is not subject to copyright restrictions and government assistance to accelerate 'time to power' for new infrastructure.
An Australian AI public benefit fund, modelled on the Public Lending Right Act 1985
The second component is an Australian AI public benefit fund to support creators and rights holders. The fund would be modelled on the Public Lending Right Act 1985 — the long-standing mechanism that compensates Australian authors and publishers for lost sales from books available in public libraries — and could be adapted for a broader pool of creators and rights holders. The proposal emphasises flexibility in quantum and design, and deliberately decouples the fund from the permit so compensation and technical access questions are handled separately.
Why direct licensing and a TDM exception aren't sufficient
The piece argues licensing alone is not a realistic path for large-scale frontier AI training in Australia for two reasons. First, "there is no existing licence or combination of licences that gives enough certainty to enable large-scale AI training in Australia." Second, AI training relies on global content that Australian licences or reciprocal agreements cannot fully cover; even exhaustive domestic deals could leave companies exposed to litigation from rights holders they cannot identify or reach. The author contrasts this scheme with a text-and-data-mining (TDM) exception, saying a TDM "gives AI companies a free pass" while the permit would "extract maximum value" by tying access to the Australian market to obligations and fees.
Limits on the permit and the fate of existing commercial deals
The proposal makes clear the permit would not authorise circumvention of technological protection measures (TPMs) such as paywalls. That preserves the status of commercial deals already struck between AI companies and publishers or news organisations — the article specifically cites HarperCollins and the Associated Press — and leaves private or proprietary datasets and scientific databases available to negotiated agreements.
How the US, Canada and Japan shape Australia's bargaining position
The article warns of credible alternative locations for training: companies could "double down on the US," where early litigation outcomes have favoured AI training as fair use, and where the Trump administration "is not going to kill the goose that lays the golden egg." It also names Canada and Japan as other desirable options, noting Japan already has "AI-friendly laws and scalable nuclear power." Losing frontier AI companies to those jurisdictions would, the proposal argues, forfeit economic benefits, negotiating leverage with companies and creators' ability to obtain compensation and opt-outs.
What this means for creators, AI companies, and the government
- Creators and rights holders: The scheme promises consent-control and compensation "for more money and across a broader pool of creators than direct licensing is likely to achieve," while preserving the ability to negotiate separately for content behind TPMs.
- AI companies: Permits offer legal certainty for training conducted in Australia and help meet the government's data centre expectations, but would require fees and opt-out mechanisms that a TDM would not.
- The government: The scheme would give Canberra levers to set national-interest conditions, collect fees, and retain the ability to adjust permit or fund design as technology evolves — a path framed as consistent with past Australian copyright adaptations "from the photocopier to the internet."
The article closes on a narrow timetable: "The window is narrow, but a win-win solution is on the table." It invites creators, rights holders, technology companies and others to contribute views to strengthen the design or propose alternatives. The core choice Australia faces, as framed here, is straightforward: craft a bespoke permit-and-fund regime to host frontier training and compensate creators, or risk companies choosing other countries where different legal regimes may leave creators with less control and compensation.
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/compensating-creators-while-unlocking-ai-training-in-australia/
