Analysis | 3 July 2026
Dave Faulkner of the Hoodoo Gurus is mixing his band’s latest album by hand, by ear, by feel. Four decades into a career that defined Australian rock, he is also discovering that his entire catalogue has been fed into AI systems without his permission or payment.
“They are stealing it as we speak and we are not happy about it,” he told ABC’s 7.30 program.
Faulkner is not alone. The Atlantic recently published a search tool that lets artists check whether their music was used to train generative AI models. The results for Australian musicians are damning. The Hoodoo Gurus, Paul Dempsey, Gurrumul – every artist searched appeared to have had their work mined, in some cases entire catalogues.
This is the front line of Australia’s AI copyright war, and it is coming to a head.
The Case for Artists
Musicians describe the practice in stark terms. APRA AMCOS chief Dean Ormstone called it “a crime being committed every day of the week – copying that has been done without people’s permission and without payment.”
Paul Dempsey of Something for Kate put it bluntly: “We have a law at the moment and everyone has to adhere to that law. For some reason, we are talking about exempting it for one gigantically wealthy industry.”
The creative sector’s argument is simple: a licensing marketplace already exists. Music publishers, film studios, and book authors have licensed content at scale for decades. AI companies can negotiate access just like every other industry. Chris Maund of Mushroom Music called it “a relatively easy process.”
As Emma Johnsen from the Copyright Society of Australia put it: “Creators are not asking for special treatment. They are just asking for AI companies to participate in the licensing economy that already exists.”
The Case for Tech
The tech industry, represented by bodies like the Tech Council of Australia, argues that strict copyright rules will see Australia miss the AI revolution entirely. Scott Farquhar, Atlassian co-founder and Tech Council chair, has warned that the current legal environment “hurts a lot of investment in Australia.”
Professor Kathy Bowrey from UNSW offers a more nuanced view: “Copyright law does need to change. Australian law is way too complicated and it does not necessarily secure good returns to Australian creators in any case.” She warns that locking Australia into using only overseas AI models is its own form of risk.
The tech sector’s argument is about balance. Innovation Minister Tim Ayres has dismissed claims of a government backflip as “reckless speculation,” but the lobbying continues regardless.
The Political Tug of War
Last October, Attorney-General Michelle Rowland publicly ruled out weakening copyright protections. “We would not be introducing any changes that would water down the copyright act,” she said. “Those protections are fundamental to Australian creatives.”
But Senator David Pocock has now raised the alarm, citing a whistleblower who says the government is considering competing proposals – including a copyright carve-out in exchange for a new creative arts fund – with a potential announcement around 15 July.
Rowland’s office told 7.30 there are “no plans to weaken copyright protections,” but the creative sector is not reassured. Artists converged on Canberra this week calling for mediation.
The Missing Middle
Both sides have a point. Artists are right that existing law is being ignored with no consequences. The tech industry is right that Australia cannot afford to be locked out of AI development.
The false choice is the framing. This is not “protect artists or build AI.” The licensing economy exists. The question is whether the government has the will to enforce it, or whether it will carve out an exception for the wealthiest industry at the table.
What deal? Someone wants to rob you, so you let them in the front door and say, “Help yourself.” Is that the answer? I would rather call a policeman and say, “Do not let them in, please.”
Dave Faulkner, Hoodoo Gurus
What This Means
The July 15 deadline is real. If the government backflips, it signals that every Australian creator’s work is fair game for AI training without payment. If it holds firm, it sets a global precedent that existing copyright law applies to AI companies just like everyone else.
For musicians, writers, and artists watching from the sidelines, the message is clear: speak now, because the decision is coming faster than the reform.
Related Reading
- Microsoft, Amazon and OpenAI Are Spending $155 Billion on Australian Data Centres. Is That Good for Us?
- Mythos, APRA, and ASIC: Are Australian Enterprises Ready for the AI Threat?
- Meta’s AI Image Detector Could Not Spot Its Own Fabricated Photos
The views expressed on this site are my own and do not represent those of any current or former employer. Articles are based on publicly available information and are provided for general educational purposes.
