3 Key Takeaways from the Australia’s Latest AI Copyright Law Reform Announcement

The Attorney General of Australia, Michelle Rowland, announced in a media release on Sunday 26 October 2025, and on the ABC AM radio program the following Monday, that the Australian Government will not introduce a text and data mining (TDM) exception under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Copyright Act) to allow big tech companies to use copyrighted material to train their AI models without any compensation to creators. 

The Government will instead engage in further public consultations through its Copyright and AI Reference Group and develop a regime in which Australian creators will be “fairly renumerated” under a set of “fair terms of use”.

In this article, we set out three key takeaways from this announcement and provide a closer look at what we may expect in the upcoming AI copyright law reform. 

1.    Unlike other countries, Australia will no longer entertain the possibility of a TDM exception for AI training

In general, the TDM exception refers to the concept that data mining or scraping should be exempt from copyright law because it is a “non-expressive” use of copyrighted material and therefore does not violate the fundamental principle of protecting the “expression” of ideas and information under copyright law.

Countries overseas, like the UK, EU, US, Japan and Singapore, have adopted variations of the TDM exception under their respective copyright laws and have recognised that this exception may apply to the use of copyrighted materials for training AI models in certain circumstances. 

Considering these developments overseas, Australia have become increasingly interested in introducing a TDM exception over the last few years. Indeed, this was most recently raised as a potential solution to harness the economic benefits of generative AI in the Productivity Commission’s widely-discussed interim report published on 5 August 2025. 

However, as we now know, the Attorney General has rejected this option, stating that “we are making it very clear that we will not be entertaining a text and data mining exception”. The reason behind this is, according to the Attorney General, to provide certainty to Australian creators and to ensure that they are fairly compensated for providing their copyrighted material for AI training.

2.    Australia may introduce a suite of AI copyright law reforms, including a licensing regime and a small claims forum

Having rejected the TDM exception, the Attorney General flagged that there will more consultations with the tech and creative sectors through the Copyright and AI Reference Group, which was established by the former Attorney General in December 2023.

In particular, the Attorney General noted that the Reference Group will look at: 

1. Whether there should be a new collective licensing framework or a voluntary licensing framework – a licensing regime between big tech companies and creators has long been suggested as a possible solution. However, as with any licensing regime, the process of reaching a fair and satisfactory outcome for both parties will require extensive negotiations and consultation. Despite that, this appears to be one of the most likely outcomes or reforms to be implemented, especially since the Attorney General stated that it is “fundamental to their right as people who are generating works to ensure that they are fairly remunerated for that and that there are fair terms of use”;
2. Improving the certainty about how copyright applies to material that might be generated by an Australian creator utilising AI – greater certainty through legislative amendment would help all parties involved in the AI-generated work to better understand their respective rights and responsibilities, whether that be the creator of the copyright material used to train the AI model, the AI developer or the AI user; and
3. A small claims forum as an option to better address lower value copyright infringement matters – currently, copyright matters can only be heard by the Copyright Tribunal, whose jurisdiction is limited to matters arising from statutory licences made under the Copyright Act, and the Commonwealth Courts. The introduction of a small claims forum or some other alternative dispute resolution mechanism could allow for a cheaper and more efficient avenue for resolving copyright disputes, including those arising from the use of AI tools and AI-generated works. 

3.    The AI copyright law reforms will be introduced “expeditiously” 

The Attorney General has so far not provided a specific timeline for when the AI copyright law reforms will be tabled to Parliament. 

However, she stated that the Government is aware of how rapidly AI is moving and hence, the tabling of such reforms is “something that we are seeking to do expeditiously, but it's one that we're seeking to do in a very informed way.” 

As the Copyright and AI Reference Group reconvene to discuss these law reform proposals this week, and perhaps a few more times before the end of this year, one thing we know for sure is that Australia is now committed to tackling the difficult issue of AI and copyright law. 

To learn more about these law reforms and the impact they may have on your business, please contact our lawyers in the Intellectual Property team at Bird & Bird Australia.