‘Snail’s pace’: AI and copyright group only met twice in six months

Stakeholders are getting impatient with the ‘snail-pace’ progress on the government’s copy­right and AI rules, as it emerges that the body assigned to deal with the issue has met only twice in six months.

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Stakeholders are getting impatient with the “snail-pace” progress on the government’s copy­right and AI rules, as it emerges that the body assigned to deal with the issue has met only twice since Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus announced it more than six months ago.

The first of those meetings, in February this year, largely did not deal with substance and was instead focused on the “proposed structure and operational arrangements of the (Copyright and AI Reference Group)”, the department website reads.

The Australian understands the second meeting of the reference group was held in May and featured an information session about AI.

The group largely comprises technology companies (Google, Microsoft, and Meta), creative groups and media companies (Screen Producers Australia, Australian Writers’ Guild and Free TV Australia), and consumer groups (Australian Library and Information Association).

NewsCorp Australia, the publisher of The Australian, is also a member of the group.

Some participants have told The Australian they were getting frustrated at the slow progress, especially with an election due soon.

Opposition communications spokesman David Coleman lashed the Albanese government for its “snail-pace slow response” to AI. “There is just no urgency from the Albanese government on AI,” he told The Australian.

“The great irony is the contrast between super-fast AI and the government’s snail-pace slow response to it. We continue to see process over practical action. The government somehow thinks that holding roundtables and committees is a form of action.

“We all know AI presents great opportunities and potential risks, and we must deal with both.

“Issues related to copyright and fair compensation for the use of intellectual property are critical and must be dealt with in a timely manner before it’s too late.”

The Attorney-General’s Copyright and AI Reference Group is one of two key AI-related regulatory tracks the Albanese government is pursuing. The second is the AI Expert Group, which has been tasked with advising the Department of Industry and Science on what guardrails should be applied to development and deployment of the burgeoning technology.

Mr Dreyfus, when announcing the creation of the reference group last year, said it would help “better prepare for future copyright challenges emerging from AI”.

“AI gives rise to important copy­right issues, including mat­erial used to train AI models, transparency of inputs and outputs, use of AI to create imitative works, and whether and when AI-generated works should receive copyright protection,” he said.

The intersection of AI and copyright has generated a high-stakes discussion between copyright holders and tech companies.

This issue is playing out across the world – the US Writers Guild and the acting guild went on an extended strike last year, partly over industrial disagreement on the use of AI.

The New York Times late last year filed proceedings against OpenAI, alleging it had used its articles in training the AI model.

Contacted for comment, the Attorney-General’s Department said it had, since December, “commenced engagement with the Copyright and AI Reference Group to develop evidence-based policy options for government consideration”.

“The first request for information from CAIRG participants closed in mid-June. The department is analysing feedback received and will use the findings to inform further engagement with the CAIRG in the coming months,” a spokesperson said.