IPMojo

BOOK AN APPOINTMENT

Copyright

by

AI Training in Australia: Why a Mandatory Licence Could Be the Practical Middle Ground

Over the weekend the Australian Government finally drew a line in the sand: no special copyright carve-out to let AI developers freely train on Australians’ creative works. In rejecting a broad text-and-data-mining (TDM) exception, the Attorney-General signalled that any reform must protect creators first, and that “sensible and workable solutions” are the goal. Creators and peak bodies quickly welcomed the stance; the TDM exception floated by the Productivity Commission in August met fierce resistance from authors, publishers, music and media groups.

So where to from here? One pragmatic path is a mandatory licensing regime for AI training: no free use; transparent reporting; per-work remuneration; and money flowing to the rightsholders who opt in (or register) to be paid. Below I sketch how that could work in Australia, grounded in our existing statutory licensing DNA.

What just happened (and why it matters)

  • Government position (27 Oct 2025): The Commonwealth has ruled out a new TDM exception for AI training at this time and instead is exploring reforms that ensure fair compensation and stronger protections for Australian creatives. The Copyright and AI Reference Group (CAIRG) continues to advise, with transparency and compensation high on the agenda.

  • The alternative that was floated: In August, the Productivity Commission suggested consulting on a TDM exception to facilitate AI. That proposal drew a rapid backlash from creators, who argued it would amount to uncompensated mass copying.

  • The direction of travel: With an exception off the table, the policy energy now shifts to licensing — how to enable AI while paying creators and bringing sunlight to training data.

Australia already knows how to do “copy first, pay fairly”

We are not starting from scratch. Australia’s Copyright Act has long used compulsory (statutory) licences to reconcile mass, socially valuable uses with fair payment:

  • Education: Part VB/related schemes allow teachers to copy and share text and images for students, in return for licence fees distributed to rightsholders.

  • Broadcast content for education & government: Screenrights administers statutory licences for copying and communicating broadcast TV/radio content by educators and government agencies, with royalties paid out to rightsholders.

These schemes prove a simple point: when individual permissions are unfeasible at scale, mandatory licensing with collective administration can align public interest and creator remuneration.

A mandatory licence for AI training: the core design

Scope

The scope of a mandatory licence regime would need to cover the reproduction and ingestion of copyright works for the purpose of training AI models (foundation and domain-specific).

To ensure it doesn’t go too far, it would need to exclude public distribution of training copies.  Output uses would remain governed by ordinary copyright (no licence for output infringement, style-cloning or substitutional uses).

Ideally, the licence would cover all works protected under the Copyright Act 1968 (literary, artistic, musical, dramatic, films, sound recordings, broadcasts), whether online or offline, Australian or foreign (subject to reciprocity).

Mandatory

The licence would be mandatory for any developer (or deployer) who assembles or fine-tunes models using copies of protected works (including via third-party dataset providers).

Absent a specific free-to-use status (e.g. CC-BY with TDM permission or public domain), all AI training using covered works would require a licence and reporting.

Transparency/Reporting

Licensees would be required to maintain auditable logs identifying sources used (dataset manifests, crawling domains, repositories, catalogues).

They would also be required to provide regular transparency reports to the regulator and collecting society, with confidential treatment for genuinely sensitive items (trade secrets protected but not a shield for non-compliance). CAIRG has already identified copyright-related AI transparency as a live issue—this would operationalise it.

Register

A register of creators/rightsholders would be established with the designated collecting society (or societies) to receive distributions.

All unclaimed funds would be held and later distributed via usage-based allocation rules (with rolling claims windows), mirroring existing statutory practice in education/broadcast licences.

Rates

Setting rates and allocating royalties would be a little more complex.  One way to do that would be to blend:

  1. Source-side weighting (how much of each catalogue was ingested, adjusted for “substantial part” analysis); and

  2. Impact-side proxies (e.g. similarity retrieval hits during training/validation; reference counts in tokenizer vocabularies; contribution metrics from dataset cards).

Rates could be set by Copyright Tribunal-style determination or by periodic ministerial instrument following public consultation.

Opt out/in

In this proposal, there would be an opt-out process with all works covered by default on a “copy first, pay fairly” basis – which would replicate current education/broadcast models and avoid a data-black-market.

Into that could be layered an opt-out right for rightsholders who object on principle (with enforceable dataset deletion duties).

An added twist could be the inclusion of opt-in premium tiers, where, for example, native-format corpora or pre-cleared archives would be priced above the baseline.

Small model & research safe harbours

A de minimis / research tier for non-commercial, low-scale research could be applied with strict size and access limits (registered institutions; no commercial deployment) to keep universities innovating without trampling rights.

Enforcement

Civil penalties could be issued for unlicensed training; aggravated penalties for concealment or falsified dataset reporting.

The regulator/collecting society could also be given audit powers , with privacy and trade-secret safeguards.

Governance: who would run it?

Australia already has experienced collecting societies and government infrastructure:

  • Text/image sector: Copyright Agency (education/government experience, distribution pipelines).

  • Screen & broadcast: Screenrights (large-scale repertoire matching, competing claims processes).

  • Music (for audio datasets): APRA AMCOS/PPCA (licensing, cue sheets, ISRC/ISWC metadata).

The Government could designate a lead collecting society per repertoire (text/image; audio; AV) under ministerial declaration, with a single one-stop portal to keep compliance simple.

Why this beats both extremes

Versus a TDM exception (now rejected):

  • Ensures real money to creators, not just “innovation” externalities.

  • Reduces litigation risk for AI companies by replacing guesswork about “fair dealing/fair use” with clear rules and receipts.

Versus a pure consent-only world:

  • Avoids impossible transaction costs of millions of one-off permissions.

  • Preserves competition by allowing local model builders to license at predictable rates instead of being locked out by big-tech private deals.

Practical details to get right (and how to solve them)

  1. Identifiability of works inside massive corpora

    • Require dataset manifests and hashed URL lists on ingestion; favour sources with reliable identifiers (ISBN/ISSN/DOI/ISRC/ISWC).

    • Permit statistical allocation where atom-level matching is infeasible, backed by audits.

  2. Outputs vs training copies

    • This licence covers training copies only. Output-side infringement, passing-off, and “style cloning” remain governed by ordinary law (and other reforms). Government focus on broader AI guardrails continues in parallel.

  3. Competition & concentration

    • Prevent “most favoured nation” clauses and ensure FRAND-like access to the scheme so smaller labs can participate.

  4. Privacy & sensitive data

    • Exclude personal information categories by default; align with privacy reforms and sectoral data controls.

  5. Cross-border reciprocity

    • Pay foreign rightsholders via society-to-society deals; receive for Australians used overseas, following established collecting society practice.

How this could be enacted fast

  • Amend the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) to insert a new Part establishing an AI Training Statutory Licence, with regulation-making power for:

    • eligible uses;

    • reporting and audit;

    • tariff-setting criteria;

    • distribution rules and claims periods;

    • penalties and injunctions for non-compliance.

  • Designate collecting societies by legislative instrument.

  • Set up a portal with standard dataset disclosure templates and quarterly reporting.

  • Transitional window (e.g., 9–12 months) to allow existing models to come into compliance (including back-payment or corpus curation).

What this could mean for your organisation (now)

  • AI developers & adopters: Start curating dataset manifests and chain-of-licence documentation. If your vendors can’t or won’t identify sources, treat that as a red flag.

  • Publishers, labels, studios, creators: Register and prepare your repertoire metadata so you’re discoverable on day one. Your leverage improves if you can prove usage and ownership.

  • Boards & GCs: Build AI IP risk registers that assume licensing is coming, not that training will be exempt. The government’s latest signals align with this.

Bottom line

Australia has rejected the “train now, pay never” pathway. The cleanest middle ground is not a loophole, but a licence with teeth: mandatory participation for AI trainers, serious transparency, and fair money to the people whose works are powering the models.

We already run national-scale licences for education and broadcast. We can do it again for AI—faster than you think, and fairer than the alternatives.

by

AI-Generated Works & Australian Copyright — What IP Owners Need to Know

Artificial intelligence isn’t just a tool anymore — it’s a collaborator, a co-author, a designer, a composer, and sometimes, a headache. As generative AI models keep reshaping creative industries, the question for lawyers, founders, and creators is simple: Who owns what when AI helps create it?

The Australian Position: Still (Mostly) Human

Under Australian copyright law, protection only arises for an “original work” that has a human author. Section 32 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) still assumes that authorship is a human act — one involving independent intellectual effort and sufficient human skill and judgment.

That means:

  • If an AI system generates a work entirely on its own, it’s not a “work” under the Act.

  • If a human uses AI as a creative aid, and the human’s contribution involves real creative choice — not just typing a prompt — the resulting work may be protected.

  • But if the human’s input is minimal or mechanical, protection is shaky at best.

There have been plenty of official hints that legislative reform is coming, but for now, the position is clear: no human, no copyright.

Human + AI: Collaboration or Confusion?

In practice, most creative or technical outputs sit in a grey zone between human authorship and full automation.

Take these examples:

  • A marketing team uses Midjourney to create a logo based on multiple prompts and manual refinements.

  • A software developer uses GitHub Copilot to generate snippets, then curates and rewrites them.

  • A songwriter uses Suno or Udio to generate backing tracks, then layers vocals and structure.

In each case, the key question is: how much creative control did the human exert? Ownership (and enforceability) often depends less on the tool, and more on the human story behind the output.

Overseas Comparisons: Diverging Paths

  • United States: The U.S. Copyright Office has refused registration for purely AI-generated works (Thaler v Perlmutter), but allows copyright in human-authored parts of mixed works.

  • United Kingdom: Section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 nominally attributes authorship to “the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken” — a possible (though untested) foothold for AI users.

  • Europe: The EU’s AI Act (Artificial Intelligence Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689)) leans heavily toward transparency and data-source disclosure, rather than redefining authorship.

  • China and Japan: Both have started to recognise limited copyright protection for AI-assisted works where human creativity remains substantial.

Australia hasn’t chosen a path yet — but in my view, any eventual reform is likely to echo the UK or EU models rather than the U.S. approach.

What IP Owners Should Do Now

Until the law catches up, contractual clarity is your best protection.

  1. Define ownership up-front: Ensure contracts, employment agreements, and service terms specify who owns outputs “created with the assistance of AI tools.” Clauses that tie ownership to “human input” and “creative control” can avoid later disputes.

  2. Track human contribution: Keep records of prompts, edits, decisions, and drafts — proof of human creativity can become decisive evidence if ownership is challenged.

  3. Check your inputs: Many AI systems are trained on datasets containing copyrighted material. Using their outputs commercially could expose you to infringement risk if the output is too close to the training data.

  4. Disclose AI use where relevant: For regulators (and some clients), transparency is now part of “reasonable steps” under APP 11 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and emerging AI-governance frameworks.

  5. Consider alternative protection: Where copyright may fail, consider trade marks, registered designs, or even confidential-information regimes for valuable AI-assisted outputs.

The Next Frontier: Authorship by Prompt?

The next legal battleground may well be prompt authorship — whether the person crafting complex or structured prompts can claim copyright in the resulting output or in the prompt itself. Early commentary suggests yes, if the prompt reflects creative skill and judgment, but this remains untested in Australian courts.

Final Thoughts …

AI isn’t erasing copyright — it’s forcing it to evolve. For now, the safest position is that human-directed, human-shaped works remain protectable. Purely machine-generated ones don’t.

But the creative frontier is moving fast, and so is the legal one. If you’re commissioning, creating, or commercialising AI-generated content, assume that ownership must be earned through human input — and documented accordingly.

Australia’s copyright and privacy frameworks are both in flux. Expect further reform by mid-2026, when the government’s broader AI and IP Reform Roadmap is due.

Until then: contract it, track it, and own it.

by

Whose Footage Is It Anyway? Game Meats v Farm Transparency Heads for the High Court

When animal rights collide with copyright law, sparks fly — and sometimes, whole new branches of doctrine get tested.

That’s exactly what’s happening in The Game Meats Company of Australia Pty Ltd v Farm Transparency International Ltd, a dispute that has already produced one significant Federal Court decision, a reversal on appeal, and now an application for special leave to the High Court.

Let’s unpack how a covert camera operation at a Victorian abattoir has turned into one of the most intriguing copyright–equity battles in years.

The Backstory: Covert Cameras at Eurobin

Game Meats Company (GMC) operates a halal abattoir in Eurobin, Victoria. Early in 2024, members of Farm Transparency International (FTI), an animal advocacy organisation, repeatedly trespassed onto the site. They crawled under fences at night, installed hidden cameras, and over several months captured more than 100 hours of footage of the abattoir floor.

From that material, FTI produced a 14-minute video highlighting what it claimed were instances of animal cruelty. The video was sent to government regulators, passed to Channel Seven (which reported but did not broadcast the footage), and later published by FTI online alongside a media release.

GMC responded immediately with proceedings in the Federal Court.

Round One: Damages but No Injunction

At trial, Justice Snaden held that FTI had committed trespass and was liable for damages — awarding GMC $30,000 in general damages and $100,000 in exemplary damages.

However, the judge refused GMC’s bid for a permanent injunction to restrain publication, and also rejected the argument that copyright in the footage should be held on constructive trust for GMC.

Why? The Court accepted that damages could compensate GMC for its losses, and held that the extraordinary remedy of imposing a trust over copyright was not justified. FTI remained the legal owner of the copyright — even though it was created through trespass.

Round Two: The Full Federal Court Steps In

GMC appealed, and in August 2025 the Full Federal Court (Burley, Jackman and Horan JJ) reversed key parts of the primary decision.

The Court:

  • Declared a constructive trust: copyright in the footage was to be held on trust for GMC.

  • Ordered assignment: FTI had to execute a written assignment of copyright, with the Registrar empowered to do so if FTI refused.

  • Granted a permanent injunction: restraining FTI from publishing the material, other than to regulators.

  • Ordered deletion: FTI was required to permanently delete its copies of the footage and swear affidavits confirming destruction.

In doing so, the Full Court leaned heavily on dicta from ABC v Lenah Game Meats (2001) 208 CLR 199, where the High Court floated — but did not apply — the idea that copyright created through unlawful conduct might be held on constructive trust.

Two decades later, that possibility became a reality.

The Key Legal Issue: Equity Meets Copyright

At the heart of this case is whether copyright — a statutory right conferred automatically on the maker of a film — can be stripped away by equity when the film was created through trespass or other unlawful means.

  • Statutory law: Under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), FTI owned copyright in the footage the moment the cameras recorded it.

  • Equity: The Full Court held it was “inequitable and against good conscience” for FTI to assert ownership against GMC, given the trespass. Equity could therefore declare FTI a constructive trustee and compel assignment.

It’s a bold move. Courts have long imposed constructive trusts over physical property obtained unconscionably. Applying the same logic to intangible IP rights is legally elegant — and potentially disruptive.

What’s at Stake in the High Court?

FTI has now applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court. No hearing date is set yet, but the case is primed for the nation’s top court.

The issues are weighty:

  • Limits of equity: Can equity truly override the statutory scheme of copyright ownership?

  • Freedom of communication: Does restraining publication of the footage unduly burden the implied freedom of political communication, given FTI’s advocacy role?

  • Activism vs. property rights: Should activists lose IP rights in their material because of unlawful methods, or does that chill legitimate public interest advocacy?

Why It Matters

For copyright lawyers, this case is a doctrinal turning point. For animal rights advocates and agribusiness, it’s a test of how far covert activism can go before the law snaps back.

If the Full Court’s reasoning stands, companies may be able to use IP and equity as powerful tools against activists: not only recovering damages for trespass, but also stripping activists of copyright and controlling the very footage they created.

If the High Court takes a different path, we may instead see limits on equity’s reach, preserving copyright ownership even where the work was created unlawfully — with important implications for journalism, whistleblowing, and advocacy.

IP Mojo Takeaway

This case is far more than a goat-abattoir dispute. It’s about whether copyright is truly absolute, or whether conscience can trump statute. With special leave now sought, the High Court will soon have the chance to answer.

Watch this space — the ghost of Lenah Game Meats is back in Canberra.

by

Watson Webb v Comino: When Valves Burst Into a Multi-IP Flood

If you thought plumbing valves were boring, think again.

The Federal Court’s recent decision in Watson Webb Pty Ltd v Comino [2025] FCA 871 is a sprawling reminder that IP disputes can leak into every corner of the law — from designs and copyright to confidence, consumer law and patents.

The Case in a Nutshell

At the heart of the fight was who really owned the rights to a series of valve designs — All Valve Industries (AVI) and its Italian partner Cimberio, or Mr Comino and his company Strongcast. What started as a commercial relationship around importing and distributing valves became a flood of litigation once design drawings, product launches and patent filings entered the picture.

Designs: Entitlement, Validity and Infringement

  • Entitlement: The Court found that Cimberio was at least a co-designer of the registered designs. Mr Comino couldn’t claim sole credit.

  • Validity: The designs were new and distinctive enough over prior art.

  • Infringement: AVI’s products weren’t substantially similar, so no design infringement was made out.

  • Unjustified threats: A strongly worded solicitor’s letter wasn’t enough to count as a threat.

Copyright: Drawings Matter

The critical twist: design registration was based on drawings created by Cimberio. Using them without permission crossed into copyright infringement.

The Court found:

  • Cimberio’s copyright subsisted in the drawings.

  • Comino and Strongcast copied and authorised copying when they used those drawings to file design applications.

  • Cimberio is entitled to an account of profits plus additional damages.

Breach of Confidence and Constructive Trust

The same drawings carried obligations of confidence. Comino’s disclosure and use of them breached that duty.

The Court imposed a constructive trust — transferring Comino’s interest in the registered designs to Cimberio.

That’s a dramatic remedy, showing courts will reorder ownership when confidential information is misused.

Consumer Law: Silence Speaks

By not telling AVI and Cimberio that the drawings were being used to file design rights, Comino engaged in misleading conduct under s 18 ACL.

Silence can mislead — especially in a close commercial relationship.

Patents: Invalid and Ineffective

Strongcast also relied on an innovation patent for a pipe bracket.

The Court held claims 1–4 invalid for lack of clarity, support, sufficiency and novelty.

Even if valid, no infringement was established.

Why It Matters

This case is a reminder that:

  • Design entitlement must be nailed down early — who really created the design?

  • Copyright overlaps with designs are still powerful, especially when drawings are copied into applications.

  • Constructive trusts are on the table where confidential information is misused.

  • Consumer law can bite in IP disputes in many and varied ways — misleading silence can be enough.

  • Innovation patents (now extinct) often struggled on validity grounds.

What looks like a simple plumbing part turned into a judgment that touches almost every corner of IP law.

For brand owners, designers and manufacturers, the message is clear: guard your drawings, document your entitlement, and don’t assume silence will save you.

by

Copy That, Part 10 – Copyright Myths Busted: Top Misunderstandings

The most dangerous thing about copyright? What people think they know.

Myths abound, and they can land creators and businesses in hot water. Let’s bust a few of the biggest.

Myth 1: “If it’s on the internet, it’s free to use.”

Nope. Online doesn’t mean ownerless. Copyright applies the moment a work is created and uploaded.

Myth 2: “I gave credit, so I can use it.”

Attribution is important, but it’s not a substitute for permission. Unless a licence or exception applies, copying is still infringement.

Myth 3: “I changed it, so it’s mine.”

Derivative works—like remixes, adaptations, and mash-ups—still require permission from the original copyright owner.

Myth 4: “It’s educational, so it’s fine.”

Education has some specific statutory licences and exceptions, but they’re limited and tightly regulated. “I used it in class” doesn’t automatically mean fair dealing.

Myth 5: “I bought it, so I own the copyright.”

Buying a book, CD, or digital download gives you the copy—not the underlying rights. Only the copyright owner controls reproduction, adaptation, and distribution.

Myth 6: “The 10% rule – if I change 10%, I’m safe.”

There’s no such thing. Courts look at whether a substantial part of the original work has been copied, not a percentage. Even a small portion can infringe if it captures the essence of the work.

Myth 7: “I added a little to the program, so now we both own it.”

Not true. Adding a minor change or tweak to software (or any work) doesn’t automatically give you joint ownership. You might own the copyright in your new contribution, but the original creator still owns their part—and you can’t exploit the combined work without permission.

IP Mojo tip: get advice, not assumptions

Relying on myths is a shortcut to infringement. When in doubt, check the licence terms, rely on fair dealing only where it clearly applies, or get legal advice.

Series Wrap-Up: Copy That

Over 10 instalments, we’ve explored the world of copyright in Australia—what it protects, who owns it, how long it lasts, when you can use someone else’s work, and how to share and enforce your own. Along the way, we’ve debunked myths, unpacked rights, and hopefully shown that copyright isn’t just a legal technicality—it’s a practical toolkit for protecting creativity and powering business.

If there’s one takeaway, it’s this: don’t rely on assumptions. Copyright law is full of nuance. A quick check, a clear agreement, or a simple licence can save years of disputes.

👉 That’s a wrap for Copy That: The IP Mojo Guide to Copyright in Australia.

But IP Mojo isn’t stopping here. Stay tuned for our next series, where we’ll dive into another corner of intellectual property and digital law—because your ideas, brands, and content deserve more than protection. They deserve strategy.

Follow along at IP Mojo for what’s next.

by

Copy That, Part 9 – International Protection: Does My Copyright Travel?

Copyright doesn’t stop at the border. Thanks to international treaties, Australian works enjoy protection in most countries around the world.

But while copyright travels, enforcing it can be another story.

The Berne Convention

Australia is a member of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, which has over 180 signatories. The convention requires each member country to give works from other member countries the same copyright protection they give their own.

In practice:

  • An Australian author’s novel is protected in France, the US, Japan, and most other places automatically.

  • No need to register abroad (though some countries, like the US, still require local registration before suing).

Enforcing overseas rights

While protection exists automatically, enforcement depends on local courts and procedures. That means:

  • You may need local lawyers and expertise.

  • Remedies differ country to country.

  • Cultural and practical considerations can affect how disputes play out.

Beyond Berne

Australia is also part of other agreements, including the WIPO Copyright Treaty and various free trade agreements, which extend and harmonise protections.

IP Mojo tip: plan internationally

If your work has export potential—books, software, films, brands—consider international contracts, licences, and partnerships to support enforcement, rather than relying on litigation in a distant jurisdiction.

Next up in our Copy That series:
Part 10 – Copyright Myths Busted: Top Misunderstandings