Australia’s government has unveiled new copyright reforms this week, specifically involving circumstances in which the copyright owner is unknown or unlocatable – ‘orphan works’.
Expanding on the contents of the Copyright Act 1986, the Copyright Amendment Bill allows Australians new access to “orphaned” creative, historical and educational materials, some of which have been previously held indefinitely in the archives of cultural institutions across the country.
The law makes them available for public use and viewing, alongside new protocol and protections for copyright owners.
The measure further enables anyone to come forward with a copyright claim, if they recognise their work among any unidentified materials. At the price of $30 per student per year, it also allows educators to use unknown works for teaching purposes, including in both classroom and online settings.
A joint statement by Ampal, APRA Amcos, ARIA PPCA, the Australian Publishers Association, Australian Society of Authors, Australian Writers’ Guild, AWG Authorship Collecting Society, Copyright Agency, and the National Association for the Visual Arts and Screenrights welcomed the news.
“Both reforms have the support of creator groups [and] were the product of years of careful consultation and passed as intended,” the statement read.
However, alongside their backing of the bill, the group voiced concerns and calls for action surrounding continued unregulated use of creative works by AI companies.
“Creator groups remain alert to the broader campaign now underway,” they warned.
“The same lobby that sought amendments to this Bill has also argued, in submissions to the Senate Adopting AI inquiry, that Australia’s copyright framework is a barrier to AI development and should be weakened accordingly, in perfect step with the position of multinational technology companies.”
The Australian Government has reiterated many times that Australian AI development using other people’s content must be done in compliance with Australia’s current laws,” they continued.
“That must be the case for so-called ‘non-commercial’ development and activities, as well as commercial. An exception would deny that payment to creators entirely.”
We’ve also covered the Copyright Act 1968 in the context of Australian artists’ authority to keep their music out of political campaigns through a “moral right of integrity” argument.
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source musically.com ’
