Kylie Minogue’s lyrics and the AI copyright row: what Australia is considering

Kylie Minogue’s lyrics are at the centre of an Australian debate over AI training and copyright. Guardian Australia reported on 19 October that a global music publishers’ group says Google’s Gemini reproduced lyrics by Minogue and other Australian artists, as lawmakers urged the government to examine copyright rules. Whether those works were used to train Gemini, and on what terms, has not been established.

The International Confederation of Music Publishers (ICMP) showed Guardian Australia Gemini responses containing lyrics by Minogue, G-Flip and Nick Cave, the outlet reported. ICMP managing director John Phelan accused AI companies of trying to “strong-arm” Australian policymakers into loosening copyright protections by linking the rules to their willingness to invest.

What the music publishers’ group says it found

Phelan said ICMP had tracked proposed copyright changes in 62 countries. In his account, none of the other 61 had introduced a commercial text-and-data-mining exception or weakened exclusive copyright rights in the way he fears Australia might. Google was approached for comment by Guardian Australia.

What Australia is considering

The parliamentary AI committee’s Labor chair, Jo Briskey, and deputy chair, Liberal senator Jonathon Duniam, recommended that the government “examine current copyright settings” while ensuring creators retain control of their work and receive payment, the Guardian reported. APRA AMCOS, an Australian music rights organisation, addressed the committee’s letter in its own statement. The recommendation is a request for scrutiny, not an announced change to the law.

The dispute centres on whether AI companies can train models on copyrighted material without negotiating licences with every rights holder. Anthropic envoy Jeffrey Bleich told the committee the company had explained to the government how Australian rules could affect its ability to operate there. Under his understanding of those rules, he said, training on internet content could be unlawful without licences from every Australian rights holder. OpenAI policy executive Adam Cohen argued that US fair use protects new technology and cited OpenAI’s agreements with News Corp and the Guardian.

The committee’s approach has also drawn political scrutiny. Independent senator David Pocock questioned whether its copyright position had been predetermined after edits by a prime ministerial staffer appeared in the committee’s letter; Briskey rejected that claim, according to Guardian Australia. The government has yet to announce whether it will act on the committee’s recommendation.