The global recording industry has stepped directly into Australia’s fight over AI and copyright. In an exclusive interview published by Guardian Australia on Sunday 8 November 2026, Victoria Oakley, chief executive of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), warned the Albanese government that weakening copyright protections to help AI companies would be “ridiculous and dangerous”.
IFPI represents the recording industry worldwide. Its message was that this is not only an Australian question. If Australia lets AI companies train on creative work without permission, Oakley argues, recordings from every country could be exposed. Here is what she said, where the Australian debate stands, and why it matters to artists and listeners here and overseas.
What IFPI said
Oakley told Guardian Australia that IFPI’s members were worried Australia might agree to demands that other nations had rejected. She questioned why “a sophisticated, democratic country that has a phenomenal cultural power of its own” would “buy into the promises of a few large AI companies, and throw away their own culture and creativity”.
“You just need one safe harbour, because then you can train on music from anywhere in the world. So this isn’t just about Australian music and Australian culture; it’s about music and culture everywhere.” — Victoria Oakley, IFPI chief executive, to Guardian Australia
She said IFPI had been “talking to capitals around the world” about Australia, and described the prospect as “a disaster for creativity”. Oakley also rejected the idea that a country only wins AI investment by giving AI companies what they ask for: “I just don’t think it’s true that you will only get investment or growth, or be seen as pro-innovation, if you entirely give in to the demands of AI companies.”
Oakley declined to speculate on possible legal or constitutional challenges, which the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) has raised, according to Guardian Australia. But she warned of reputational damage to Australia and of “contagion” if other countries followed.
Where Australia’s AI copyright debate stands
Nothing has been decided. The federal government ruled out a text and data mining exception, which would have let AI developers train on creators’ work without permission or payment, nearly a year ago. Attorney-General Michelle Rowland confirmed that on ABC Radio National on 29 September 2026, adding that “the first best option in all of this is for voluntary licencing arrangements to be struck”.
Other options are still being discussed. In the same interview, Rowland did not rule out opt-out provisions, saying the government was “looking at a very broad range of options” and also considering penalties, audit and transparency requirements. Under an opt-out model, AI companies could use material unless its owner objected. Guardian Australia reports that Anthropic has suggested exactly that, and that some AI companies have rejected licensing deals under current law as too difficult. We covered the leaked consultation options and the music publishers’ response in AI Copyright in Australia: Publishers Slam Opt-Out Plan.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has promised “the strongest possible protection” for creators and warned it would be “theft” if they were not paid for their work, according to Guardian Australia. Through a spokesperson, Rowland told Guardian Australia that the government was “committed to supporting” creatives and pledged that “any future copyright changes deliver meaningful control and fair compensation”.
The Spotify comparison
A key question in the debate is whether AI companies can license music the way streaming services do. Answering questions from independent senator David Pocock at the parliamentary inquiry on AI, OpenAI said Spotify “has a different business, where it primarily transmits un-transformed copyrighted content, so would be expected to license content that it streams”, Guardian Australia reports.
Oakley disagreed. “It is perfectly possible to license,” she said, noting that music labels have already signed dozens of licensing deals with smaller AI companies. “We already know how to license music to tech platforms because that’s exactly how Spotify works, or Amazon Music, Apple, or Tidal.” Her pitch to AI companies was simple: “Come to us and we’ll make it work.”
Australian industry bodies have made similar arguments. ARIA’s evidence to the Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence listed 18 global AI deals between AI companies and the music industry, and ARIA said on 13 October that nine more had been made since. APRA AMCOS said on 14 October that “the machinery to license AI is ready” and that no AI platform operating in Australia had asked it how a licence would work.
Why other countries are watching
ARIA, whose chief executive Annabelle Herd gave evidence to the committee on 6 October, points out that under the principle of national treatment, Australia protects overseas works under Australian law just as other countries protect Australian works. That is why a change here could reach recordings made anywhere. It is also why the concern has spread beyond music: the UK’s Society of Authors said on 4 November that it had written to the Australian government and is helping organise a public statement opposing the proposals.
Why it matters
For artists and songwriters
The outcome decides whether AI companies must ask permission and pay before training on music, or whether artists have to opt out to protect their work. That affects bargaining power and income for creators in Australia and, because of national treatment, for overseas artists too.
For AI music creators and listeners
Rules on training shape which AI music tools are offered and on what terms. Licensed models built on deals with rights holders are becoming more common. Chart rules are tightening too: ARIA has excluded fully AI-generated recordings from its charts since late August 2026, and IFPI’s global chart principles require recordings to be substantially human made and to use properly authorised, lawful AI services.
What happens next
The government is still consulting and has not announced a final decision. Watch for its response to the consultation, the Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence’s final report, and any new licensing deals between AI companies and Australian rights holders.
Original AI music on Dizy
Dizy’s charts showcase original AI-assisted music from independent creators around the world. Explore the Top 40, the Top 100 and New releases, browse AI artists, or, if you make original music, submit your track.
Sources
Tech Business News: Music industry warns against AI copyright changes (8 November 2026)
ARIA: Australia is being used to sell out the world’s creators (6 October 2026)
APRA AMCOS: Statement on the Joint Select Committee letter (14 October 2026)
Society of Authors: Australia’s AI copyright proposals and international authors (4 November 2026)
ABC News: Fully AI-generated music to be banned from ARIA charts (25 August 2026)
