ARIA calls Australia's AI committee co-chairs 'wrong' on copyright, pointing to 27 AI licensing deals

27 AI licensing deals. That’s how many agreements between AI companies and the music industry ARIA now counts: 18 in its submission to Australia’s AI inquiry, and 9 more announced since.

ARIA and PPCA CEO Annabelle Herd used that count to push back on the inquiry itself, in a statement reported on October 13, 2026. The co-chairs of the Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence had said on live TV that Australia’s copyright law isn’t working, and that local creators will miss out on AI unless it changes.

“The statement made by the Co-Chairs of the Parliamentary Committee is wrong. Moreover, it ignores substantial evidence provided to the Committee,” Herd said, as quoted by The Music Network.

What Australia’s Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence told Albanese about copyright

The fight is over a letter. The committee’s chair, Labor MP Jo Briskey, and deputy chair, Liberal Senator Jonno Duniam, sent Prime Minister Anthony Albanese early advice before their final report, ABC News reported.

Most of it is about AI safety and data centres. On copyright, the letter says current arrangements are “not facilitating” licensing deals for Australian culture and content, and that “the status quo sees the work of Australian artists, musicians and media outlets used overseas without adequate control or payment.”

The committee also noted that frontier AI labs called Australia’s copyright settings a “barrier” to training models there. So it recommended the government “examine” those settings, while making sure creators keep control and get paid.

Duniam put it in money terms. “And do you know how much our copyright holders are getting as a result? One hundred per cent of nothing,” he told the ABC.

ACT Senator David Pocock raised a separate concern, that the Prime Minister’s office “pre-vetted” the letter before it was sent. Briskey and Duniam both denied any interference.

Why ARIA says Australia’s copyright law already lets AI companies license music

Some background first. A change to copyright “settings” usually means an exception, a carve-out that lets a company copy your songs to train AI without asking you. The Australian government ruled out a text and data mining exception in October 2025, as I covered when Herd took on OpenAI and Anthropic at the same inquiry a week ago.

Herd’s case is that the law is what forces AI companies to the table. “Australian copyright law gives creators control. It is the only thing standing between major American AI companies and unchecked access to the world’s content right here from Australia,” she said.

The deals are her proof. Labels and publishers keep signing with AI companies, from the NMPA’s deals with Udio and Klay to Warner’s Suno and Udio deals, and ARIA says Australian labels and the artists they represent are part of the deals it counted.

“

It is early days, but the licensing market is developing at pace.

She also answered the “used overseas” point head on. Labels and publishers already sue AI companies in the US, Herd said.

“That is how enforcement works, it occurs in the jurisdiction where the infringing copying occurs. We are not asking the Australian parliament to solve overseas piracy by AI companies.”

It’s the same line ARIA took in June, when Herd rejected Scott Farquhar’s call to loosen the law, and the one Albanese himself backed when he said AI training without artist control is theft.

The committee’s final report is due in November, and the government wants AI and data centre laws through parliament in early 2027. That’s where you’ll see whether “examine” turns into a change to the rules your songs sit under.