AI training and copyright: the leaked options

If you create work for a living, such as writing, music, art, photography or journalism, would you want the option to license it for AI training, block it, or something else?

Under the reported options, work that is not digitally protected or opted out could be used for training. How practical would opting out be for a small creator or business?

One reported option has AI firms pay a central body or license through collecting societies; the other requires deals with a minimum number of companies for a set period, with no further payment beyond those deals. Which, if either, seems fairer to creators who are not part of those deals?

The Government ruled out a text and data mining exception in 2025. The Opposition says the leaked options amount to one with an opt-out added; the Government says it is still consulting on control and fair compensation. How do you read the difference?

Microsoft told the inquiry copyright uncertainty could deter investment; ARIA/PPCA warned artists would be 'the roadkill in the rush to this AI deal'. How should investment in AI be weighed against creators' income?

Both reported options include transparency requirements and protections for Indigenous cultural and intellectual property. What should AI companies have to disclose about the material they train on?

These options come from confidential slides reported by the media, not a released government proposal. What would you want the Government to confirm or publish before forming a view?

Do you use AI tools in your own work? Does knowing how they were trained affect whether you use them?

For publishers and media businesses: has AI use of your content affected traffic, licensing income or your business model?

Are there overseas approaches to AI training and copyright that Australia should follow or avoid? Share the source.

Who should decide what counts as 'fair compensation': government, a collecting body, courts, or direct negotiation between creators and companies?