Australia has backed away from a contentious plan that would have allowed tech companies to use copyrighted books, music, and art to train artificial intelligence models without payment. The decision by the government's top economic advisory body, the Productivity Commission, follows a fierce backlash from creative industries who warned the proposal amounted to large-scale theft.

The move sets a significant global precedent, providing a major boost to authors, musicians, and artists—in Kenya and worldwide—who are fighting to protect their work in the age of AI. The core issue is whether AI firms can freely use vast amounts of creative content scraped from the internet to teach their systems, a practice creators argue undermines their livelihoods.

A Victory for Creators' Rights

The initial proposal, floated in an August 2025 interim report, suggested creating a "fair dealing" exception for text and data mining (TDM) in Australia's copyright law. This would have given tech giants a green light to use Australian creative works without permission or compensation, a move supported by tech industry leaders who argued it would unlock billions in investment. However, the creative sector, from the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) to prominent authors, mounted a powerful campaign against the plan.

ARIA's CEO, Annabelle Herd, stated the final decision “reinforce[s] what Australian creators and rights holders have consistently argued across 2025: our copyright system is robust, fit for purpose, and should be allowed to do its job in protecting the value of Australian culture”. Instead of the carve-out, the commission now recommends waiting three years before reviewing the impact of AI on copyright law, allowing licensing markets to develop without government interference.

Implications for Kenya's Creative Economy

While the decision was made miles away, its ripples are felt directly in Nairobi's burgeoning creative scene. A 2024 report by Creatives Garage revealed that Kenyan creatives see copyright infringement as one of the biggest threats posed by AI. With over 75% of local artists actively using AI tools like ChatGPT and Midjourney, the legal framework governing these technologies is critical.

Key concerns for Kenyan artists include:

• Authorship and Ownership: Under current Kenyan law, copyright is typically granted only to human authors, leaving purely AI-generated work in a legal grey area.
• Unfair Competition: Artists fear that AI, trained on their unique styles without consent, could be used to generate competing works, devaluing their craft.
• Lack of Compensation: The core of the Australian debate—fair payment for use of data—is a central anxiety for Kenyan creators whose work may be part of global datasets.

The Australian government's decision to reject a free pass for tech companies strengthens the argument for developing robust licensing frameworks. It signals that innovation should not come at the expense of creators' fundamental rights to control and be paid for their work—a principle Kenyan policymakers are being urged to solidify as they develop the country's own AI strategy.

The global debate is far from over. Lawsuits are ongoing in the US and Europe, and nations are adopting varied approaches. But for now, Australia's stand provides a powerful talking point for creators, affirming that their work holds value that cannot simply be mined for free. The focus now shifts to how fair and efficient licensing systems can be built to benefit both innovators and artists.