Advocacy

In late March 2025, Vice-President Ben Guthrie attended a one-on-one meeting with Jenna Priestly and Kirk Page from the Commercial and Copyright Law Branch of the Attorney-General’s Department. It was a good, open, informal and honest chat. It was made very clear that the pending federal election looms large and is casting a shadow over tangible progress on all agenda items at this point in time. It was noted that some of the topics that have been reviewed by the AG’s office in recent years would probably have bi-partisan support and might hopefully remain on the table later in the year regardless of who might hold government.

In terms of topics that were discussed, we briefly broached orphan works. Just in a broad and cursory way, as IMAA’s opinions on that topic are already very clear to the AG’s team. We then discussed the real benefits to photographers for a simpler, cheaper and quicker legal process for pursuing copyright infringements. Ben explained to the Assistant Secretary at length the types of infringement problems that our members face, detailing scenarios such as when small or medium businesses steal our imagery to use to promote their businesses and then refuse to pay for a license when our members reach out to them. Ben went over the different ways that photographers, as sole practitioners, usually handle those sorts of infringements and also reiterated that the current legal court processes are too difficult, lengthy & prohibitively expensive for photographers and our relatively small incomes. The AG’s team now have a better and clearer understanding of the specific nature of our member’s problems and will take the issues that Ben raised into ongoing discussions with the Attorneys General (present & future).

In terms of progress on the possibility of some kind of small claims court or tribunal; there has been progress there. The AG’s office has been working behind the scenes on the development of policy proposals in detail over the last year or two, since the public Copyright Enforcement Review. Due to the classified requirements of government process, they have not been able to make any of the detail of those policy ideas public. It was, however, very comforting to hear that, despite the public radio-silence on this topic, work is progressing, and in detail. Again, the looming election means there will be no announcements in this area until well after the election.

We also discussed the need for better educational campaigns around copyright. Ben again proposed that targeted online / social media campaigns that target small to medium sized businesses would be beneficial for our members and might in all likelihood lead to a reduction of infringements in our sector. We briefly pondered how such a campaign might be managed, contemplating whether funding might be provided to the Copyright Council, Copyright Agency or even IMAA in order to facilitate such a campaign. These conversations were all hypothetical and open-ended of course, and are always subject to approval and uptake from the politicians in government to whom the AGs office reports.

So watch this space for updates.

On Wednesday 5th of March 2025, Vice-President Ben Guthrie attended another meeting of the Copyright and AI Reference Group. At the meeting, the Attorney-General’s Department presented a summary of the feedback received through last year’s consultation process on transparency in AI and also discussed potential next steps for further engagement with the reference group. The department has now published a summary of CAIRG responses to last year’s discussion paper on transparency on their website, along with a copy of the discussion paper itself.

Broadly speaking, it was clear that the department has been listening to the many and varied opinions of a variety of stakeholders around how new AI systems might interact with copyright. However, no policy ideas or approaches were presented at the meeting. The largest elephant in the room seemed to be the looming federal election. The department made it clear that, while some policy ideas are being considered behind closed doors by the department, presentation of any formal policy ideas is not likely to occur until after the pending federal government election.

Image Makers Association prepared and submitted another response to Government regarding their proposed design for an Australian Orphan Works Scheme. In our submission, we advocated strongly for the protection of the commercial right for remuneration for all uses of photography and other copyright works, inclusive of scenarios where a work has been temporarily ‘orphaned’. We also continued to advocate for improved education and legislation around the problematic and endemic practice of meta-data stripping from digital image files.

We will make our submission available in due course, after any embargoes on the consultation process have been lifted. Watch this space for more information.

On the 12th of February 2025, Vice President Ben Guthrie and IMAA member Michelle Williams attended another Ministerial Roundtable on Copyright. This one was focused on on discussing the specific details of a proposed design for an Australian Orphan Works Scheme.

At the meeting, we continued to advocate vocally for the rights of commercial image makers to be upheld and not be diminished if their work might temporarily become ‘orphaned’. We then backed up our input at the meeting by making a formal, detailed submission in response to the proposal later that month.

Following on from the previous Roundtable on Copyright, Image Makers Association Australia prepared a written submission to the Australian Government, Attorney-General’s Department, on the topic of ‘Orphan Works Scheme Design Options’ where we continued to advocate for the commercial rights of photographers all over Australia.

You can read our submission here.

On the 11th of September 2024, Vice President Ben Guthrie and IMAA member Michelle Williams attended the Fifth Ministerial Roundtable on Copyright. This roundtable focused upon Design Options for a possible future Orphan Works Scheme. Issues discussed included the pros and cons of adopting a limited liability model versus a licensing model for such a scheme, requirements and definitions of a ‘reasonably diligent search’, and the need for a requirement for the future assertion of rights by copyright holders. Matters of fairness and equity were discussed. Also discussed was the need for a seamless, low-cost legal mechanism to pursue matters in a small claims court or similar if and when required.

The roundtable discussion was open in nature and was not intended to determine any final outcomes but was instead intended to canvas the range of opinions on this topic from a variety of stakeholders. Image Makers Association again used the forum to continue to contribute to the discussion and to vocally advocate for the economic rights of photographers and other image makers under any such orphaned works scheme.

On the 4th of September 2024, Vice President Ben Guthrie attended the second Copyright and Artificial Intelligence Reference Group Meeting. This meeting discussed a broad range of issues relating to AI and copyright. The primary focus was upon inputs to AI systems as well as identifying priorities ahead. Image Makers Association Australia continued to advocate vocally on behalf of photographers and all owners of copyright material.

This meeting was followed soon after by the release of the Attorney General’s Office ‘Copyright and AI Transparency Issues Paper’. We provided a brief, written submission that summarised our position on the topics of transparency in AI systems, the potential for remuneration for use by businesses located outside of Australia and also on the requirement for broad copyright protections to continue to apply to use by AI systems and businesses.

Note that you can read the summary of all responses submitted to government that has been prepared by the Attorney General’s office here. You can also read more broadly about the entire CAIRG process at the Attorney General’s website here.

On the 12th of June 2024, Image Makers Association Australia made a formal, seven page, written submission to the Australian Government, Attorney-General’s Department, 'Copyright Material as AI Inputs – Mapping Exercise'. At the time of writing, Government has requested that our response remain confidential. Check back later to read our submission once the embargo on this particular item has been lifted.

On the 29th of May 2024, Vice President Ben Guthrie attended a 'Technical Information Session’ of the Copyright and AI Reference Group, hosted by the office of The Federal Attorney General. Presentations were made by Google’s Vice President of Engineering & Research (Yossi Matias), Canva’s Principal Machine Learning Engineer (Kerry Halupka) and the Gradient Institute’s CEO (Bill Simpson-Young) and Chief Scientist (Tiberio Caetano).

While the meeting was very technical in nature, IMAA put questions forward to the presenters that related to the technical practicalities (or otherwise) that might relate to ‘fine-tuning’ copyrighted material such as unlicensed photography out of AI data-sets. Our input to this technical session continued our ongoing advocacy for the commercial rights of all owners of copyright material.

In late April, Ben Guthrie attended a seminar hosted by the The Copyright Society of Australia about Generative AI and Author Remuneration. The seminar included presentations and discussion by visiting academic Professor Martin Senftleben and Associate Professor Rita Matulionyte, both of whom are experts in copyright law and how it relates to the burgeoning field of generative artificial intelligence. 

The seminar considered the practicalities of different ways of generating remuneration for copyright owners when their work is used by generative AI. There are currently two vastly different approaches being considered by legal experts around the world: one option would seek payment at the time of training an AI system (inputs) and the other would involve receipt of payment by copyright holders at each moment when an AI output is generated. Pros and cons of each of these approaches were discussed. Generally, the discussion seemed to suggest that while obtaining licenses and payment at the time of input might result in a distribution of income that more clearly and fairly benefits each actual and specific copyright owner, such an approach would likely be very difficult to police/manage due to lack of transparency and also problems with making financial distributions to an incredibly large pool of individual copyright holders. The discussion also broached the problems that might result between different international jurisdictions having different laws around AI training and remuneration and how that might negatively impact AI take-up in jurisdictions where laws were deemed prohibitive by AI businesses. It was then considered that the alternative approach that would see copyright owners remunerated at the time of output would avoid jurisdiction-specific problems, and almost certainly require distribution of funds via national/public collecting agencies, with the resultant payments likely being much smaller for each individual use and also being distributed equally amongst all relevant copyright holders regardless of how much (if any) of their work may have been originally used for AI training purposes. 

Other topics that were discussed included probable requirements around technical and legal mechanisms to permit copyright holders to either opt-in or opt-out of collective remuneration programs, as well as the ability to opt-in or opt-out of making digital work available to AI training systems. 

Comfortingly, there was a clear and general agreement by both speakers that copyright holders should be remunerated when their content is used to train AI systems that have a potential to significantly affect right holders' commercial markets, regardless of whether the training occurred in the past, present or future. Compulsory/statutory licensing is generally considered as being the way forward, but licensing schemes should be transparent, effective and fair for all stakeholders. 

Watch this space as this topic of discussion continues to evolve.

Image Makers Association Australia was invited by the Federal Attorney-General’s Department to be a member of the Copyright and Artificial Intelligence Reference Group (CAIRG), as announced by the Attorney-General, the Hon Mark Dreyfus KC MP, on 5 December 2023.

The first meeting of the group was held in February 2024. The initial focus covered the use of inputs and data that are used to train AI models. After work on inputs has progressed, the department proposes the CAIRG consider issues relating to outputs.

Image Makers Association Australia continues to advocate at these meetings for the rights of image-makers to be upheld with particular emphasis on the need for owners of AI systems to ensure that all material used as inputs for their businesses is licensed in accordance with applicable copyright laws. You can read our response HERE.

The Australian Government consultation hub sought views on how the Australian Government can mitigate any potential risks of AI and support safe and responsible AI practices.

AI is already improving many aspects of our lives. But the speed of innovation in AI could pose new risks, which creates uncertainty and gives rise to public concerns.

Australia has strong foundations to be a leader in responsible AI. We have world-leading AI research capabilities and are early movers in the trusted use of digital technologies. Australia established the world’s first eSafety Commissioner in 2015 to safeguard Australian citizens online and was one of the earliest countries to adopt a national set of AI Ethics Principles. The consultation will help ensure Australia continues to support responsible AI practices to increase community trust and confidence.

On 4 December 2023, the Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus KC MP chaired the fourth and final roundtable on copyright for the year in Canberra. This roundtable was attended by Vice President Ben Guthrie.

Participants reflected on the outcomes of previous roundtables and potential next steps on each of the 5 reform issues discussed in detail that year, should the government decide to take them forward.

At the meeting, the Attorney-General announced that the government would establish a copyright and AI reference group as an outcome from the roundtables.

A summary of the meeting is HERE.

This roundtable was attended by Vice President Ben Guthrie who participated in conversations relating to Image Makers. The meeting included a session on day one covering the implications of artificial intelligence on copyright, and then on day two a discussion of issues relating to the definition of ‘broadcast’.

At this meeting with government we advocated for maintaining and strengthening the rights of our members, using data collected from our recent survey on AI.

A summary of the meeting is available HERE.

Image Makers Association Australia prepared a response to the 'Supporting responsible AI: discussion paper’ for the Department of Industry, Science and Resources. In preparing our submission we conducted a survey of our members and other commercial photographers on their opinions on how emerging AI technology is impacting their photography businesses. The vast majority of topics canvassed therein relate to copyright.

View the response submitted HERE.

Image Makers Association Australia was invited by the Attorney General’s department to contribute to the second Ministerial Roundtable on Copyright in June 23 run over two half-days.

The session focused on

• a limited liability scheme for the use of orphan works (that is, where the copyright owner cannot be found)

• quotation from copyright material

• use of copyright material in remote learning environment

Vice President Ben Guthrie attended and participated in conversations relating to Image Makers.

A summary of the meeting is available HERE

Led by Ben Guthrie, our volunteer committee spent significant effort preparing a survey of photographers throughout Australia, allowing us to provide data and an informed response to the Government Copyright Enforcement Review public consultation process.

The Government Copyright Enforcement Review addressed questions around challenges in relation to Copyright Infringement and the economic impact on businesses.

Our submission provides an indication of how the broader photographic community is being affected by copyright infringement and some proposed changes to the current enforcement mechanisms.