ABSTRACT
As demands for compensation for the use of creative content in AI development intensify, policymakers are considering copyright-based mechanisms, particularly compulsory licensing and extended collective licensing (ECL). Using Australia as a case study and drawing on 22 interviews with stakeholders, this article examines whether these mechanisms can facilitate copyright licensing for AI development purposes while ensuring equitable remuneration for a variety of right holders. It argues that neither of collective licensing models alone offers an optimal solution. Although compulsory licensing could reduce transaction costs by providing AI developers with access to large repertoires through collective management organisations, it may disproportionately constrain exclusive rights and discourage emerging direct licensing markets. ECL is less intrusive but may prove of little benefit if major right holders opt out. In addition, both mechanisms face significant limitations arising from the territorial nature of copyright law and the national treatment principle which might lead to significant share of remuneration ending up with foreign right holders, rather than local ones. The article proposes three principles for future reform: consideration of compensation at AI deployment, rather than development, stage; ensuring that remuneration collected from local AI companies reach local right holders; and ensuring that original creators and not only secondary right holders, receive a fair share of remuneration.
Matulionyte, Rita, AI and Copyright Collective Licensing: Australia as a Case Study (September 4, 2026).
Leave a Reply