Tom French (Moore, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Copyright Amendment Bill 2025. This is a measured, practical and overdue reform to Australia's copyright framework. It modernises the Copyright Act 1968 to reflect how Australians learn, create, preserve culture and share knowledge in the 21st century. It does so without undermining the legitimate rights and interests of creators, authors and rights holders who rely on copyright protection for their livelihoods. At its core, this bill responds to a simple reality: the way Australians access information, participate in education and engage with cultural materials has changed profoundly, yet key elements of our copyright law have not kept pace. This bill closes that gap carefully and responsibly.

The bill does three principal things. First, it introduces Australia's first statutory orphan work scheme. Second, it clarifies that copyright exemptions for educational instruction apply consistently across physical, online and hybrid learning environments. Third, it makes a small number of technical and administrative amendments to improve the operation of the Copyright Act, including in relation to the Copyright Tribunal and the duration of Crown copyright. Each of these reforms has been developed following extensive consultation. They reflect years of policy work, including multiple ministerial roundtables convened in 2023 with stakeholders from the creative industries, the education sector, collecting institutions and rights holder organisations. The result is legislation that is balanced, proportionate and grounded in evidence. Copyright reform is rarely straightforward. It sits at the intersection of competing but legitimate interests: creators seeking fair reward for their work, educators and students seeking access to knowledge, cultural institutions seeking to preserve and share our collective memory and governments seeking to ensure the law keeps pace with technological and social change.

The ministerial copyright roundtables, held in 2023, represented a different approach. They brought together representatives from across the creative, cultural, educational and research sectors, as well as industry representatives, collecting institutions and other interested organisations. The objective was not to reopen the entirety of copyright law, but to identify discrete, achievable reforms where there was genuine alignment and evidence of need. By addressing orphan works and clarifying educational use without undermining core rights or licensing frameworks, this bill strengthens that legitimacy.

I'll turn to each of the key measures in this bill. I'll begin with schedule 1, which establishes an Australian orphan works scheme. As someone who was a longstanding supporter of the arts and a regular attendee of live music and performance and as co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Australian Music, I am acutely aware of how central copyright is to the sustainability of Australia's creative industries. That is precisely why it is so important that reform in this area is careful, balanced and grounded in respect for creators. An orphan work is a copyright material for which the copyright owner cannot be identified or located after reasonable efforts. These works are not rare. They are held in large number of libraries, archives, museums, educational institutions and community organisations. They include historical photographs, personal letters, diaries, unpublished manuscripts, audio-visual recordings and other collectables that document our social, cultural and civic life.

Under current law, the inability to identify or locate a copyright owner often means these materials cannot be used at all, even for socially valuable purposes such as education, research, preservation or public exhibition. Institutions face legal uncertainty and risk, and the public is denied access to material that forms part of our shared heritage. The orphan works scheme in this bill addresses that problem directly. It does not abolish copyright. It does not create a blanket exception. Instead, it introduces a carefully calibrated limitation on remedies where a user has acted in good faith and met the strict statutory conditions.

Under the scheme, a person may rely on the limitation on remedies only if they have conducted a reasonably diligent search for the copyright owner, kept a record of that search, could not identify or locate the owner at the time of use and provided clear and prominent notice of reliance on the scheme. If, and only if, those conditions are satisfied, the court is prevented from awarding damages, additional damages or an account of profits for the infringing use. However, the court may still issue reasonable payment to the copyright owner if they later come forward, reflecting what would have been a reasonable licence fee. Importantly, copyright owners retain the ability to assert their rights if they are later identified. They may negotiate terms for ongoing use or seek court ordered terms or injunctive relief in relation to future use. Moral rights are unaffected. Constitutional safeguards are preserved through an express just terms compensation provision. This is not a free-for-all. The burden of proof rests squarely on the user to demonstrate compliance with the scheme. Higher standards of diligence are expected for commercial uses, for sensitive or vulnerable materials and for works involving Indigenous cultural and intellectual property.

The scheme is deliberately designed to encourage caution, transparency and respect. For creators whose works have become orphaned unintentionally through lost records, defunct publishers or the passage of time, the scheme may in fact create new opportunities. Where a copyright owner later emerges, they are entitled to reasonable payment and may negotiate terms for ongoing use. In that sense, the scheme can reconnect creators with works that might otherwise remain unused and invisible.

What this reform does is provide legal certainty where uncertainty has prevailed for decades. It unlocks access to material of cultural, historical and educational value while preserving fairness for rights holders. For researchers, educators, students and community organisations, this reform matters. It allows institutions to preserve, digitise and share material that would otherwise remain inaccessible. It supports the diffusion of knowledge and culture, which is a core objective of copyright law itself.

I now turn to schedule 2, which addresses copyright and remote learning. Section 28 of the Copyright Act permits the performance or communication of copyright material in the course of educational instruction without that use being treated as public performance or communication to the public. That exception has long been understood as applying in physical classrooms. However, the rapid expansion of online and hybrid learning, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, has created uncertainty about how those rules apply to remote teaching and learning. This bill removes that uncertainty.

The amendments to section 28 make it explicit that the provision applies equally to educational instruction conducted in person, online or through a combination of both. It clarifies that parents and guardians who assist students with their lessons are taken to be participating in the instruction. It also confirms that educational instruction may be delivered by persons other than a teacher, such as community members or external presenters, without altering the copyright treatment of the material used. These clarifications do not expand the scope of the exception. They do not disturb existing licensing arrangements, which remain vital to supporting Australian creators and publishers. What they do is ensure that teachers, schools and families are not left guessing about compliance when delivering education in modern formats. This matters for equity. Online and hybrid learning models are not a luxury; they are a necessity for many students, including students in regional and remote areas, students with disabilities, students managing illness and students balancing education with caring responsibilities or work.

Educators are not copyright lawyers, yet they are expected to navigate complex legal obligations while delivering lessons supporting diverse learners and adapting to rapidly changing modes of instruction. Uncertainty in the law does not promote compliance; it promotes hesitation, inconsistency and, in some cases, unnecessary self-censorship. The clarification regarding parental and community involvement is equally important. Parents and carers often play a vital role in supporting students, particularly younger children and students with additional needs. Community members, including local professionals and service workers, frequently contribute to educational programs in ways that enrich learning and connect it to real-world experience. Copyright law should not inadvertently discourage that engagement.

I now turn to schedule 3, which contains a number of minor but important technical amendments. These include simplifying the process for appointing an acting president and registrar of the Copyright Tribunal, updating outdated references to Commonwealth and state archives, modernising notification requirements by replacing gazette publication with notifiable instruments and clarifying the scope of Crown copyright. In particular, the bill makes clear that the provision governing the duration of Crown copyright applies only to material made or first published by or under the control of the Commonwealth or a state. It does not apply to material later acquired by government from third parties. This clarification ensures that government acquisition does not inadvertently extend copyright duration and provides certainty to rights holders and users alike. While these amendments are technical in nature, they improve the clarity, coherence and administration of the act. Good law reform is not only about major policy shifts; it is also about ensuring that statutes operate efficiently and transparently.

Before concluding, I want to address an issue that has understandably attracted attention: the interaction between copyright reform and emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence. This bill does not create a general exemption for the use of copyright material in training AI systems, nor does the orphan works scheme provide a practical pathway for bulk use of works for that purpose. The scheme's requirements, particularly the obligation to conduct a reasonably diligent search and provide notice in relation to each use, are deliberately structured to prevent inappropriate reliance for large-scale automated uses. AI raises complex questions for creators, educators, industry and society, and those questions deserve a dedicated consideration. This bill does not pre-empt that debate; instead, it focuses on targeted, consensus based reforms that address clear and longstanding problems.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the broader human rights context of this legislation. The orphan works scheme and remote learning amendments positively engage the right to education, the right to participate in cultural life and the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress. They promote accessibility, inclusion and non-discrimination. Where the bill places limits on rights, those limits are reasonable, proportionate and necessary to achieve legitimate public objectives.

In conclusion, this bill strengthens Australia's copyright system by making it more responsive to contemporary realities while preserving the fundamental balance at its heart. It supports creators by maintaining strong rights and remedies; it supports creators and students by providing clarity and certainty; it supports cultural institutions by unlocking access to orphan materials; and it supports the Australian community by promoting the diffusion of knowledge, culture and learning. This is thoughtful reform. It is careful reform. It is reform whose time has come. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context