Now as an education writer, my understanding of copyright is much more finely tuned. I know copyright law protects my work and recognises me as author. It allows me to receive licencing income for my effort and recognition that the words I put on a page or screen are my own.
Copyright is fundamental to my ability to create.
I have been writing books for young people who learn in different and unique ways for over twenty years. To date, my work hasn’t been caught up in the data theft that impacted so many Australian writers – yet.
Copyright law is the tool that protects my work and allows teachers to use it in school and TAFE classrooms whilst also allowing me to eat and pay bills.
As the much-loved Australian author Andy Griffith notes, ‘Copyright is how art gets made... if we undermine that there will be no more art, not even to scrape’.
Last year the Albanese government reaffirmed its commitment to Australian copyright law, and to the creators who benefit from it.
From a writing perspective this matters because it means new work is financially viable and being a creator of Australian content can continue to be a profession which supports teachers, students and families.
From a teaching perspective, it means knowing the creative and educational content used in a classroom is reliable, accurate and relevant to an Australian context - and importantly, that the creator has been paid for the work.
The world of content creation is changing rapidly. Each day now, advertisements for AI content generation and editing jobs float across my Linked In page. ‘IEP specialist, Special education expert, Education content creator’ all sound like dream jobs, and if I saw these a decade ago, I would have been racing for my resume.
I’m flattered by the language and there’s a part of me which gets a buzz from being described in this way. But I also know that these jobs are all about commercialising education content for the financial benefit of the platform owner rather than the creator.
They seek to create new content for a very small fee, or to edit existing content mined from across the internet. The focus is unapologetically American, with constant references to US legislation and education policy.
When they describe an IEP, they don’t mean an Australian one. When they refer to educational policies, they are really talking about the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act).
So it seems that while Australia might be the location of choice for massive data centres, it’s not flavour of the month when it comes to paying to create the content which sits behind the AI industry.
Now it seems that big tech is making repeated attempts to pressure government into doing deals to exempt AI companies from copyright law so they can mine text and data without directly recompensing artists and creators.
The drive is potentially towards deals which would be made with government rather than individual creators. But this is akin to walking into a bookshop and simply taking the book you would like to read off the shelf, tearing out the pages and stuffing them in your pockets to take home.
Lucy Haywood from the Australian Society of Authors has a clear view of copyright, AI and authors. She says, ‘despite what tech might tell you, copyright is simple. If you want to use someone's work, you need to ask permission. And copyright is also how authors earn a living’.
The future of educational and creative writing in Australia can be a bright and viable one, depending on the choices that government, big tech firms, schools and teachers make in the here and now.
If we opt for an exclusively AI-generated future, we may need to be willing to abandon decades of creative work which has fuelled so much teaching and learning.
Conversely, if we choose a mutually beneficial path where content is written, bought and licenced, we will continue to have an energetic, insightful creative landscape for all our learners.
