Advocacy in action: standing up for editors in the AI debate

In 2025, IPEd made a formal submission to the Productivity Commission in response to its inquiry into “Harnessing data and digital technology”. 

One of the key questions raised in the inquiry was whether Australia should introduce a text and data mining (TDM) exception to copyright law. Such an exception would allow copyrighted material to be used for AI training without permission or payment. 

IPEd was one of more than 400 organisations and individuals who made submissions. Alongside publishers, authors and academics across Australia, we opposed the proposed TDM exception. 

In our submission, we emphasised that the so-called “high-quality datasets” used to train AI systems are built from the combined labour of authors, editors and publishers. That work has value. Allowing it to be used without consent or remuneration would weaken the copyright framework that supports our creative industries – including the editing profession. 

We also raised concerns about proposals to expand existing fair dealing provisions to cover AI training, noting the real-world impacts generative AI is already having across creative fields. 

This work was informed by IPEd’s Working Party on Artificial Intelligence and aligned with broader discussions happening across the publishing sector. 

The Australian Government has since ruled out a TDM exception, choosing to maintain and develop Australia’s existing copyright framework. We welcome this decision. 

Advocacy like this often happens behind the scenes. But it’s a core part of IPEd’s role: representing editors in national policy conversations, protecting professional standards and helping to ensure that innovation doesn’t come at the expense of creators. 

You can read our full submission to the Productivity Commission on the IPEd website. 

This is your membership at work.