The Australian Writers' Guild Authorship Collecting Society (AWGACS) is updating its name and logo to become the Authorship Collecting Society Australia Aotearoa (ACSAA). For 30 years, 'By authors, for authors, for authors' royalties' has guided our work representing screen authors across Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. In our 30th birthday year, we're changing our name to better reflect who we represent. Every royalty collected, every right defended, every voice added to ACSAA strengthens us all. This is a milestone for all of us, and as we move into our next chapter, we do it stronger together. What this means for members. Members don't need to do a thing. We have a new name and a new look, but we're operating the same, and nothing changes for members. Why we are making the change. Our new name and logo have been guided by these principles: Saying who we are: This rebrand gives us a distinct identity that makes it clear who we represent - screen authors - in conversations with government and industry. ACSAA will continue our close relationships with the Australian Writers' Guild (AWG) and New Zealand Writers' Guild (NZWG) and Australian Screen Editors (ASE). Clearly defining our full geographic reach: Our new name explicitly acknowledges the geographical scope of our membership. Reflecting our growing membership: Our membership now includes screen editors alongside screenwriters. We're here to answer any questions you might have regarding this change. Please don’t hesitate to get in touch with us at admin@acsaa.org.au if there's anything you'd like to know.

Each of the copyright collecting societies, Australasian Performing Right Association Limited (“APRA”), Australasian Mechanical Copyright Owners Society Limited (“AMCOS”), Phonographic Performance Company of Australia Limited (“PPCA”), Copyright Agency Limited (“Copyright Agency”), Audio-Visual Copyright Society Limited (“Screenrights”), Australian Writers’ Guild Authorship Collecting Society Limited (“AWGACS”) and Australian Screen Directors Authorship Collecting Society Limited (“ASDACS”), subscribes to a code of conduct. In its original form, the Code came into effect in July 2002. The most recent update came into effect on 20 May 2025. A copy of the Code is available on each Society’s website or from the Code of Conduct for Copyright Collecting Societies website https://www.copyrightcodeofconduct.org.au/code and can be downloaded or, if requested, a copy can be supplied by post. Compliance by participating collecting societies with the Code’s standards of conduct is the subject of an independent annual review. The Code Reviewer for this purpose is former Federal Court judge and former President of the Copyright Tribunal of Australia, The Hon Kevin Lindgren AM, KC. His current task is to review the Societies’ compliance with the Code during the period 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2026. The Code allows for interested parties to make submissions to the Code Reviewer concerning a collecting society’s compliance or non-compliance with the Code. If you wish to make a submission, please inform the Code Review Secretariat by email [note new email address]: (secretariat@copyrightcodeofconduct.org.au). The Secretariat will send you details about the procedure for making a submission. The closing date for completing the submission process is 31 July 2026.

Joint statement from AMPAL, APRA AMCOS, ARIA PPCA, Australian Publishers Association, Australian Society of Authors, Australian Writers’ Guild, AWG Authorship Collecting Society, Copyright Agency and Screenrights. The Copyright Advisory Group (CAG) is seeking concessions that go significantly further than what the Australian Government consulted introduced into Parliament. Friday 20 March 2026 – Australian authors, songwriters, recording artists, visual artists, photographers, illustrators, playwrights, screenwriters and producers are in the sights of the country’s most powerful education bureaucracies. State and territory education departments and private schools, backed by a taxpayer-funded lobbying operation, are pushing to expand copyright exceptions well beyond agreed amendments to the Copyright Act, and it is creators who will pay the price. The Copyright Advisory Group (CAG), staffed by government lawyers, funded by taxpayers, and representing the combined weight of every state and territory government and every major private, Catholic and independent school, is seeking concessions that go significantly further than what the Australian Government consulted on, agreed to and introduced into Parliament. The intent of the Bill was clear: To confirm that an existing exception allowing copyright material to be used in classrooms without payment applies equally in online settings. The Explanatory Memorandum is explicit and the amendments were not intended to touch existing licensing arrangements. The Senate inquiry agreed, recommending the Bill pass as drafted. But now, the education sector wants more. The education sector spends more on cleaning schools each year than it pays to access the entirety of human creative output. And still, its position is that this is not enough. The answer is not to take money from some of the lowest-paid workers in the country. For just under $30 per student per year, every student in every Australian school has access to everything ever created, every book ever written, virtually every song ever recorded, every image ever published, every article, every poem, every illustration, every play, every documentary or film ever made and every screenplay. Not a curated subset. Not a limited catalogue. Everything. Teachers can copy it, share it, stream it in any classroom, in any format, online or in person, without seeking permission and without paying a cent beyond that flat annual fee. By any measure, it is one of the most comprehensive and accessible education licences anywhere in the world. This is not the first time. The same arguments were deployed in 2016. They resurfaced during COVID-19, when the same lobby sought to use the pandemic as cover. They are now being run again, in perfect step with big tech’s push to weaken creator protections in the development of Artificial Intelligence. The timing, each time, is not coincidental. The target, each time, is the same. The earnings of artists and creators who have no comparable institutional power, no government funding, and no capacity to absorb further cuts to their income. The author whose book is being copied, the songwriter and recording artist whose work is being streamed in a classroom, the filmmaker and television creators whose work inspires, the illustrator whose images fill the curriculum already provide access for a sum that would not buy a single textbook or a school uniform shirt. Asking creators to carry costs that are not theirs to bear is not progress. It is cost-shifting dressed up as principle. Local Australian creator groups including AMPAL, APRA AMCOS, ARIA PPCA, Australian Publishers Association, Australian Society of Authors, Australian Writers’ Guild, AWG Authorship Collecting Society, Copyright Agency and Screenrights will continue to oppose any expansion of copyright exceptions, in this Bill, in the CAIRG process or in any future reform, that undermines the licensing framework and further reduces the already modest incomes of the people who make Australian creative life possible.

Australia’s screen creatives have today welcomed the passing of the  Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025  through Parliament. The legislation means streaming services are now included in the requirement to make a certain level of Australian content, via spending a percentage of their expenditure on new local drama, children’s, and documentary programs. Australian Writers’ Guild ( AWG ) and Australian Writers’ Guild Authorship Collecting Society ( AWGACS ) CEO  Claire Pullen  said, “This is a watershed moment for Australia’s screen industry. This will give our members and the entire creative community more certainty around their careers, and the industry here at home.” “Securing local content quotas is a significant step forward in levelling the playing field for streamers and broadcasters, and it acts as a strong reminder of what we’ve been continually told – that Australians want to see more Aussie content on their screens,” said Pullen. “We congratulate the Albanese Government, Arts Minister Tony Burke, Communications Minister Anika Wells and the many members of Parliament who’ve supported the campaign over the years on this achievement.” The Australian Writers’ Guild has worked alongside fellow screen industry guilds and members of the Make It Australian campaign for local content requirements for streaming video on demand services (SVODs) since September 2017. AWG President and Logie Award-winning showrunner  Peter Mattessi  said, “This has been a long and hard-fought campaign, and we thank the many writer members, our fellow creatives and industry leaders who’ve given of their time and expertise to advocate for our industry and for Australian stories over the last eight years.” “This legislation is the first step in building a stronger, more robust Australian screen industry. There’s more to do, but this is an exciting moment, and an opportunity to position Australian stories at the centre of national and international conversations,” said Mattessi. “As we head into 2026 and planning for a new National Cultural Policy, we are pleased to have this vital piece of Revive marked off the list so we can continue what we do best – telling great Australian stories.” AWGACS President  Sam Meikle  said, “The fight to preserve the vital place for Australian stories on Australian screens has been won. This is the first step in seeing more Australian stories, and guaranteeing career pathways for Australian screen workers – roundly known to be among the best in the world. We make great television. Now the world will get to see more of it, and Australian writers are ready to lead the charge.”

Friday 19 December: Australian creative workers have criticized the Productivity Commission’s lack of meaningful action to support the growth of Australia’s creative industries in its final report on Harnessing Data and Digital Technologies, with the Friday 19 December release date drawing attention. The report advocates for a ‘cautious’ approach to AI-specific regulation, stating it should be enacted as a last resort and that Government should “monitor the development of AI and its interaction with copyright over the next three years,” despite clear evidence that AI datasets have already infringed upon creator copyright and will continue to do so at the expense of creative workers. Australian Writers’ Guild (AWG) and Australian Writers’ Guild Authorship Collection Society (AWGACS) CEO Claire Pullen said, “It’s been two years since we first reported our members intellectual property had been stolen to ‘train’ AI datasets, and since then the theft has only grown. While it’s good to see the Productivity Commission tacitly acknowledge its overstep into copyright and walk back its sweeping and ill-informed position in the draft report, we must question why, after a year of consultation, their final report still evades any concrete action to support the productivity and growth of Australia’s creative sector and why the report was dropped the Friday before Christmas in a packed news week.” After a notably bad appearance from the Productivity Commission highlighting a lack of modelling in front of a Senate committee early this year, the report continues to espouse the unfounded benefits of AI and continues to advocate for big tech, going as far to suggest that requiring dataset transparency would “have a chilling effect on innovation.” “It is staggering to suggest that protecting a company’s AI dataset – a collection of works they did not create nor own under Australian copyright law – should supersede protecting a creator’s right to their own intellectual property,” said Pullen. “If the Productivity Commission is serious about supporting the continued creation of new works, as they claim, there are clear steps that can and should be taken as soon as possible, including standalone legislation or certain amendments to the Copyright Act.” The AWG and AWGACS are advocating for legislation including: the protection of First Nations cultural assets; a new economic right to use a work to ‘train’ an AI model; protections for voice, face, and likeness for all Australians; a moral right against using a work to ‘train’ AI “The fundamental issue the Productivity Commission has failed to address is that AI technology has been built on the stolen property of Australian screenwriters, playwrights, authors, artists and musicians, all knowingly infringed by bad-faith actors,” said Pullen.

The AWG has welcomed Arts Minister Tony Burke’s announcement that new screen content requirements for streaming services will require major streaming services to make new Australian content. “Amid global uncertainty, the government has said it wants to ensure a future for Australian content,” said AWG CEO Claire Pullen . "Our members work in a volatile market where streaming platforms wield enormous power. There is a growing disparity between broadcast and streaming in terms of how they give back to the community and our local industry, even as streaming comes to dominate how we watch shows and films." AWG President and Logie Award-winning showrunner Peter Mattessi said, "World events move fast and impact our industry in many different ways. Meanwhile, streaming platforms are taking billions of dollars out of the country in subscription fees from Australians – Australians who tell us over and over again that they want to see more Australian content on their screens." "It has been a long road to get to this point and after lengthy conversations with Government, we are pleased to see our input incorporated into this model, and to see our nation once again require those who deliver screen content to invest in the importance of Australian storytellers telling Australian stories." Read the full statement HERE . What will screen content requirements for streaming services look like? The Government has stated that: "legislation to be introduced in Parliament will mandate streaming services with more than one million Australian subscribers will need to invest at least 10 per cent of their total expenditure for Australia – or 7.5 per cent of their revenue – on new local drama, children’s, documentary, arts and educational programs". Read the full announcement HERE .

In opening remarks to a Senate inquiry on Tuesday, Australian Writers’ Guild ( AWG ) and Australian Writers’ Guild Authorship Collecting Society ( AWGACS ) CEO Claire Pullen joined other creative leaders and Senators in criticising the Productivity Commission for failing to model the economic contribution of creative industries. Australia’s creative workers raised questions over the Productivity Commission’s Interim Report, including whether the Commission is fit to publish recommendations that include dismantling existing copyright protections when it has not undertaken detailed analysis of the copyright issues at play. Appearing before the Inquiry into the National Cultural Report, the Productivity Commission was  lambasted  by senators as turning their backs on Australia’s creative industries. Pressed on the impact a Text and Data Mining (TDM) exception might have on the creative economy, which brings in upwards of $90 billion or 2% of Australia’s GDP, the Commission admitted that no modelling was undertaken prior to the Interim Report being published. In her opening remarks to the Committee, Pullen pointed out the Guild had done more modelling than the Productivity Commission. “It is staggering that the Productivity Commission could dedicate so much of their time to pushing the unfounded benefits of AI and a TDM exception without a shred of evidence to back up its claims,” says Pullen. “How are we as creative industries or the Government, tasked with regulating AI, meant to respond to anything in the Interim Report when the basic question of how our industries will be impacted was not even considered?” says Pullen. In response to the lack of modelling provided by the Commission, the Australian Writers’ Guild commissioned modelling of their own, estimating that AI could see over $1.7 billion in lost wages and 2000 creative jobs slashed by 2035. Australian writers currently set in motion over $1 billion in economic activity. “We are deeply disappointed that the Productivity Commission appears not to take seriously the economic contribution of the creative industries to our economy,” says Pullen. As expressed in their submission, the AWG and AWGACS maintain that the starting position on AI has to be that tech companies are asked how they will rectify the copyright theft and moral rights infringements that have already taken place. “The Productivity Commission should be examining the cost to our economy of failing to enforce Australian law as creative jobs are destroyed,” says Pullen.

Australian creative workers and their royalty collecting societies expressed disappointment at the Productivity Commission’s advocacy for a text and data mining (TDM) exception, a move that would retroactively legalise the theft of Australia’s creative workers’ intellectual property, voices, images, and work, by foreign multi-nationals. The interim report “ Harnessing data and digital technology ” seeks feedback on a possible “TDM exception” to the Copyright Act , which creative workers say could devastate the local creative industries and legitimise the widespread flouting of Australian law that has already taken place. It is unclear if the Commission will go further in recommending that all Australians lose the right to own and protect their personal and private data, including their face and voice, to artificial intelligence (AI) models. Tech companies operating Large Language Models (LLMs) have conceded that AI models rely on copyrighted works that are taken without consent or payment, and Australian workers have already seen their works stolen, including some of Australia’s most iconic plays and books. At a Senate inquiry last year, big tech companies repeatedly dodged questions about the provenance of work used in their AI models, and faced sustained questioning about the use of Australian voices, books and films in their models. “We have already seen large-scale theft of intellectual property for commercial purposes at the expense of Australian workers”, said AWG and AWGACS CEO Claire Pullen . Pullen notes there is a particularly acute risk to First Nations works, and any proposed TDM exception would fly in the face of the Productivity Commission’s own recommendations on fake First Nations art. Publicly available generative AI tools can be made to generate counterfeits, without regard to cultural protocols, community consent, or remuneration. “Copyright has never been a barrier to producing good work, and in fact incentivises it, because it ensures I can pay the bills while creating popular shows,” said Peter Mattessi , AWG President. “It’s outrageous that this is even being considered, and it’s implied the onus will be on creators to test in court whether the use is ‘fair’ or not. It’s farcical to suggest any of us can afford to sue Google.” Mattessi is the co-creator and showrunner for Return to Paradise , which won Best Drama at the Logies this week. “I oversee the collection and distribution of millions in royalties to writers every year, millions writers earn because they own the rights to their work,” says Sam Meikle , AWGACS Chair, award-winning writer and co-showrunner of Wakefield . “It beggars belief that these tech companies can steal from Australian artists, endangering our jobs and our cultural sovereignty, and then have the Productivity Commission suggest they be rewarded for it. The lost productivity from all the stolen work is where the focus should be. The benefits of AI are speculative. The benefits of creative work are not.” “They could build AI models that fairly treat writers, artists, and musicians in Australia and around the world by paying for work. You don’t need an exception to do that. This feels like the Productivity Commission is carrying water for big tech at the expense of Australians.” “Our submission will make clear that any TDM exception is not acceptable to creative workers.” The AWG and AWGACS position is endorsed by the following industry guilds and collecting societies: Australian Cinematographers’ Society (ACS) Australian Directors’ Guild (ADG) Australian Screen Directors Authorship Collecting Society (ASDACS) Australian Guild of Screen Composers (AGSC) Australian Screen Sound Guild (ASSG) Australian Production Design Guild (APDG) Australian Screen Editors’ Guild (ASE) and the Australian Association of Voice Actors (AAVA) representing cinematographers, screen directors, screen and live performance designers, screen composers, screen editors and voice actors.

The Australian Writers’ Guild (AWG) and Australian Writers’ Guild Authorship Collecting Society (AWGACS) have rejected the suggestion that a Text and Data Mining (TDM) Exception for the training of AI models be considered by the government, and expressed disappointment at the Productivity Commission’s interim report. The report “ Harnessing data and digital technology ” seeks feedback on a “TDM exception” to the Copyright Act, to allow ‘training’ of AI models on copyrighted works. Despite the interim report saying that such an exception would not be a blank cheque, writers are skeptical.   “The Productivity Commissioner has asked, ‘Are our laws fit for purpose with AI?’ but the real question is, why should we change our laws to make things easier for foreign big tech, instead of making things better for Australian workers, people who actually produce things in Australia?” said AWG and AWGACS CEO Claire Pullen.   “The Productivity Commission has conceded that large AI models have already been trained on copyrighted materials owned by Australians. It should be recommending tech companies follow Australian law and stop stealing from creative workers, who are responsible for an industry that contributes over $60 billion to our economy.”  Pullen notes there is a particularly acute risk to First Nations works, and any proposed TDM exception would fly in the face of the Productivity Commission’s own recommendations on fake First Nations art. Publicly available generative AI tools can be made to generate counterfeits, without regard to cultural protocols, community consent, or remuneration.   Tech companies operating Large Language Models (LLMs) have conceded that AI models rely on copyrighted works that are taken without consent or payment, and Australian workers have already seen their works stolen, including some of Australia’s most iconic plays and books. At a Senate inquiry last year, big tech companies repeatedly dodged questions about the provenance of work used in their AI models, and faced sustained questioning about the use of Australian voices, books and films in their models.  “It is disappointing to see a request for feedback about how things might be made easier for big tech, but nothing addressing the lost productivity and income for Australia and Australian creatives as a result of the infringement that has already taken place,” Pullen said. “It seems clear that the Productivity Commission favours weakening our existing laws.”

The Australian Writers’ Guild ( AWG ) and Australian Writers’ Guild Authorship Collecting Society ( AWGACS ) welcome the Attorney-General’s announcement that the Australian Government will maintain Australia’s strong copyright framework.   The Australian Writers’ Guild is the professional association for Australian screen and stage writers across film, television, theatre, audio and interactive media and has protected and promoted their creative and professional interests for more than 60 years.  Established in 1996, the Australian Writers’ Guild Authorship Collecting Society (AWGACS) is the not-for-profit collecting society for screenwriters. AWGACS collects and distributes international and domestic royalties for Australian and Aotearoa New Zealand writers.  AWG and AWGACS welcome the Attorney-General ruling out a Text and Data Mining (TDM) exception, a change that would have eroded Australia’s copyright laws and retroactively legitimised the theft of writers’ works by big tech. Big tech companies, led by the Tech Council of Australia’s Scott Farquhar, have been lobbying for weakening Australia’s copyright laws to allow the wholesale ingestion of Australian works for Artificial Intelligence (AI) without compensation or consent. The Attorney General has ruled out this change and pledged to work with creatives through the Copyright and Artificial Intelligence Reference Group (CAIRG).  “We applaud the Government making this announcement in the face of sustained pressure from big tech, particularly foreign-owned companies, who want to strip-mine our culture and content,” said Claire Pullen , AWG and AWGACS Group CEO. “This sends a message that our cultural and creative industries can be part of ethical AI development as partners, not subordinates – that Australian creators can negotiate terms, not be dictated to.”  In October, Pulle n gave evidence to a Senate inquiry for AWG and AWGACS that writers contribute $1 billion a year to Australia’s economy, a contribution that was at risk due to the behaviour of big tech companies.   “We applaud the Government for stating so clearly that there is no ambiguity in Australian law, and that Government stands behind Australian writers.” Pullen said.