The federal government is being asked to make a decision that will shape the future of First Nations stories, art, music and journalism in Australia.

Right now, the Productivity Commission is considering whether to allow tech companies to use copyrighted material, including books, songs, articles, photography and visual artworks, to train artificial intelligence systems without permission and without payment to the creators.

If adopted, this proposal would give global tech giants the green light to scrape massive amounts of creative work from across the internet to feed their algorithms. That includes the work of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, much of which already exists in public online spaces, on media platforms, in archives and in digital galleries.

This is being sold as a matter of productivity and innovation. What is really on the table is the unpaid and unconsented use of intellectual and cultural property, particularly that of First Nations people.

There is no shortage of warning signs. Earlier this year, Adobe's Firefly AI platform generated fake images of Aboriginal people and artworks. They were inaccurate and culturally offensive. These images were produced without any consultation, cultural authority or permission. The backlash from First Nations creators and cultural leaders was swift and justified.

As Wuthathi, Yadhaigana, and Meriam lawyer and leading intellectual property expert Dr Terri Janke explained: "It's not just about the advancement of technology. It's about whether these advancements empower our cultures or simply turn them into commodities."

Creative work in Indigenous communities is more than content. It is cultural practice, identity, storytelling and connection. It carries obligations. It connects people to Country, kinship and law. It cannot be separated from its origins, and it cannot be reduced to training material for AI tools that have no cultural understanding.

The risk here is not hypothetical. Without strong legal protections, AI developers could absorb and replicate First Nations knowledge, symbols, language, music and imagery, then commercialise those outputs without a cent going back to the people and communities from which they came.

For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander creators, who already face systemic barriers in accessing opportunities in publishing, media and the arts, this would be a significant setback. It would deny income, strip away attribution and undermine cultural sovereignty.

These are not abstract concerns.

I recently attended the 2025 National Indigenous Fashion Awards in Darwin, a celebration of design, culture and creativity at its highest level. Yet even among the most successful and recognised First Nations designers and artists, financial pressures are constant. Many struggle to fund travel, accommodation, and business costs to exhibit and grow their creative enterprises.

Earlier this year, more than $50,000 was raised to help remote art centres attend the Darwin Aboriginal Art Fair.

These are nationally significant institutions and artists. The fact they must crowdfund to participate in their own industry's most important events speaks volumes.

Now imagine the added threat of seeing their work mined by AI systems without consent or payment. It would further exploit creative communities that are already doing more with less.

The federal government must not allow this to happen.

Any change to copyright law must uphold three core principles: consent, control and compensation.

There should be no exceptions in copyright law that allow AI systems to use protected works without permission. If companies want to use Indigenous creative works, they must seek permission and enter into fair agreements that reflect the cultural significance of what is being used.

Revenue models must also be established to ensure compensation flows directly to creators and communities. This could include statutory licensing, collective rights management or culturally governed agreements that reflect the unique nature of Indigenous cultural and intellectual property.

Above all, any system must be Indigenous-led, culturally safe and responsive to the values of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

The tools of the future must not be built on the unpaid labour of First Nations people. If AI is to have a place in a just and inclusive digital economy, it must operate on a foundation of respect, transparency and accountability.

Australia has a chance to get this right. The Attorney-General's Department is reviewing copyright law in the context of AI. The Office for the Arts is investing in First Nations creative industries. The government has re-committed to supporting Indigenous economic development at last week's Garma Festival.

But now is the time to move beyond commitments and ensure the laws reflect those values.

The message is simple. No AI system should be trained using Indigenous work without permission, attribution and fair reward.

To ignore this would be to repeat past mistakes in a new digital form.

Indigenous creativity has shaped Australian culture for generations. It deserves protection, respect and a voice in how it is used in the technologies of tomorrow.

Reece Harley is the Managing Director of the National Indigenous Times.