@inproceedings{briegel-etal-2026-tensions,
title = "Tensions Between Copyright, Contract, Accessibility and Technology in {A}ustralia: A Case Study on Legal Information Access",
author = "Briegel, Hunter and
Vemuganti, Sumedh and
Culpepper, J. Shane",
editor = "Aletras, Nikolaos and
Chalkidis, Ilias and
Barrett, Leslie and
Goanț{\u{a}}, C{\u{a}}t{\u{a}}lina and
Preoțiuc-Pietro, Daniel and
Spanakis, Gerasimos and
Xu, Shanshan",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the Natural Legal Language Processing Workshop 2026",
month = oct,
year = "2026",
address = "Budapest, Hungary",
publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2026.nllp-1.16/",
pages = "176--182",
ISBN = "979-8-89176-494-1",
abstract = "Australian law permits the use of copyright material in certain circumstances to facilitate access by people with disabilities. These consumers are increasingly turning to accessibility software incorporating AI/ML systems for text simplification, semantic search and website navigation. Despite the remarkable growth of AI/ML use by people with disabilities, legal information providers may forbid or block these methods. We examine the position of AustLII on AI within the Australian legal-policy environment and its implications for inclusive access to justice. Comparable entities within the global Free Access to Law Movement face similar pressures: our analysis may provide insights beyond the Australian context. The case study is illustrative of a larger unresolved tension between copyright, contract and accessibility as AI technologies proliferate alongside countermeasures intended to restrict them. We argue emerging mechanisms to authenticate assistive technology agents, and scope their purposes, can begin to reconcile various conflicting legitimate interests."
}<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="briegel-etal-2026-tensions">
<titleInfo>
<title>Tensions Between Copyright, Contract, Accessibility and Technology in Australia: A Case Study on Legal Information Access</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Hunter</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Briegel</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Sumedh</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Vemuganti</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">J</namePart>
<namePart type="given">Shane</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Culpepper</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2026-10</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Proceedings of the Natural Legal Language Processing Workshop 2026</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Nikolaos</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Aletras</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Ilias</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Chalkidis</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Leslie</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Barrett</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Cătălina</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Goanță</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Daniel</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Preoțiuc-Pietro</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Gerasimos</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Spanakis</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Shanshan</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Xu</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<publisher>Association for Computational Linguistics</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">Budapest, Hungary</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
<identifier type="isbn">979-8-89176-494-1</identifier>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>Australian law permits the use of copyright material in certain circumstances to facilitate access by people with disabilities. These consumers are increasingly turning to accessibility software incorporating AI/ML systems for text simplification, semantic search and website navigation. Despite the remarkable growth of AI/ML use by people with disabilities, legal information providers may forbid or block these methods. We examine the position of AustLII on AI within the Australian legal-policy environment and its implications for inclusive access to justice. Comparable entities within the global Free Access to Law Movement face similar pressures: our analysis may provide insights beyond the Australian context. The case study is illustrative of a larger unresolved tension between copyright, contract and accessibility as AI technologies proliferate alongside countermeasures intended to restrict them. We argue emerging mechanisms to authenticate assistive technology agents, and scope their purposes, can begin to reconcile various conflicting legitimate interests.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">briegel-etal-2026-tensions</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/2026.nllp-1.16/</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2026-10</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>176</start>
<end>182</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T Tensions Between Copyright, Contract, Accessibility and Technology in Australia: A Case Study on Legal Information Access
%A Briegel, Hunter
%A Vemuganti, Sumedh
%A Culpepper, J. Shane
%Y Aletras, Nikolaos
%Y Chalkidis, Ilias
%Y Barrett, Leslie
%Y Goanță, Cătălina
%Y Preoțiuc-Pietro, Daniel
%Y Spanakis, Gerasimos
%Y Xu, Shanshan
%S Proceedings of the Natural Legal Language Processing Workshop 2026
%D 2026
%8 October
%I Association for Computational Linguistics
%C Budapest, Hungary
%@ 979-8-89176-494-1
%F briegel-etal-2026-tensions
%X Australian law permits the use of copyright material in certain circumstances to facilitate access by people with disabilities. These consumers are increasingly turning to accessibility software incorporating AI/ML systems for text simplification, semantic search and website navigation. Despite the remarkable growth of AI/ML use by people with disabilities, legal information providers may forbid or block these methods. We examine the position of AustLII on AI within the Australian legal-policy environment and its implications for inclusive access to justice. Comparable entities within the global Free Access to Law Movement face similar pressures: our analysis may provide insights beyond the Australian context. The case study is illustrative of a larger unresolved tension between copyright, contract and accessibility as AI technologies proliferate alongside countermeasures intended to restrict them. We argue emerging mechanisms to authenticate assistive technology agents, and scope their purposes, can begin to reconcile various conflicting legitimate interests.
%U https://aclanthology.org/2026.nllp-1.16/
%P 176-182
Markdown (Informal)
[Tensions Between Copyright, Contract, Accessibility and Technology in Australia: A Case Study on Legal Information Access](https://aclanthology.org/2026.nllp-1.16/) (Briegel et al., NLLP 2026)
ACL