In the midst of an ongoing strike that has halted film and TV production, Hollywood’s major studios are beginning to outline their plans for incorporating artificial intelligence (AI) into screenwriting. The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP), which represents studios and streamers, recently proposed how they view generative AI tools like ChatGPT, a bot that can quickly generate loglines, pitch ideas, and storylines. The AMPTP emphasized that the use of these tools by writers would not undermine their role, indicating their intent to embrace AI technology rather than banning it outright.
However, the proposal failed to address a crucial issue regarding the exploitation of AI-generated work under existing copyright laws. Works solely created by AI are not copyrightable, meaning that a human would need to rewrite any AI-produced script for it to be protected. The studios’ offer seemed to overlook this fact, leading to criticism from the Writers Guild of America (WGA). John Lopez, a member of the WGA’s working group on AI, pointed out the studios’ misunderstanding, stating, “Fundamentally, the offers mistook who’s doing who a favor. They need us.”
While the studios may be interested in producing AI-generated scripts, copyright protection is only possible if these works are revised by human writers. Material created solely by AI would enter the public domain upon release, limiting opportunities for exploitation. The U.S. Copyright Office currently maintains that most AI-generated works are not eligible for copyright protection. According to their policy statement issued in March, protection can only be granted to works that are the “product of human creativity,” and authors must “exclude non-humans.” Only if a human creatively selects or arranges AI-generated material can it support a copyright.
Recent court rulings have reinforced the notion that copyrights are exclusively for works created by humans. In a case involving an artwork generated by AI, a federal judge upheld the U.S. Copyright Office’s decision not to grant copyright protection, stating that copyright law has never extended to “works generated by new forms of technology operating absent any guiding human hand.” The judge emphasized that human authorship is an essential requirement for copyright.
Related Post
The AMPTP’s counteroffer addressed the issue of payment, stating that if writers are provided with an AI-created screenplay and asked to make modifications, they would be compensated as if they were writing an original script rather than performing a rewrite. This compensation structure could potentially grant AI-generated scripts eligibility for copyright protection. However, writers argue that this offer only seeks to cut them out of intellectual property rights and highlights the studios’ failure to recognize the necessity of human writers.
In addition to concerns about intellectual property rights, writers are also raising issues regarding the use of their work as training data for AI systems. While the AMPTP refused to address this concern in their proposal, some writers believe it can be negotiated separately to avoid further complications in the strike negotiations.
Overall, the studios’ proposal regarding AI in screenwriting represents a compromise on contentious points of negotiation. However, the failure to adequately address copyright issues and give proper recognition to human writers has drawn criticism from the Writers Guild of America. The future of AI-generated scripts in Hollywood remains uncertain, and how copyright law will evolve to accommodate this technological advancement is yet to be determined.
As the strike continues and discussions between the guild and the studios persist, it remains to be seen how these issues will be resolved. Both parties must navigate the complexities of AI’s role in screenwriting while ensuring the protection and fair compensation of writers.
