AI-Generated Scripts : In the context of an ongoing strike that has halted film and TV production, Hollywood’s major studios are revealing their intentions to integrate artificial intelligence into the process of crafting screenplays.
Recently, the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP), which represents studios and streaming platforms, put forth a proposal on August 11th to the Writers Guild of America. This proposal discussed the role of generative AI tools like ChatGPT, a bot capable of rapidly producing loglines, pitch concepts, and storylines. The AMPTP emphasized that the use of these AI tools by writers would not undermine their contributions but rather seeks to leverage the technology within the creative process.
Notably absent from this proposal, which aimed to address the guild’s key concerns, is the issue of how to align AI-generated content with existing copyright laws. Works solely authored by AI are not currently eligible for copyright protection. To gain legal protection, human involvement is required to rework any script produced by AI.
John Lopez, a member of the Writers Guild of America’s working group on AI, remarked, “Fundamentally, the offers mistook who’s doing who a favor… They need us.”
By retaining AI as a creative tool, studios appear to be exploring the potential intellectual property rights surrounding content generated by these tools. A source close to the AMPTP suggested that if a human intervenes in material created by generative AI, the customary copyright safeguards would apply.
This position from the studios comes following a meeting involving guild leadership and Hollywood CEOs, including figures like Disney’s Bob Iger, Netflix’s Ted Sarandos, and Warner Bros. Discovery’s David Zaslav. The proposal recommends excluding AI-generated content from the category of “literary material” within contracts. Despite utilizing AI-based content, writers’ compensation, credit, and rights would reportedly remain unaffected.
However, the Writers Guild of America responded to the offer, expressing that it failed to adequately safeguard writers’ interests. The guild accused the AMPTP of attempting to force their agenda rather than engaging in genuine negotiations.
This proposal appears to be a compromise on contentious AI-related issues that have contributed to the ongoing strike. Studios are seemingly interested in exploring the potential of AI-generated scripts, but for these works to be copyrightable, human writers need to revise them. Otherwise, AI-generated content might enter the public domain upon release.
Presently, the U.S. Copyright Office asserts that most AI-generated works lack copyright eligibility. According to a March policy statement, protection is typically reserved for creations resulting from human creativity. While AI-generated elements might contribute to a work, copyright could apply only if a human plays a creative role in selecting or arranging these elements.
Judicial precedents confirm that copyrights are exclusive to human creations. Recent legal decisions reinforced this principle, affirming that artworks generated solely by AI lack copyright protection.
The issue of compensation was central to the AMPTP’s proposal. For instance, if writers are tasked with enhancing an AI-generated screenplay, they would receive payment akin to creating an original screenplay. This practice, while intending to compensate writers fairly, could inadvertently grant AI-generated scripts a pathway to copyright protection.
Writers like Lopez contend that studios aim to diminish writers’ intellectual property rights using AI as a shortcut, underestimating the role of human writers.
The AMPTP’s proposal clarified that AI-produced content would not determine writers’ credits or their eligibility for separated rights.
Simultaneously, studios are embroiled in legal disputes over the rights to iconic 1980s franchises like Top Gun, Predator, Terminator, and Friday the 13th. Some writers are utilizing copyright law to regain transferred rights after a designated period.
Studios might circumvent this issue by securing intellectual property rights for AI-created works, potentially extending the value of lucrative franchises. Depending on copyright law’s evolution, studios might claim ownership through the work-for-hire doctrine, especially if human writers significantly modify AI-generated content. Copyright law emphasizes the importance of human creative control for protection.
The copyright office’s stance and the level of human involvement required for copyright eligibility remain open questions.
In addition to intellectual property concerns, writers are also wary of the AMPTP’s reluctance to prevent their work from being used as AI training data. Negotiating this aspect might be deferred to a later stage to avoid impeding discussions.
In the midst of this debate, some writers suggest that studios are aligning with them against companies that create large language models powered by AI.
