The Writers Guild of America Would Allow AI In Scriptwriting, As Long as Writers Maintain Credit (variety.com) 51
The Writers Guild of America has proposed allowing artificial intelligence to write scripts, as long as it does not affect writers' credits or residuals. Variety reports: The guild had previously indicated that it would propose regulating the use of AI in the writing process, which has recently surfaced as a concern for writers who fear losing out on jobs. But contrary to some expectations, the guild is not proposing an outright ban on the use of AI technology. Instead, the proposal would allow a writer to use ChatGPT to help write a script without having to share writing credit or divide residuals. Or, a studio executive could hand the writer an AI-generated script to rewrite or polish and the writer would still be considered the first writer on the project.
In effect, the proposal would treat AI as a tool -- like Final Draft or a pencil -- rather than as a writer. It appears to be intended to allow writers to benefit from the technology without getting dragged into credit arbitrations with software manufacturers. The proposal does not address the scenario in which an AI program writes a script entirely on its own, without help from a person. The guild's proposal was discussed in the first bargaining session on Monday with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers. Three sources confirmed the proposal. It's not yet clear whether the AMPTP, which represents the studios, will be receptive to the idea. The WGA proposal states simply that AI-generated material will not be considered "literary material" or "source material." Those terms are key for assigning writing credits, which in turn have a big impact on residual compensation.
"Literary material" is a fundamental term in the WGA's minimum basic agreement -- it is what a "writer" produces (including stories, treatments, screenplays, dialogue, sketches, etc.). If an AI program cannot produce "literary material," then it cannot be considered a "writer" on a project. "Source material" refers to things like novels, plays and magazine articles, on which a screenplay may be based. If a screenplay is based on source material, then it is not considered an "original screenplay." The writer may also get only a "screenplay by" credit, rather than a "written by" credit. A "written by" credit entitles the writer to the full residual for the project, while a "screenplay by" credit gets 75%. By declaring that ChatGPT cannot write "source material," the guild would be saying that a writer could adapt an AI-written short story and still get full "written by" credit.
In effect, the proposal would treat AI as a tool -- like Final Draft or a pencil -- rather than as a writer. It appears to be intended to allow writers to benefit from the technology without getting dragged into credit arbitrations with software manufacturers. The proposal does not address the scenario in which an AI program writes a script entirely on its own, without help from a person. The guild's proposal was discussed in the first bargaining session on Monday with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers. Three sources confirmed the proposal. It's not yet clear whether the AMPTP, which represents the studios, will be receptive to the idea. The WGA proposal states simply that AI-generated material will not be considered "literary material" or "source material." Those terms are key for assigning writing credits, which in turn have a big impact on residual compensation.
"Literary material" is a fundamental term in the WGA's minimum basic agreement -- it is what a "writer" produces (including stories, treatments, screenplays, dialogue, sketches, etc.). If an AI program cannot produce "literary material," then it cannot be considered a "writer" on a project. "Source material" refers to things like novels, plays and magazine articles, on which a screenplay may be based. If a screenplay is based on source material, then it is not considered an "original screenplay." The writer may also get only a "screenplay by" credit, rather than a "written by" credit. A "written by" credit entitles the writer to the full residual for the project, while a "screenplay by" credit gets 75%. By declaring that ChatGPT cannot write "source material," the guild would be saying that a writer could adapt an AI-written short story and still get full "written by" credit.
Re:Lol. Wut? (Score:5, Funny)
I thought most Hollywood movies were already written by AI based on the number of sequels and repetitive themes.
https://www.plot-generator.org... [plot-generator.org.uk]
Re: (Score:1)
No, they are really generated by an obnoxious little boy in a cardboard box masquerading as a computerized automotron, as documented by Southpark.
https://youtu.be/4msIjHlEeSk?t... [youtu.be]
Re: Lol. Wut? (Score:2)
Of course not. (Score:2)
They use mad-libs.
If it's written by a typewriter (Score:4, Insightful)
Once upon a time, writers used pencils and WROTE the words, forming each letter. Then came typewriters. Authors stopped writing and started just typing.
They would cut and paste sections - with scissors and *paste*.
Soon came word processors and grammarly. Most authors alive today have never cut and pasted anything. A machine, a tool, does it for them.
Yet, we're intelligent enough to understand that when you use a tool to create something, you've created something. Using a tool, whether the tool is a pencil or a program, doesn't mean you didn't make the thing.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a huge difference between stream of consciousnessing out 100 pages of script then using software to hack and slash it into something presentable to a studio, and entering "person writes a story about a robot writing a story, everyone dies at the end, no one looks back at the explosion" into ChatGPT and presenting it as an organic (metaphorically or otherwise) output. Stop being so disingenuous.
Re:If it's written by a typewriter (Score:4, Informative)
Once upon a time, writers used pencils and WROTE the words, forming each letter. Then came typewriters. Authors stopped writing and started just typing.
Much like most technology, wasting time and effort is the perpetually outdated evil.
Humans upgraded from horseback to a 1200-horsepower Bugattti Super Sport that can travel in excess of 425km/h within 150 years.
Within half of that timespan, man also went from traveling in the first automobile to traveling in the first lunar mobile.
Yet, we're intelligent enough to understand that when you use a tool to create something, you've created something. Using a tool, whether the tool is a pencil or a program, doesn't mean you didn't make the thing.
I beg to differ. Much like making humans not merely unemployed but unemployable, this next technical revolution isn't merely making another faster-but-dumb-horse. We're creating intelligence.
That "tool", is meant to replace the very thing that conceives the thought of your creation. It's literally stepping in between your something and the output mechanisms needed to actually birth it.
Humans, you may Exit.. Stage Left. Meatsack department is down the stairs in the basement.
Damn tractor plows (Score:2)
> Humans, you may Exit.. Stage Left. Meatsack department is down the stairs in the basement.
You understand you folks have been saying that since the 1800s, since the moment someone connected a plow to a tractor. The cotton gin, the automatic loom - goodbye humans.
Re: (Score:2)
> Humans, you may Exit.. Stage Left. Meatsack department is down the stairs in the basement.
You understand you folks have been saying that since the 1800s, since the moment someone connected a plow to a tractor. The cotton gin, the automatic loom - goodbye humans.
You understand that every invention and revolution man has ever created in the ENTIRE historical timeline, has never targeted replacing the ONE thing that separates you from the gorillas, right?
This, while modern feminism champions the extinction of men, because frozen sperm. As if the T-101 Terminator is going to give a shit.
Re: If it's written by a typewriter (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You can say that the process of writing a story has two parts to it. The first part, is coming up with the words in your head. The second, is translating those words from something that only exists in your head into some format where someone else can read them. Phase one is where all the creativity and originality happens, phase two is a necessary but purely mechanical part. It's the words that you come up with in your head that you claim credit for, not the font or ink color or the type of paper they're pr
Re: (Score:2)
What if someone programs up the next generation chatbot after that, which scours the news sites on the Internet, and decides on its own, having learned patterns of what kinds of sequences of events interest humans, what the headline topic and theme of a movie screenplay should be, and spits out, without prompting, a movie script about a family in
Re: (Score:3)
If it is written by "AI" why would a person get credit for it? Why would a person get paid for it?
Because the unions say so.
now they are about to learn a lesson that factory workers learned a hundred years ago.
Unlikely. The unions for the writers, actors, production, and distributors all work together. You can't just automate the writing without losing the actors and distribution.
Re:Lol. Wut? (Score:5, Interesting)
Read The Article and you will figure out that this is about "Does a writer who modifies a story written by an AI get 75% of the writers' royalties or 100% of the writers' royalties?"
This makes sense when you realize that the original author is an AI who is ineligible for copyright assignment and royalties. This leaves the question of who gets the AI's share of the royalties. The studio or the writer?
If you weren't so knee jerk anti-union you'd realize that there are reasonable arguments to both the union and studio's point of view
The more interesting thing is that as AI creates more and more of entertainment works, we will have smaller parts that are copyrighted and there will be a question of if you copy something you won't really be sure if you are committing copyright infringement unless you look at what was created by the AI, which is public domain and sees if you copied the part that is in the public domain or a part that was modified by a human.
Re: (Score:3)
This makes sense when you realize that the original author is an AI who is ineligible for copyright assignment and royalties. This leaves the question of who gets the AI's share of the royalties. The studio or the writer?
If you weren't so knee jerk anti-union you'd realize that there are reasonable arguments to both the union and studio's point of view
It's a moot point because all that AI will do is make the studios realize they don't actually need the writers anymore and can hire a wage slave to correct and sanitize the AI output.
Re: (Score:2)
i had a similar thought. if the output of AI is ineligible for copyright that would basically make anything made from it defacto public domain. seems like the writers guild is striking down a path inconsistent with this logic.
iOscar-E Award (Score:2)
(Human) "And the award for best artificial screenplay goes to, wait why am I up here saying this?"
Screenplays are alright, but for shits sake don't ever let it write poetry. It might try and best a Vogon.
Somebody Got Paid (Score:2)
Doesn't matter (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Studios grab public domain scripts and stories all the time. See, the Jungle Book for an example of a studio waiting a few years to release a movie so that they could not pay royalties to the original author.
This shouldn't impact things any more than making a movie about Romeo and Juliet.
The interesting thing is that studios want to claim AI as the primary author and pocket 25% of the royalties that would otherwise go to writers.
It seems to me that even if the studios pocket the 25% there should be far mo
Re: (Score:3)
Studios grab public domain scripts and stories all the time.
What? No...
See, the Jungle Book for an example of a studio waiting a few years to release a movie so that they could not pay royalties to the original author.
...what are you even talking about?
The copyright on the 1894 book by Kipling ran out in 1950, as copyright law back then was at-least-remotely-defensible "28+28" - twenty-eight years from publication, with an additional twenty-eight years granted if one went through the hassle of renewing it. The only movie made in this time period was the 1942 film, which wasn't held up in production whatsoever.
The 1967 film (i.e., the Disney one that people remember) was made well after the copyright on the 189
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Doesn't matter (Score:3)
Studios are not going to want scripts without a copyright.
Well, they can give the AI an artificial copyright and artificial residuals. Just like many real writers get treated in Hollywood.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
with the current stance of the USPTO on AI generated content no one is going to be using AI anytime soon for scripts. Not and admit it. Studios are not going to want scripts without a copyright.
The underlying draft may not be copyrightable, but a script produced from it would. The USTPO has said as much in a clarifying statement [usnews.com] after rejecting some AI produced art.
Re: (Score:2)
with the current stance of the USPTO on AI generated content no one is going to be using AI anytime soon for scripts. Not and admit it. Studios are not going to want scripts without a copyright.
The underlying draft may not be copyrightable, but a script produced from it would. The USTPO has said as much in a clarifying statement [usnews.com] after rejecting some AI produced art.
The movie would be but the script would not unless heavily edited by a human. That is why they say the comic would be but the panel art is not.
Re: (Score:2)
with the current stance of the USPTO on AI generated content no one is going to be using AI anytime soon for scripts. Not and admit it. Studios are not going to want scripts without a copyright.
The underlying draft may not be copyrightable, but a script produced from it would. The USTPO has said as much in a clarifying statement [usnews.com] after rejecting some AI produced art.
The movie would be but the script would not unless heavily edited by a human. That is why they say the comic would be but the panel art is not.
That’s the whole point of the SWGA argument - the AI draft is a rough outline that is heavily edited to produce a viable script; which would be copyrightable, per the USPTO. The AI generated outline would not be, which makes senses since a similar set of guidelines could result in a very similar outline.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I still don't think studios would go for this. The possibility of getting bit in the ass is still too high. For example, if you are working on a new property, you run the risk of creation of the characters being assigned to the AI, which would mean the studio would lose control of those characters. Studios are not going to want to risk it.
Good points. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. At a basic level, there are only a few basic movie types; and creating generic characters that a writer fleshes out probably would be protected. For example, do not name characters but give some generic characteristics. Creating artwork to be used for costume design is probably more problematic, IMHO, and thus less likely to be used. The USPTO will need to provide some good clarifying guidance as to what qualifies as an original work. I susp
Re: (Score:2)
The USPTO will not allow AI generated scripts to be copyrighted. However that doesn't mean portions can't be written by an AI. Scripts aren't written in a vacuum - you often start with a treatment first (which is a 2-3 page summary of the episode/tv show/movie/etc) that directs the main beats that the script will hav
Re: (Score:2)
The USPTO will not allow AI generated scripts to be copyrighted. However that doesn't mean portions can't be written by an AI. Scripts aren't written in a vacuum - you often start with a treatment first (which is a 2-3 page summary of the episode/tv show/movie/etc) that directs the main beats that the script will have to flesh out. There's nothing that says AI can't write the treatment, as the script writers then can write the story around it.
So, as I said, it doesn't matter. It won't change the pay, credit, or royalties for the writer. My point was, they would not REPLACE writers because of the copyright issue, and studios may actually push back against their use due to the risks involved.
Also, just because the script isn't copyrighted, doesn't mean the TV episode or movie can't be copyrighted
I never said it did. However, no studio is going to take on a script it knows can't be copyrighted as it opens up the script, and if it's the start of a "franchise" then potentially the entire franchise to exploitation by their competitors. They won't give
Buggy whip maker rent-seeking. (Score:3)
As automation destroys scarcity the public benefit. Tough shit for the rent seekers now pabulum production can be automated.
It's a tool, like any other, but... (Score:2)
Type writers, word processors, grammar/spell checkers. Ok, now we've taken the next step to something that can produce drafts. I have no problem with them keeping the credit and the money.
However... Let's be honest here: like any other tool, this will increase productivity, which will reduce the number of people needed in the field.
I am reminded of my first introduction to a union, when I worked a summer installing a computer system at a sewage plant. One of my jobs, as an intern, was to go to a remote se
From Bad To Worse (Score:2)
A script-writing AI is only one of two things: (Score:2)
2. Hackery intended to get something greenlit through brute-force, monkey-typewriter combinatorics.
No creativity is intended or likely.
in other news... (Score:2)
House painters approve the use of house painting robots as long as house painters still get paid as much. /shock.
Re: (Score:1)
Unsourced article during media blackout (Score:2)
The WGA is currently in a media blackout while it is negotiating contracts over the use of AI. The Variety article cites no sources.
So we know that the claim that the WGA made such a proposal did not come from the WGA itself, and that someone is bullshitting Variety.
The articles says above the body "UPDATED with WGA response" except what was added was a response from WGA West to proposal that is claimed to be from the WGA. There is no response from whoever is alleged to put forward that proposal.
So we know
It doesn't work like that (Score:2)
Anything generated by a small prompt to an AI, by that AI and not by a human, cannot be copyrighted because it is not a "product of humans". You can copyright any part you yourself create, like a story used to generate AI images, but you couldn't copyright the generated product itself. Also, not reporting something you copyright as AI-generated is a separate violation of their policy.
The m
I can code a BBT script (Score:2)
Given:
- 3 geek culture references
- 2 awkward social statements
- 1 comic book character
I can madlib my way to 80% of an acceptable Big Bang Theory script. I could then choose to wrap it around some coherent ideal... or I might not.
What is the AI trained on? (Score:1)
This is a good way to go if the "AI" is trained only on material where the copyright owners of the material won't object.
If they will object, this is a non-starter.
I, for one, welcome our new screenwriting Robot Overlords.
Small wonder (Score:2)
98% of all scripts have always seemed to be written by a half-wit retard, artificial or not.
Writing Will Be Like Computer Animation (Score:2)
Writers who use AI will learn its quirks, how to steer to it to the story they want. They'll probably edit it, both for mistakes and style.
That's cool if you don't know anyway (Score:3)
That said, I'm pretty sure we're going to be able to identify AI (of various flavors) output based on its "feel" or "look." Humans are still superior pattern seekers. See the things we made to do that? Ouroboros. Sssp!