Hollywood writers don't want to give generative AI any credit

Alfonso Maruccia

Posts: 382   +169
A hot potato: The Writers Guild of America is debating how to deal with ChatGPT and other generative AI algorithms when it comes to scriptwriting. The organization is seemingly willing to allow AI-assisted works, but only if the AI will get stripped of any authorship credit.

While people are beginning to witness the plagiarism capabilities of AI algorithms, the labor union representing writers for film, television, radio, and other media industries is pondering how to properly manage this new frontier in content creation. The WGA is seemingly willing to consider AI as a legit tool in the scriptwriting process, but it doesn't want to lose any money because of it.

According to three unnamed sources from within the movie industry, WGA's proposal is not considering an outright ban of AI technology from writers' work. Hollywood script and story writers would rather adopt generative AI by treating it as just a "tool," with no practical consequences on credit or monetary compensation.

WGA is discussing the state of generative AI in its talks with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP), as the two organizations are working on drafting a new working contract. WGA later confirmed its proposal in a series of tweets about the regulation of "material produced using artificial intelligence."

According to the aforementioned tweets, such regulation should ensure that movie and TV companies can't use AI to "undermine writers' working standards" when it comes to compensation, residuals, separated rights and credits.

WGA says AI can't be used as "source" or "literary material" for any MBA-covered project, as these are two fundamental definitions for classifying writers' work. Source material refers to original novels, plays or even magazine articles, which a screenplay can be based on. Literary material is the basic production of a writer's work, which is then considered for residuals and other compensations.

AI cannot be used as source material, the WGA says, as AI software isn't capable of creating anything on its own. ChatGPT and other machine learning algorithms are just statistical inference machines that generate "a regurgitation of what it's fed," the organization states.

AI is being fed both copyright-protected and public-domain content, and it has no "intelligence" or awareness whatsoever to define what's what. Therefore AI output cannot be eligible for copyright protection, nor can AI software can sign a "certificate of authorship." Conversely, WGA concludes, plagiarism is an integrated feature of the AI process.

Permalink to story.



Posts: 253   +182
When Hollywood starts to make remakes of older movies than you know they have nothing but needs to get something out to bring in money. That's desperation. These days writers have to be careful what they write so they won't "hurt"...Which strangles creativity and ideas.
Last edited:

Uncle Al

Posts: 9,567   +8,865
When it comes to truly creative content I think AI needs to be eliminated. We have enough copy cats in the creative arts as it is, we certainly don't need more that moves at the speed of light! LOL


Posts: 296   +172
The copyright not only protects the work but also does something else implicitly and silently that most people don't notice, it identifies who will have potential liability in the event of a conflict with someone else's intellectual property. Since due to new technologies we have an increase in the traffic in the production of works, the copyright system must be reformed and the protection - liability must be reduced, otherwise everyone will be in conflict with everyone else and it will become an endless pile up that will bring everything to a standstill and no one will be able to figure it out.

Copyright should be dropped in duration to 10 years at the most and possibly as the situation with more advance AI continue it should be abolished altogether for literature and photography.

Even without the existence of AI the intellectual property sector needed reform, it's blatantly excessive. It attributes a century of protection automatically to even the slightest fart.

Today when an orchestra plays a Mozart work it only has protection for the record, which because it is similar to other orchestras is not that strong but it does the job. The orchestra can sell its work. I don't think there is any reason why we (all the billions of people on earth) should be obliged to listen to Mozart's works exclusively by only one orchestra. Because that's what the intellectual protection in the abstract composition of the musical work leads to, to hear the work exclusively from only one orchestra that has the copyright to the composition. It is not cool.
Last edited:
Tbf ... Chat GPT would probably have better writing. Hollywood as a whole is quite the cringefest these days. We seem to have very few actual talents anymore and the quality of movies and shows is **very** low. We have a few drives of movies from the 60s to the early 00s at my house and we tend to watch those if were just looking to zone out. Because those are actually entertaining. No lectures, no one talks down to me, I don't have to do anything but enjoy the show or movie. The acting is better. The stories are the originals of all the "re-imagined" trash, and 1000x better. Every now and then we will still get a gem of a new performance but they are so rare you can usually count then on one hand for each year.


Posts: 3,069   +3,307
TechSpot Elite
A.I. should, and will be, just as easy to sue if anything it writes even touches on plagiarism.
In the end, it all comes down to the author of the nerds new copy machine.