How The Lack Of Copyright For AI-Generated Works Actually Works To Writers/Actors Advantage In Strike Negotiations
We've talked a lot about questions regarding AI and copyright over the last few years, highlighting repeatedly that AI-created works cannot be covered by copyrights. No matter how many times we've pointed this out, some are still trying, and it was nice to see yet another court (not the first) again say that AI-created works get no copyright at all just recently.
There's also an issue regarding AI and the ongoing writers' and actors' strike against Hollywood studios. Some of the strikers are wondering if copyright can help protect them, and I've explained to them that it's very much the wrong tool.
But, in a weird way, the lack of copyright on AI-created materials actually creates a surprising kind of leverage point for the creative folks who are striking. The Hollywood Reporter recently had an oddly framed article about the AI part of the dispute, highlighting the fact that copyright law doesn't cover AI-created works, and suggesting that will impact the studios' offer to writers."
But missing from the proposal, which was described as meeting the priority concerns" of the guild, is how the studios need writers to exploit any work created by AI under existing copyright laws. That's because works solely created by AI are not copyrightable. To be granted protection, a human would need to rewrite any AI-produced script.
Fundamentally, the offers mistook who's doing who a favor," John Lopez, a member of the WGA's working group on AI, tells The Hollywood Reporter. They need us."
By keeping AI on the table, the studios may be looking to capitalize on the intellectual property rights around works created by the tools. If a human touches material created by generative AI, then the typical copyright protections will kick in," a source close to the AMPTP says.
This is... confusing, and only partly accurate. But it makes for an interesting discussion for the writers and actors worried about AI. They can actually leverage the lack of copyright on AI-created works to their advantage in these negotiations.
The article is correct that AI-created works don't get copyright protection, but if there's a human (or multiple humans) in the process, the creative elements added by those humans could get some level of copyright protection, though it would generally be seen as thin" copyright, such as that given to nature photographs, in which the human creativity is only a small part of what makes the photo work, and the copyright protection is limited to just those human created elements.
Thus, it seems to me that the striking writers and and actors can use the studios' (overly aggressive and often ridiculous) infatuation with copyright law to their own advantage, by highlighting that without their direct human involvement, the studios will risk releasing TV and movies that have very weak copyright built in.
If the studios want to retain strong copyright protection (and because it's been driven into their heads that they need this badly)... then, they need to involve the actual writers and actors, and not just use the AI.
In a weird way, the lack of copyright protection for AI-created works actually helps the striking writers and actors, because it's their human creativity that can imbue a work with copyright protection (even if that copyright is then assigned to the studio itself). I find this... pretty amusing and I hope that actors and writers leverage the studios' obsession with copyright to their own advantage here. Hollywood's obsession with copyright and the false belief that it must protect everything actually harms its position here... and that just seems like the kind of thing that the Hollywood studios deserve.