Hollywood Unions Take Different Approaches to AI Protections

Both the DGA and WGA Negotiated AI Guardrails with the AMPTP. Can SAG-AFTRA?

By Hugh Reynolds

The 148-day writers’ strike ended when the Writers’ Guild of America (WGA) ratified their contract with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) on October 9th. This newly secured deal runs from until May 31, 2026, and comes three months after the Directors Guild (DGA) ratified their deal with the AMPTP. SAG-AFTRA and the AMPTP have yet to come to an agreement.

In each of these negotiations, language governing AI has been a sticking point. The unions, particularly the WGA and SAG-AFTRA, recognized the development of AI technologies to be a potentially existential threat. On January 28, SAG-AFTRA articulated its position that the right to simulate an actor’s performance, voice, or likeness is a mandatory subject of bargaining. The actors’ initial fears centered on A.I. voice replication, and replication of artists’ movement and expressions with performance capture.

The WGA’s fears highlighted different issues. The writers’ primary concern focused on generative AI’s potential to greatly diminish, or even eliminate, writers’ role in the creative process. Mike Schur, creator of “The Good Place” and WGA bargaining committee member, stated, “It is not out of the realm of possibility that before 2026, which is the next time we will negotiate with [AMPTP] companies, they might just go…‘we don’t need you.’” Writers worried that studios would begin generating script drafts with AI, then hiring writers only for revision. Payment for revision is substantially lower than that for source material. A separate frustration of the WGA is the use of copyrighted materials to train generative AI models — a topic we wrote about in July.

By reaching an agreement with the AMPTP, the WGA appears to have satisfied many of its objectives in the protections offered. The new agreement defines generative artificial intelligence (GAI) as “a subset of artificial intelligence that learns patterns from data and produces content, including written material, based on those patterns, and may employ algorithmic methods (e.g., ChatGPT…).” GAI is distinguished from Traditional AI: technologies used in CGI/ VFX and those performing operational and analytical functions.

Five main protections were created for writers:

1. AI is not, and cannot be, a writer. Written material produced by artificial intelligence is not literary material (a term of art referring to guild-covered work, such as treatments or scripts).
2. If AI or GAI rewrites a script, the rewrite does not diminish the writer’s credit, residuals, or contractual bonuses.
3. If a writer is asked to rewrite a script written by GAI, the writer’s work is considered an original — not a rewrite.
4. If the studio furnishes a writer with written material produced by GAI that has not been previously published or exploited, and instructs the writer to use that material as the basis for writing a script or treatment,
   • GAI material will not be considered “assigned material” for purposes of determining (and diminishing) the writer’s compensation.
   • GAI material will not be considered source material for purposes of determining (and diminishing) the writer’s writing credit and subsequent residuals.
   • GAI material will not be the basis for disqualifying a writer from eligibility for separated rights.
   • The studio must disclose GAI authorship.
5. Writers are allowed, but not required, to use GAI, with studio consent & in accordance with studio policy. Such use will not detract from writer’s output status

These protections assuage some key fears of the WGA. Protections #1 through #4 are designed to ensure writers cannot be cut out of the creative process or paid substantially less. However, there is reason to believe these protections may be flawed: the regulations in Protection 4 apply only to GAI-produced material that has not been previously exploited. This means any AI-created material that is published is not covered.

The language in the WGA’s agreement is substantially different from that in the DGA agreement; the DGA’s protections are simpler and less protective. The DGA’s agreement states that duties performed by DGA members must be assigned to a person, noting that the GAI does not constitute a person. Additionally, the agreement specifies that studios may not use GAI in connection with creative elements without consultation with DGA-covered employees. It further mandates twice-yearly meetings between the DGA and Studios to discuss AI developments and appropriate remuneration.

The DGA adopted less restrictive language because AI is not threatening the DGA to the same degree as the other unions. Tim Baysinger of Axios reported that “it’s still hard to see how a director’s job can be replicated by machines.” In negotiations, the DGA’s core concern was ensuring their members cannot be cut out of the creative process. The new agreement’s primary guardrail, ensuring generative A.I. cannot replace the duties performed by members, satisfies this.

However, the DGA language is weak in many regards. DGA dissenters noted the deal requires studios only to “consult” with DGA members on how AI is used, and does not guarantee directors final say. Furthermore, it lacks restriction on the training of AI systems using DGA member material, and does not guarantee payment for studio use of this material— it only promises biannual meetings to discuss appropriate remuneration, if any, for AI training.

SAG-AFTRA’s strike, running for just over a hundred days, began on July 14 after a month of negotiation with the AMPTP failed to produce consensus on issues like AI protections, streaming residuals, and minimum rate hikes. Those same topics remained sticking points when negotiations resumed on October 2, but failed to be resolved: talks again deteriorated on October 11. Parties began the third round of negotiations on October 24.

Actors’ primary concerns regarding AI lie in consent and compensation. SAG-AFTRA has insisted that members should be entitled to informed consent when licensing their likeness rights on a project-basis; furthermore, the right to use an actor’s likeness on additional projects must be separately bargained. The Union has made clear they do not seek to ban AI entirely, recognizing their members stand to profit from licensing their image for AI use.

The AMPTP rejected these proposals, according to SAG-AFTRA lead negotiator Duncan Crabtree-Ireland. In a statement after negotiations broke down on July 14, Crabtree-Ireland claimed the AMPTP is seeking to scan background actors, then use AI to place those actors in other projects “for the rest of eternity” without consent or adequate compensation. The AMPTP denied this characterization, claiming their proposal includes both consent and compensation, though Crabtree-Ireland has stood behind his statement, claiming the studio rebuttal is “just not true.”

Following the most recent breakdown of negotiations on October 11, the AMPTP released a statement detailing their revised proposal:

1. No digital replica of the performer can be created or used without advance written consent and description of the intended use in the film;
2. Later use of that replica is prohibited unless performer specifically consents to that new use and is paid for it; and
3. No “digital alteration” that would change the nature of an actor’s performance in a role is permitted without informing the performer of the intended alteration and securing the performer’s consent

Though these guidelines, on their face, appear to satisfy SAG-AFTRA’s requirements, the union maintained they are insufficient. The core issue now turns on what constitutes advanced consent: Crabtree-Ireland argues the studios’ current offer requires actors to sign away likeness rights for any franchise product on the first day of employment— a moment where actors have minimal bargaining power and no meaningful opportunity to refuse. Crabtree-Ireland describes this as “fictional consent… [creating] a dilemma that is not fair for our members.”

As SAG-AFTRA and studio heads return to the bargaining table, we can only speculate as to the AI guardrails their new collective bargaining agreement will contain.