{"id":3393,"date":"2023-10-30T12:05:31","date_gmt":"2023-10-30T16:05:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/?p=3393"},"modified":"2024-09-25T18:09:14","modified_gmt":"2024-09-25T22:09:14","slug":"hollywood-unions-take-different-approaches-to-ai-protections","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/2023\/10\/hollywood-unions-take-different-approaches-to-ai-protections\/","title":{"rendered":"Hollywood Unions Take Different Approaches to AI Protections"},"content":{"rendered":"

Both the DGA and WGA Negotiated AI Guardrails with the AMPTP. Can SAG-AFTRA?<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Courtesy of Jakob Owens \/ Unsplash.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

By Hugh Reynolds<\/em><\/p>\n

The 148-day writers\u2019 strike ended when the Writers\u2019 Guild of America (WGA) ratified their contract<\/a> 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<\/a> with the AMPTP. SAG-AFTRA and the AMPTP have yet to come to an agreement.<\/a><\/p>\n

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<\/a> that the right to simulate an actor\u2019s performance, voice, or likeness is a mandatory subject of bargaining. The actors\u2019 initial fears<\/a> centered on A.I. voice replication, and replication of artists\u2019 movement and expressions with performance capture.<\/p>\n

The WGA\u2019s fears highlighted different issues. The writers\u2019 primary concern focused on generative AI\u2019s potential to greatly diminish<\/a>, or even eliminate, writers\u2019 role in the creative process. Mike Schur, creator of \u201cThe Good Place\u201d and WGA bargaining committee member, stated<\/a>, \u201cIt 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\u2026\u2018we don\u2019t need you.\u2019\u201d Writers worried that studios would begin generating script drafts with AI, then hiring writers only for revision.<\/a> 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<\/a> AI models \u2014 a topic we wrote about in July<\/a>.<\/p>\n

By reaching an agreement with the AMPTP<\/a>, the WGA appears to have satisfied many of its objectives in the protections offered. The new agreement defines generative artificial intelligence (GAI) as \u201ca 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\u2026).\u201d GAI is distinguished from Traditional AI: technologies used in CGI\/ VFX and those performing operational and analytical functions.<\/p>\n

Five main protections<\/a> were created for writers:<\/p>\n

    \n
  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).<\/li>\n
  2. If AI or GAI rewrites a script, the rewrite does not diminish the writer\u2019s credit, residuals, or contractual bonuses.<\/li>\n
  3. If a writer is asked to rewrite a script written by GAI, the writer\u2019s work is considered an original \u2014 not<\/em> a rewrite.<\/li>\n
  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,\n