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.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Go to Source of this post
Author Of this post: BeauHD