With the WGA strike recently crossing the 100-day mark and the possibility that the SAG-AFTRA strike might follow suit, it’s starting to feel like it’s only a matter of time before the AMPTP (Hollywood studios/streamers) end up coming to their senses by returning to the bargaining table. However, one of those sticking points, both writers and actors have been decrying the use of new artificial intelligence bots/programs in the industry. Writers could see themselves either replaced entirely or forced to rewrite haphazard scripts created by sketchy programs that are already getting dinged for plagiarism. Actors on the other hand are directly seeing what bleak future they’re up against, as some background/extras have been subjected to digital scans that would allow studios to use their likeness/image without future consent or even payment impacting a majority of the union’s membership.

It looks like a federal judge (U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell) yesterday (via The Hollywood Reporter) has ruled that AI-created art isn’t able to be copyrighted, upholding a finding from the U.S. Copyright Office. This essentially means that art/image, writing, music, and potentially even footage cannot be protected under the same laws that studios have long used for their film/shows. Likely making any dominating involvement with AI potentially a risk to their copyright.

This comes after challenges were made when the government refused to issue copyrights for AI-generated material. Judge Howell’s opinion from the ruling stressed that “Human authorship is a bedrock requirement” and that copyright “protects only works of human creation.” Howell added, “Human involvement in, and ultimate creative control over, the work at issue was key to the conclusion that the new type of work fell within the bounds of copyright.”

Making it clear that Hollywood executives/CEOs won’t have that blanket financial incentive to replace humans working behind and in front of the camera. Without copyright protections anyone can steal, reproduce, and sell that work without fear of legal ramifications from those actions (think public domain media). However, what will likely be up for debate next is the human involvement threshold needed for work to be copyrighted, if there indeed are major A.I. contributions to that material. It simply might be safer to avoid that altogether and continue to work in a traditional manner to keep the copyright strong from the jump.

In a previous case, it was found that neither work produced by animals was subject to being granted copyrights either.

SOURCE: THR