Tag: WGA

Posted on in News

Tentative Three-Year Deal Reached Between WGA & AMPTP, Needs To Be Ratified By Members

After a strike lasting 146 days, there is a glimmer of hope as the Writers Guild of America and AMPTP (studios/streamers) over the weekend reached a tentative deal with a three-year contract. Nothing is concrete just yet as members of the WGA still have to vote on the deal. The limited contract would mean the two sides would have to reunite in a couple of years. But, fingers crossed, if the membership accepts this means writers will be able to get back to work as they did seemingly get what they were asking for.

In an official statement from the union posted on Twitter: “The WGA and AMPTP have reached a tentative agreement. This was made possible by the enduring solidarity of WGA members and extraordinary support of our union siblings who stood with us for over 146 days. More details coming after contract language is finalized.”

“We can say, with great pride, that this deal is exceptional — with meaningful gains and protections for writers in every sector of the membership,” the WGA negotiating committee on Sunday night in a message to its 11, 500 members.

As pointed out by the Los Angeles Times, the proposed three-year contract would boost pay rates, residual payments for streaming shows, and impose new rules surrounding the use of artificial intelligence. However, it still needs to be ratified by the union’s 11,500 members. More specific details about the contract are expected to come in the following days leading up to the membership vote.

This comes as the biggest actors’ union SAG-AFTRA (membership said to be 160,000) is also still on the picket line and has yet to make its own deal with the AMPTP.

SOURCE: WGA/LOS ANGELES TIMES

Posted on in Film News, News, Television News

Judge Rules A.I. Art Can’t Be Copyrighted Landing Huge Blow To Hollywood Studios Itching To Phase-Out Humans

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