In the WGA’s full MOA, Article 72 (on Generative Artificial Intelligence) is a windier version of what we quoted in Part I. The full version solidifies how AI can be used by studios and writers with limitations upon scope. What’s interesting, however, is that even though the results do benefit writers, this outcome isn’t necessarily a union win or a result of anything that the union achieved in negotiations.
Also, the language of this section goes just as far to protect studios as it does writers, although neither side attempted an “outright ban” on AI. And to be fair, that does not seem like an achievable goal.
Let’s start with two realities: (1) It is in the studios’ best interests to retain as much ownership of IP as possible; (2) It is in the writers’ best interests to be paid fairly and not be replaced by AI. Both sides have gotten what they want out of Article 72, the AI section, which is essentially one giant compromise because humans must be involved in creating “literary material” to the point where it cannot be considered GAI.
Why? Because the U.S. Copyright Office does not consider GAI content to be copyrightable. Yet who’s to say that the USCO won’t change its mind before this contract expires in May 2026? For now, studios want to ensure that humans are tied to scripts in a substantial enough way that they remain copyrightable.
We aren’t quoting the full section here to save some space, but here’s what Article 72 actually does for both sides:
- AI can be used to crank out first drafts of scripts as long as a human rewrites the material into a second draft. A human writer must be credited as first writer, which is also currently necessary for studios to copyright the material;
- This agreement also guarantees that screenwriters will not lose their compensation on a project due to the initial use of AI. So, the writer must be fully informed of the situation, receive their usual pay rate, and retain said first credit. Those aspects are a win for writers who feared that the opposite would happen – that their own work would be retooled by AI and that these writers would be paid a lesser rate and lose their credit, or that human writers would not be needed at all.
Both sides are likely satisfied with the current outcome, but this is not an all-clear for either side. Specific language in Section F states, “The parties acknowledge that the legal landscape around the use of GAI is uncertain and rapidly developing….” and in Section G, “Each Company agrees to meet with the Guild during the term of this Agreement at least semi-annually at the request of the Guild… to discuss and review information related to the Company’s use and intended use of GAI…”
In other words, the subject of AI will be an ongoing discussion in this industry and countless others, and not everything has been settled here.
Stay tuned.
