So glad you are tackling this - and as someone who has bridged tech and entertainment my entire career, I have a pretty unique perspective. Looking forward to your next installment. Pass the popcorn!
Actually, AI works are original within the meaning of copyright law. Ideas are not protected, only the expression of ideas fixed in a tangible media. Although works that are solely generated by machine (or animals for that matter) are not copyrightable, a human is free to read every screenplay of the most successful Hollywood writers and freely appropriate their ideas to create an original work of authorship, even to the extent of mimicking the writing style and plot of their favorite movies. That this can now being done by machines faster and on a larger scale is what really truly offends, not that this is something we have never seen before.
The limitations on use and re-use of literary material that are the focus of the strike referred to in this article pertain to the Minimum Basic Agreement between the Writers Guild and the AMPTP.
It is not clear to me what point in the article above you are responding to, because this article does not address copyright and AI . That's a very rich topic, but it is a separate topic.
In a future edition of this newsletter I intend to delve into the implications for copyright and fair use. This is a lively area right now because of the four big cases that are wending their way through the courts.
The beauty of collective bargaining is that it can transcend and reallocate rights that either party would have under the law. AI will have a tremendous impact on the creative community. But it may not be something that can simply be negotiated away.
We need to soften the fall for those most affected by AI, just as we should be doing to workers who have been affected by other structural changes taking place in our world. Has our world has become better or worse since one can no longer get work as a travel agent, film developer, typist, encyclopedia salesman, travel agent or milkman? The world changes. We must either adapt or perish.
In the 1980s, the United Auto Workers faced a similar existential crisis. The U.S. auto industry was in a freefall. The American automobile market was being overrun with imports from Japan. The extensive use of factory automation had enabled Japanese vehicles to have both a lower price and higher quality. With thousands of workers being laid off, UAW had a tough choice— to fight the roll-out of automation that would certainly replace many jobs, such a welders and assemblers— or embrace the future and preserve the viability of the industry, protecting many more jobs than would be lost. In so doing, UAW made a difficult, but correct decision. A different outcome would have been disastrous for everyone.
AI will doubtless cause disruption in a great many sectors of our economy, including the market for creative services. But this is not a tide that can be held back by a contract. Change will take hold whether we want it or not. But just as the calculator and spreadsheet did not spell the death of bookkeepers and accountants, I don’t believe that AI will soon replace the writer. Instead of viewing AI as a competitor, if I were a member of the WGA, I’d be far more concerned about competing with another writer who has fully embraced AI. We need to start thinking of AI as an idea generator, critic, and muse, instead of a soulless author of a dystopian nightmare.
From coal miners to truck drivers to screenwriters, change is coming. America’s labor unions need to make peace with new technologies. Instead of fighting to ban the inevitable, unions and studios should instead redirect their collective bargaining efforts on how to best use AI to make a better product. Writers can today choose to harness the power of AI to lift both the quality of their work, as well as their output.
Despite how quickly AI has stormed into our collective consciousness, for years to come, writers will be essential to producing the highest quality programming, as they bring humanity into the creative equation. Writers are uniquely qualified to do the very things that separate man from machine-- humanizing the creative work, connecting with the audience, adjusting timing and pacing of the story, fine-tuning elements of humor and tone, and ensuring that the finished product is respectful of the audience’s emotional intelligence.
So glad you are tackling this - and as someone who has bridged tech and entertainment my entire career, I have a pretty unique perspective. Looking forward to your next installment. Pass the popcorn!
Excellent article
Thank you!
Actually, AI works are original within the meaning of copyright law. Ideas are not protected, only the expression of ideas fixed in a tangible media. Although works that are solely generated by machine (or animals for that matter) are not copyrightable, a human is free to read every screenplay of the most successful Hollywood writers and freely appropriate their ideas to create an original work of authorship, even to the extent of mimicking the writing style and plot of their favorite movies. That this can now being done by machines faster and on a larger scale is what really truly offends, not that this is something we have never seen before.
Well, sure, but that's quite obvious, isn't it?
The limitations on use and re-use of literary material that are the focus of the strike referred to in this article pertain to the Minimum Basic Agreement between the Writers Guild and the AMPTP.
It is not clear to me what point in the article above you are responding to, because this article does not address copyright and AI . That's a very rich topic, but it is a separate topic.
In a future edition of this newsletter I intend to delve into the implications for copyright and fair use. This is a lively area right now because of the four big cases that are wending their way through the courts.
The beauty of collective bargaining is that it can transcend and reallocate rights that either party would have under the law. AI will have a tremendous impact on the creative community. But it may not be something that can simply be negotiated away.
We need to soften the fall for those most affected by AI, just as we should be doing to workers who have been affected by other structural changes taking place in our world. Has our world has become better or worse since one can no longer get work as a travel agent, film developer, typist, encyclopedia salesman, travel agent or milkman? The world changes. We must either adapt or perish.
In the 1980s, the United Auto Workers faced a similar existential crisis. The U.S. auto industry was in a freefall. The American automobile market was being overrun with imports from Japan. The extensive use of factory automation had enabled Japanese vehicles to have both a lower price and higher quality. With thousands of workers being laid off, UAW had a tough choice— to fight the roll-out of automation that would certainly replace many jobs, such a welders and assemblers— or embrace the future and preserve the viability of the industry, protecting many more jobs than would be lost. In so doing, UAW made a difficult, but correct decision. A different outcome would have been disastrous for everyone.
AI will doubtless cause disruption in a great many sectors of our economy, including the market for creative services. But this is not a tide that can be held back by a contract. Change will take hold whether we want it or not. But just as the calculator and spreadsheet did not spell the death of bookkeepers and accountants, I don’t believe that AI will soon replace the writer. Instead of viewing AI as a competitor, if I were a member of the WGA, I’d be far more concerned about competing with another writer who has fully embraced AI. We need to start thinking of AI as an idea generator, critic, and muse, instead of a soulless author of a dystopian nightmare.
From coal miners to truck drivers to screenwriters, change is coming. America’s labor unions need to make peace with new technologies. Instead of fighting to ban the inevitable, unions and studios should instead redirect their collective bargaining efforts on how to best use AI to make a better product. Writers can today choose to harness the power of AI to lift both the quality of their work, as well as their output.
Despite how quickly AI has stormed into our collective consciousness, for years to come, writers will be essential to producing the highest quality programming, as they bring humanity into the creative equation. Writers are uniquely qualified to do the very things that separate man from machine-- humanizing the creative work, connecting with the audience, adjusting timing and pacing of the story, fine-tuning elements of humor and tone, and ensuring that the finished product is respectful of the audience’s emotional intelligence.
This I agree with. Thanks for visiting and thanks for reading and sharing your perspective. Very constructive.