Last night I had the pleasure of watching the movie Heretic and it was nothing short of brilliant (no, seriously, I sobbed at the end). As I was leaving the cinema, still recovering from the emotional rollercoaster I’d just experienced, I noticed something interesting in the credits: a reassuring note that read, “Generative AI wasn’t used for any part of this movie” (or something similar). Oddly enough, even though the thought hadn’t even crossed my mind, seeing that message gave me a sense of relief. What I had just experienced was solely a product of human creativity.
I always feel conflicted when I find myself admiring AI-generated art. It feels strangely unsettling, almost like a betrayal of my senses, when I see an image I love on Pinterest only to realise after closer inspection that it wasn’t made by a human.
Anyway, this moment in the cinema sparked some questions in my mind: Why did the filmmakers feel the need to state that no AI was involved? Was it required, or were they simply making a statement? What ethical considerations come into play when (or if) AI is used in filmmaking?
Curious, I decided to dig into the current state of AI’s role in the film industry. As it turns out, there aren’t yet comprehensive regulations requiring artists to disclose the use of AI in their work. However, recent developments suggest the industry is moving toward greater transparency and protection for creators. A major demand of the Hollywood writers’ strikes, led by the Writers Guild of America (WGA), was exactly the negotiation of protections and limitations around AI’s use in film and television production. The new deal is expected to address some of their concerns.
The WGA’s new basic agreement with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers sets important boundaries on how AI can be used in Hollywood scriptwriting. For example, Article 72 specifies that any writing created by “Generative Artificial Intelligence” (GAI) or traditional AI cannot be classified as “literary material”, a legal term referring to any written content, published or unpublished. This amendment ensures that AI-generated content cannot replace or undermine the work of human writers, as the definition of “literary material” is now limited to human authorship.
Additionally, the agreement mandates that if a studio provides AI-generated material to a writer, the writer must be informed of its AI origin. More importantly, the use of such material cannot be used to diminish the writer’s pay or credit, providing essential protections against the potential exploitation of writers. These measures reflect a growing awareness of the need to preserve human creativity in an industry increasingly influenced by AI tools. Interestingly, the agreement also protects writers who choose to use AI – if a writer incorporates AI-generated content with studio permission, their pay and credit remain unaffected.
The legal complexities surrounding AI and creative works don’t stop there. As AI technology continues to evolve, it introduces new challenges to copyright law. Traditionally, copyright protects original works created by human authors, but the rise of AI definitely made the lines seem unclear. If an artwork is entirely generated by AI, who holds the copyright? Current laws don’t clearly address this, creating a potential minefield of disputes over ownership and rights. Moreso since AI mostly relies on already existing material, writers are put in a position where their work could be used as a steppingstone for AI generated texts. While the WGA agreement doesn’t prevent studios from using existing literary works to train AI models, it does grant rights holders the ability to deny permission for their work to be used in this way.
Of course, it’s important not to get too ahead of ourselves – AI still has a long way to go before it can truly rival human-created films. It will take several more years of advancements for AI to even come close to creating a worthy opponent. As it stands, “the problem with generative AI tools today – and with their human prompters, perhaps – is that giving them the right guidance to sustain a coherent story arc and visuals over time is exponentially difficult”. This fundamental challenge highlights the irreplaceable human touch in crafting narratives that resonate emotionally and intellectually.
In conclusion, I wholeheartedly recommend Heretic to everyone. As we embrace new tools and technologies, it’s crucial to protect human artistry. The recent strides made by the film industry to regulate AI usage underscore the need to safeguard human artists in an age of rapid technological evolution, ensuring that the essence of storytelling remains grounded in genuine human experience.
Sources used
https://screenrant.com/hollywoods-ai-rules-writers-agreement-studio-restrictions
https://jcmurraybooks.com/2023/10/10/what-did-the-wga-strike-accomplish
https://www.inverse.com/culture/when-will-ai-make-a-blockbuster-movie
Interesting article, I do think it’s great that AI is being incorporated into the legal framework around the film industry so that it can be dealt with in a proper way. I especially hope that the workers in the industry get proper protection. Having said that, i am interested in seeing what proper creatives can do with AI when used artfully. I have already seen some AI art that looks quite unique in a way that humans wouldn’t necessarily create. I do think that someone with some actual talent and a good eye can use AI to create some amazing things, it should just be another tool after all.
I enjoyed your text! Sometimes I also feel discomfort about AI-generated art. I have this subconscious belief that AI lacks the emotional depth and authenticity of human-created pieces. There’s something special about knowing a work comes from a person with unique experiences. While AI can produce impressive visuals, it doesn’t carry that same personal connection.
However, as the text points out, AI is becoming a powerful tool in the creative world. I agree that we need transparency and protections for human creators, especially as seen in the Hollywood writers’ strikes. While AI can complement art, it shouldn’t replace the irreplaceable human touch that makes storytelling and creativity so powerful.
Wow great article. I didn’t know that AI was being used in films. There is something uncomfortable in knowing that art is made by AI and not by human touch. However, we need to accept that this is becoming the future and need to have a legal framework around it. This is very important for the human creators because AI is going to compete with art made by humans. I just hope that these two types of art can exist next to each other
Very interesting topic, and well written blog. It reminds me of the excellent interview with Ben Affleck, who I had previously underestimated as ‘only’ an actor. In these 3-4 minutes, he brilliantly sums up his view of AI in filmmaking, showing that it will cater for a need, but will not replace art whatsoever. His one quote sums it up: “Craftsman is knowing how to work, art is knowing when to stop.” I have nothing to add…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypURoMU3P3U
I completely agree with your view on inducing AI in cinematic scripts. Also, I believe that AI will encounter more resistance in certain film genres compared to others. For example, I could easily foresee an AI generated plot (at least for current AI) for a classic romcom or a typical horror, while with more difficulty for a psychological thriller, due to the little details that add logical complexity to the plot. However, in my opinion the aspect of filmic content which will be most difficult to reproduce, is humour. Jokes do not work on their own, but involve the connection to the personality of the character who says them, and the context in which they are said. A very articulate back stage to a simple line of words, which AI cannot grasp yet
I have the impression that this is another attempt to devise yet another ‘bio’ badge, like the ‘biologisch’ badge that you see on Dutch products’ packagings. And as in the case of ‘biologisch’, this attempt sounds vague and purposeless, to be honest. In fact, I have the impression that that is another way to promote a certain, niche, prestigious product that is more expensive and does not solve the alleged problem. Just to be clear, non biological products proved to be problematic, but AI generated content may not necessarily be problematic.
If we are to embrace AI, then we must acknowledge the rights of AI, and we must give AI the freedom that we humans (supposedly) enjoy. If we keep restricting it, AI may never advance at the desired pace. I understand that the regulations in their current state do not address such issues clearly. I do not claim to have the solution, but I guess that we must revise all regulations to embrace the arrival of the new member of society.