A24
- AI has been a contentious issue in the Hollywood strikes, with actors and writers seeking limits on its use.
- But a recent copyright ruling likely won't have an impact on the studios' AI ambitions.
- The judge ruled AI couldn't be the sole author of an artistic work, but that's not what studios want.
AI has been a source of conflict during the Hollywood strikes, but actors and writers shouldn't see a recent copyright ruling as a blow against any plans studios have for the tech.
A federal judge recently ruled that a piece of art generated solely by AI could not qualify for copyright protection.
The ruling came from a lawsuit that was brought by plaintiff Stephen Thaler against the US Copyright Office. Thaler, a technologist, wanted to list his AI system, called the Creativity Machine, as the sole creator of a work he described as "autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine," per The Hollywood Reporter.
The judge, Beryl Howell, said in her ruling that "human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright." In short: If no human was involved in the creation, there's no copyright.
The problem wasn't that AI was involved in the creation, but rather that there was no human directing it. Howell added that the copyright law was designed to "adapt to the times," noting cases when "human creativity is channeled through new tools or into new media."
She also said further cases would likely "prompt challenging questions regarding how much human input is necessary to qualify the user of an AI system as an 'author' of a generated work."
Now, at first, this ruling could seem to throw a wrench in any plans studios might have to use AI to help write scripts, or act, or create visual effects. But on second glance, it's hard to see this causing any trouble. Hollywood already uses all sorts of technological tools in the creation of movies and TV — including many that employ AI.
Thaler, the plaintiff in this case, is an activist. He was pushing the boundaries by seeing whether the court would grant copyright to an AI as the sole author of an artistic work. The answer to that was "no."
But that's not how Hollywood studios are using AI and it's not what they're planning. They want to use the combination of humans and AI tools to cut costs — by speeding up visual effects editing or automating dubbing, for example — and open new possibilities for storytelling like using virtual actors.
But frankly, the tech just isn't good enough yet for AI to be the sole author of a work. You can't just push a button and have a movie or TV show pop out. Maybe it won't ever get there.
Hollywood writers and actors are fighting AI's incursion in entertainment because of the tech that's already here or is coming soon — for instance, the digital likeness of an actor that could potentially be used for reshoots, thus cutting into the human actor's opportunity for paid work. That type of tech could increase the studios' power long before any AI is capable of sole authorship of a movie or TV show.
Complete AI authorship is more of a thought experiment for Hollywood than a pressing concern. The real fight is already here, and this ruling won't impact it.