This is what the WGA summary says about the AI provisions:
We have established regulations for the use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) on MBA-covered projects in the following ways:
AI can’t write or rewrite literary material, and AI-generated material will not be considered source material under the MBA, meaning that AI-generated material can’t be used to undermine a writer’s credit or separated rights.
A writer can choose to use AI when performing writing services, if the company consents and provided that the writer follows applicable company policies, but the company can’t require the writer to use AI software (e.g., ChatGPT) when performing writing services.
The Company must disclose to the writer if any materials given to the writer have been generated by AI or incorporate AI-generated material.
The WGA reserves the right to assert that exploitation of writers’ material to train AI is prohibited by MBA or other law.
The summary is meaningless, the language is critical, attend:
The Companies agree that because neither traditional AI nor GAI is a person,
neither is a ‘writer’ or ‘professional writer’ as defined in Articles 1.B.1.a.,
1.B.1.b., 1.C.1.a. and 1.C.1.b. of this MBA, and, therefore, written material
produced by traditional AI or GAI shall not be considered literary material under
this or any prior MBA.
It means gai material is not covered by this agreement unless a writer is asked to rewrite or adapt it as specified in later clauses.
Gai does not get writing credit, but there is no bar from having a gai written script other than the obvious fact that it would be effectively unwatchable without human editing.
Given that the summary is written by the people who wrote the agreement, presumably under the advise of their lawyers, I think I’m going to trust it over someone’s assessment of what they happen to think a single out of context passage means (and to be clear, the entirety of this MOU - if you’re trying to do an actual close legal reading of it - is out of context because this exists in relationship with the existing contracts that it is updating).
Not trying to be an asshole here, but unless you’ve got access to a LOT more information about this than you’re letting on, I think you’re grossly overestimating your ability to tease out meaningful details from the text. “The people who wrote this are wrong about what it says and I’m right” is a lot to ask people to believe in a vacuum.
This is what the WGA summary says about the AI provisions:
Where do you disagree with their assessment?
The summary is meaningless, the language is critical, attend:
It means gai material is not covered by this agreement unless a writer is asked to rewrite or adapt it as specified in later clauses.
Gai does not get writing credit, but there is no bar from having a gai written script other than the obvious fact that it would be effectively unwatchable without human editing.
Given that the summary is written by the people who wrote the agreement, presumably under the advise of their lawyers, I think I’m going to trust it over someone’s assessment of what they happen to think a single out of context passage means (and to be clear, the entirety of this MOU - if you’re trying to do an actual close legal reading of it - is out of context because this exists in relationship with the existing contracts that it is updating).
Not trying to be an asshole here, but unless you’ve got access to a LOT more information about this than you’re letting on, I think you’re grossly overestimating your ability to tease out meaningful details from the text. “The people who wrote this are wrong about what it says and I’m right” is a lot to ask people to believe in a vacuum.