What Will Be The Impact Of The AI & Streaming Data Language In The New WGA Contract?
from the consequences dept
As you’ve likely heard, earlier this week the WGA worked out a tentative agreement with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) on a new contract that ended their months-long strike. By all accounts, this looks like a big win for the WGA, which is fantastic and long overdue.
The AMPTP seemed to recognize it had no leg to stand on and seemed to hope that its best strategy was to “wait out” the writers. That doesn’t appear to have worked very well. The new pay rates and guarantees seem like a big win for writers. The WGA negotiating team appears to have done a fantastic job on those fundamental negotiating points, and it’s a clear (well deserved) win for the writers.
Throughout the strike there was a lot of attention paid to the AI demands (perhaps even more attention was paid to that than the underlying economic questions), and I’m not quite sure how I feel about where things came down on that front.
As some have pointed out, in the end, the AI agreement can be read as a near complete capitulation to the writers, as it says that the producers can’t use AI to write a basic script and then hand it off to a human writer at a lower payscale to clean up. However, it does (and this is a really good thing) allow the writers themselves to figure out how to make use of AI for themselves as a productivity tool, which… makes sense. Empower the writers to figure out if it’s a useful tool, rather than thinking that the AI is going to produce anything worthwhile on its own.
One interpretation of all of this is that somewhere in the ~150 day strike, the producers had enough time to play around with AI and realize that it just isn’t able to replace writers like they appeared to hope it would do originally. As we pointed out here, though, AI can be a super useful tool in the writers hands to avoid having to deal with the drudgery part of the job, allowing them to spend more time on the actual creative act of writing. And so the framing of the agreement, at least, where it’s about empowering the writers to use the tools where necessary seems good.
But there was something that bugged me about the language of it, which writer/director/actor (and Techdirt podcast guest) Alex Winter points out in a new Wired piece: while the agreement is framed in a way that seems beneficial to the writers, it requires them to really trust the studios, as there appear to be lots of ways that they might get around what’s in the agreement. And the producers aren’t necessarily the most trustworthy folks out there. As Alex notes, the studios had been experimenting with AI prior to this and he’s not sure if they’ll just drop those initiatives. It might just be that they won’t tell writers what the AI did.
It’s hard to imagine that the studios will tell artists the truth when being asked to dismantle their AI initiatives, and attribution is all but impossible to prove with machine-learning outputs.
The other tidbit that a lot of people are celebrating is the agreement that streaming platforms will now share specific data on “the total number of hours streamed,” which has mostly been a secret. This was another big demand of the writers, mainly as part of their effort to get some sort of residuals setup going for streaming.
But, as a very interesting episode of the Search Engine podcast recently discussed, in the early days of streaming, the fact that streaming platforms didn’t share viewer data was seen as a benefit to many writers/actors/directors. It meant that they weren’t competing over numbers all the time, and weren’t focused on making something that would appeal to the widest possible audience.
That meant that a much wider variety of content was greenlit for some of those platforms, as they (especially Netflix, but also Amazon) wanted to have a really diverse set of creative shows and movies to entice people to pay the monthly subscription fee to see whatever they wanted. In that scenario, the specific numbers for any particular movie or show don’t matter as much, so long as there was enough diverse content available on the platform that it made users feel comfortable coughing up their monthly subscription fee. Indeed, that actually created incentives for more niche, quirky, diverse, wacky, experimental content, with no one ever needing to be concerned with “how is it performing?”
So, there is some reasonable fear that now that they will have to share the viewer data (privately to the WGA, not publicly), that could change. The incentive structure gets messed up a bit. There will be more incentives to create mass market content, and less ability to just create cool, different content that might appeal to a niche audience enough to get people to sign up for the monthly payment.
Now, a (reasonable!) retort to that is that the “we need all this diverse content!” made sense in the early landgrab days, but perhaps makes a lot less sense with the streaming market reaching some sort of saturation level where users are beginning to bail, and Wall St. is demanding more profits and less investment out of these platforms. If we’re already seeing streaming platforms pulling shows off the platforms for the tax breaks, perhaps this move away from supporting the weird and the wacky and the diverse was already going away no matter what.
Overall, though, it’s nice to see the writers get a strong contract that improves the underlying economics in ways that are important to their ability to make a living writing. I’m less sure that the AI language will be that impactful, though, and I’m curious to see how the incentives on the streaming side play out.
The one other bit I’m curious about: I’m kind of wondering if this experience will cause writers/actors/directors to increasingly look to route around the producers. Yes, for big productions they’re still necessary, but as tools for high quality moviemaking become increasingly cheaper and more widely accessible, I’m wondering if we’ll see a rise in more high quality self-produced works (or community produced works) that are then streamed not through the big subscription services, but elsewhere (YouTube, obviously, but it wouldn’t surprise me to see services like a “Substack-for-video” kind of thing pop up at some point).
After all, the producers can’t screw over the actual creative folks… if they’re not involved any more.
Filed Under: ai, data, incentives, movies, production, streaming, writers, writers strike
Companies: amptp, wga


Comments on “What Will Be The Impact Of The AI & Streaming Data Language In The New WGA Contract?”
what nobody seems to be talking about...
Streamers don’t get paid per view, they get paid per subscription and the Cowboy Bebop situation – a show hits the Top Ten and then get cancelled! – reveals that Netflix at least is gauging content according to how well it gets or retains subscribers. Any streamer that really grasps their business will learn to do the same.
If Cowboy Bebop didn’t get anyone new to subscribe or stop anyone from cancelling, then it did absolutely nothing for Netflix revenues and it doesn’t matter how much it was watched.
So by keying residuals to viewing, the streamers can play various games. Promote anything that has a good differential between acquisition/retention and viewing and hide or even yank content that does the reverse. Just wait’ll the next Cowboy Bebop situation happens.
As for “creative” or risky content, both Netflix and Amazon have given up on that, so as everything becomes more boring and cookie cutter, nobody should blame the unions.
Re:
I imagine you’re talking of Netflix’s apparent viewpoint here, but it’s gonna be their downfall. People are getting reluctant to watch an incomplete Netflix show, because they’re worried it’ll be abruptly canceled; and it’ll be canceled because nobody’s watching it. As for the already-completed shows, those are disappearing because they cost too much money…
In a few years it may be nothing but (cheap-to-license—mostly in-house) films and miniseries. Although, interestingly, Netflix (I think) recently decided to do a “second season” of some miniseries, so maybe that’ll be the new way of things.
Re: Re: there's a long ways down for Netflix
I’ve gotten sick of Netflix having nothing to watch so I cancelled it but they still are growing their subscribers.
YouTube productions
“I’m wondering if we’ll see a rise in more high quality self-produced works ”
Yes that will be the big impact of AI. Regular folks will start making their own series and movies, and uploading them to YouTube. Some will be based on original content but the ones that go wildly viral will more often be based on some big IP with a fanbase, and takes a satirical or sexy angle that the corporations would never dare, or keys off some fan shibboleth, whether it’s anger over Game of Thrones season 8 or Arial being black.
The impact will be, more attention will be drawn away from professional productions on Netflix and towards YouTube and other social media. The copyright lawyers will be busier than ever but there’s no stopping this.
Re:
Of course Arial is black. How else would you see the font against the white page?
Re:
Time Team and their patreons disagree with your evaluation. Professional producers can escape the tyranny of the studios by using the Internet to gain both funding and distribution.
Re: Re:
Possibly disagree depending on what you are calling “professional” here.
Re: Re: Re:
Try the Wikipedia article if you will not look at YouTube. The producer, Tim Taylor, created the program for channel 4, and has brought it back on YouTube, and Tony Robinson is back as part of the presentation team so yes, it is a professionally produced YouTube Channel.
Re:
No filmmaker has needed the streaming services for 15 years, but they all still use them. I go to film festivals and see well over a dozen movies per year that never go to streaming, and yet inexplicably never get put up on YouTube or anywhere else online (except sometimes pirate sites).
This strike/resolution doesn’t change anything about that, so I’m not sure why Mike even mentions it. Anyone can make a professional-looking movie TODAY and put it up on YouTube or wherever. The fact that nobody has made a serious attempt to route around producers in the past 15 years tell me that nothing will change now.
It’s a possibility, but I maintain that the studios never really intended to replace writers with AI, they just wanted to use AI as an excuse to pay them less. AI writes an outline or a “first draft” and then they bring in a human writer to “adapt” or “revise” it, both of which pay less than writing it from the start.
Re:
From personal and anecdotal experience you are going to be wasting much more money and time having to refine the AI output than simply just paying the writer to make something from scratch.
If you remember the CNET fiasco, you get what I mean.
Re: Re:
Are you taking into account that a writer is paid significantly less to edit a script than to write one from scratch? I don’t know how much less, but it could still come out to a benefit to the studio.
Re:
Using AI to provide the base would remove the risk of a creator being able to reclaim their copyrights in years to come 9r sue for a fairer level of compensation, as we saw with creators at Marvel and DC. What gets made is the studio’s property, free and clear for all eternity.
Re: Re:
No, it’s a work-for-hire contract that does that. If the writer is an employee, then it’s work-for-hire. If the writer is a freelancer and signs a work-for-hire contract, then it’s work-for-hire.
If there’s no work-for-hire contract and no employment agreement, then the writer owns the copyright, or, in the case of a work with multiple authors, co-owns it.
It’s muddier for pre-1978 works where the legal standards for work made for hire were not explicitly defined. But we’re not talking about those. The DC and Marvel examples you allude to, while interesting, aren’t really comparable.
It’s also possible that they never particularly cared about AI, and just realized it could be a big distraction. From what, I don’t know. Maybe the “total capitulation” here let them offer less money or something.
Re:
Nah, better to read it as “the execs will backstab the writers and aactors when they least expect it”.
I’d advise all WGA and SAG-AFTRA members to start hiring lawyers and bodyguards. And learn self-defense.
Keep your comments respectful [to me].
AI
Moderator
NOW?
They have another reason to raise prices..
You think it was bad BEFORE? Wait the next 6 months.
Courts ruled search engines could aggregate the world’s data so the precedent was already set. Just like search results are transformative, so is AI output.
No AI in 2023
There’s no AI yet, but since we all call LLMs AI I’ll do the same for this note.
Mike points out that the writer should get to decide which tool(s) to use. That’s 100% right. If that writer should choose to use a spell-check algorithm, we should be all for it. We dont like reading mispelled stuff.
If the writer chooses to use a grammar-check algorithm, we should be all for it. We don’t like reading bad grammar.
Now to put those in a fomula… if a WORKER chooses to use a TOOL that MAKES SOMETHING BETTER SO WE LIKE IT MORE then we should be all for it. That includes having an algorithm scour millions of other, similar, uses of the language to ensure consistency of message.
What the striking writers wanted: Studios should purchase scripts from humans, not some [not yet existent] computer produced content.
What the studios/producers wanted: Pay as little as possible and who cares where it comes from as long as it can be made into a show/movie and people will pay to watch it.
When it comes to the use of tools everyone should have the free and open choice of their tool. I prefer to dig holes with an electric posthole digger. Some prefer shovels. Others prefer backhoes. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages. I would not sign a contract prohibiting me from choosing which tool I need.
I installed a new toilet last week — my first one. By judicious use of YT videos and an AMZ install kit it went flawlessly. I would not in good conscience want to limit YT videos or AMZ install kits because “it takes money out of the mouths of plumbers’ children.”
Draw your own conclusions. Post them here. Should ANYONE (government, contract, employers, etc.) prevent YOU from choosing the tool you want to use to accomplish the task?
Hollywood is filled with idiots who don’t live in the real world. This is a sad example where they bushwhacked innocent people, reduced rights, and threw some leftover bread crusts at them to say they solve the problem.
I think this is a uniquely USican problem, but then our exceptionalism takes no prisoners.