Authors
The entertainment industry has always been built on creativity, but a fundamental question now looms over studios, streamers, and talent when using artificial intelligence to generate content: Who owns the copyright to AI-assisted content – the algorithm or the artist?
Who owns the fruits of generative AI?
The traditional frameworks governing AI intellectual property are being tested in unprecedented ways as generative and agentic AI tools become embedded in more stages of content creation, from scriptwriting and visual effects to music composition and marketing. Consider the tension that emerged during the 2023 writers' strike, where AI-assisted writers' rooms became a flashpoint for negotiations over creative credit and compensation. Understanding these emerging copyright risks for all those involved is no longer optional. It is essential to protecting both creative output and commercial value.
Consider the copyright implications alone. Under current U.S. law, copyright protection requires human authorship. This creates confusion around copyrighting AI-assisted work: If a machine produces a screenplay, a song, or a digital likeness, can it be protected? And if so, by whom? The U.S. Copyright Office evaluates the human contribution to works. Is it AI-generated or AI-assisted? Can AI contributions be disclaimed while protecting human contributions? For content owners, this ambiguity creates risks: assuming protection exists where it may not and assuming no protection exists where it may.
Is using copyrighted data to train AI considered fair use?
Beyond copyright ownership, fair use in machine learning presents another flashpoint. Generative AI models are trained on massive datasets that often include copyrighted works, raising questions about whether such training constitutes infringement or falls within fair use protections. The outcomes of high-profile litigation testing these boundaries will shape how AI tools can lawfully be developed and deployed across the entertainment ecosystem.
Then there is the matter of talent rights. AI now enables the creation of synthetic voices, digital doubles, and deepfake likenesses with remarkable fidelity. Voice-cloning disputes have already emerged, with actors discovering their vocal likeness being used without permission in audiobooks, video games, and advertisements. Meanwhile, deepfake promotional content, such as synthetic video of celebrities endorsing products they never agreed to represent, has proliferated across social media.
Deepfakes and the right of publicity: Who owns a synthesized identity?
Studios exploring AI-generated franchise spinoffs face similar questions: can a digital recreation of an iconic character, voiced by AI trained on the original performer, be deployed without consent or compensation? For performers, this raises urgent concerns about consent, compensation, and control over their own likeness. Several states have enacted or expanded right-of-publicity statutes to address these issues, but the legal landscape remains fragmented and evolving.
For entertainment companies seeking to harness AI's creative potential while managing legal exposure, this means stepping beyond reactive measures and implementing proactive and practical strategies. This can include building contractual safeguards around AI-generated content and staying ahead of regulatory developments.
We will explore these issues and more at the upcoming SXSW session, "AI in Entertainment: Navigating IP, Ethics & Opportunity." Joined by Reed Smith industry clients at the forefront of these challenges, the session will offer practical strategies for managing IP and copyright risks while unlocking the creative and commercial opportunities that AI presents. If you are working in entertainment, media, or technology, this is the conversation shaping your industry's future.