{"id":4870,"date":"2024-06-19T07:00:00","date_gmt":"2024-06-19T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/djp-a9vm.1wp.site\/?p=4870"},"modified":"2026-10-19T19:05:23","modified_gmt":"2026-10-19T17:05:23","slug":"using-artificial-intelligence-in-screenwriting","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/using-artificial-intelligence-in-screenwriting\/","title":{"rendered":"Using artificial intelligence in screenwriting"},"content":{"rendered":"

As artificial intelligence becomes common in everyday life, its substantial influence on the arts is hard to overlook. This article outlines the main issues arising from AI use in literary work, taking film screenwriting as an example.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The starting point: what is artificial intelligence?<\/h2>\n

Broadly, AI is a field encompassing neural networks, robotics, models of intelligent behaviour and computer programs simulating it, including machine learning[1]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

More narrowly, and relevantly here, it means human-designed software systems and tools that learn and become more precise as they absorb data and examples. AI combines techniques and algorithms for automating tasks, analysing data, recognising patterns and making computer decisions. Uses include business optimisation, market forecasting, personalised web experiences, production automation and medical diagnostic support. It efficiently performs complex analysis of large datasets, or big data.<\/p>\n

What is a work under the Copyright Act[2]<\/a>?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A work is any manifestation of creative activity of individual character, established in any form, irrespective of value, purpose or expression[3]<\/a>. \u201cEstablished in any form\u201d means an externalised result[4]<\/a>, such as a film plot outline on paper or in a file. Externalisation is effective if others can perceive it with their senses[5]<\/a>. The complex meaning of individual creative activity lies beyond this article.<\/p>\n

An original screenplay generally meets these requirements and is a work under Polish law. But who can be its author\u2014only a human?<\/p>\n

AI: author or tool?<\/h2>\n

Polish scholarship and case law generally hold that copyright creativity is exclusively human<\/strong>[6]<\/a>. Machines, animals and nature are not creative authors[7]<\/a>. Protection requires a result of human work<\/strong>[8]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Automatically generated outputs imitating human creation are not works. A human must decisively influence an AI result, giving it creative and individual features[9]<\/a>. Precise instructions producing a coherent modified whole may suffice, but must themselves be creative. AI then remains the author\u2019s tool, a sculptor\u2019s chisel.<\/p>\n

Determining whether instructions were sufficiently creative is difficult. Screenwriting with AI blurs attribution between human intellect and technical capability. Using software to write or compose cannot itself prevent protection where it merely externalises a human idea: computer-aided works. The software user is the creator.<\/p>\n

Conversely, virtually replacing the human altogether, such as automatic translation, creates no work: the result reflects automated logic rather than intellectual effort[10]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Increasing combinations of human effort and machine capability will complicate authorship identification. Machine learning and deep learning will require copyright law to adapt.<\/p>\n

Common-law traditions such as the UK and Australia have addressed dehumanised creation through \u201ccomputer-generated works\u201d, produced by automated logic without creative human input. Rights accrue to whoever made the necessary arrangements, potentially a legal person[11]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

An interesting example is the Beijing Internet Court\u2019s Li v Liu<\/em>[12]<\/a>. Mr Li generated images using Stable Diffusion and published them on social media. Ms Liu used one to illustrate a poem on another platform. Li alleged infringement of economic and online dissemination rights, seeking removal and damages. The court recognised the images as works under Chinese law and upheld his claims[13]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The model was not an author. Neither was Stable Diffusion\u2019s developer, who neither intended the particular images nor specified their content and thus contributed no creativity to them, merely producing a creative tool. Li tailored it through precise instructions and selected the final image. It reflected his intellectual contribution and personal expectations, making him the author and rights holder.<\/p>\n

Possible uses of ChatGPT<\/h2>\n

What if we ask AI to revise part of a screenplay? Rights depend on the instructions\u2019 creativity, the generator and applicable law. AI\u2019s nature can evade ordinary national jurisdiction divisions.<\/p>\n

Consider ChatGPT, software from US research laboratory OpenAI. Its terms are governed by California law[14]<\/a>. They assign users all OpenAI rights, title and interest, if any<\/strong>, in outputs generated from their inputs.<\/p>\n

Consider three cases.<\/p>\n

First:<\/strong> checking punctuation. The instruction is technical, not creative. No separate work arises, but the original screenplay remains protected.<\/p>\n

Second:<\/strong> \u201cPlease add a subplot about a police officer\u201d, without detail. A randomly generated subplot cannot principally be attributed to that minimal instruction, insufficient for creativity.<\/p>\n

If the subplot is also loosely connected to the rest, a third party could generally use it without permission<\/strong>. It is neither a new protected work nor tied to ours.<\/p>\n

Third:<\/strong> specify a female neurosurgeon living in Old \u017boliborz with severe personality disorders, befriending the protagonist; explain where and how they meet and link her life story to another plotline. AI can then be seen as a tool: the subplot would not exist without those instructions. The result is a new derivative work relative to the original screenplay, and we acquire rights. Third-party use requires permission.<\/p>\n

Potential risks<\/h2>\n

AI tends to confabulate and present false data or facts. Verification is always needed, especially for a screenplay partly based on real events.<\/p>\n

Outputs may also resemble material already offered to others. OpenAI\u2019s terms expressly acknowledge this and disclaim liability. Checking whether similar patterns appeared in earlier literature helps reduce plagiarism risk. Numerous online tools can assist.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n

Distinguishing AI as a tool and assessing the screenwriter\u2019s creative instructions is crucial. In Poland, only humans can author works, although AI can assist.<\/p>\n

Common-law and Chinese systems may also recognise legal persons among creators. Under the computer-generated works concept in common-law traditions, unlike Poland, instructions\u2019 creativity does not determine protection. In practice, a screenwriter asking AI to modify a script generally holds rights if the instructions are sufficiently creative for the result to qualify as a work<\/strong>. AI remains a tool. Merely requesting translation of a treatment page contributes negligible intellectual creativity.<\/p>\n\n

[1]<\/a> https:\/\/www.gov.pl\/web\/ai\/czym-jest-sztuczna-inteligencja2<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Act of 4 February 1994 on copyright and related rights (consolidated text: Journal of Laws 2022, item 2509).<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Article 1 of the Copyright Act.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Warsaw Court of Appeal judgment of 24 October 2019, I ACa 651\/18.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> A. Niew\u0119g\u0142owski, Prawo autorskie. Komentarz<\/em>, Warsaw 2021, Article 1.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> P. \u015al\u0119zak, section 2.3, in Kulinaria w polskim prawie w\u0142asno\u015bci intelektualnej<\/em>, Warsaw 2022.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> E. Ferenc-Szyde\u0142ko (ed.), Ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych. Komentarz<\/em>, 4th ed., Warsaw 2021.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> Supreme Court judgment of 21 February 2020, I CSK 513\/18, OSNC 2020, no. 12, item 104.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> A. Niew\u0119g\u0142owski, cited above, Article 1.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> D. Flisak, Komentarz do wybranych przepis\u00f3w ustawy o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych<\/em>, LEX\/el. 2018, Article 1.<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> https:\/\/www.lexology.com\/library\/detail.aspx?g=a9b81aa1-7243-4f03-890c-7d29f5ccbdd7 and https:\/\/www.herbertsmithfreehills.com\/insights\/2023-05\/the-ip-in-ai-does-copyright-protect-ai-generated-works<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2024\/01\/beijing-internet-court-releases-translation-of-li-vs-liu-recognizing-copyright-in-generative-ai\/<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/pulse\/chinese-court-recognizes-user-copyright-owner-ai-generated-%E6%9D%8E%E6%B1%9F-anxic<\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> https:\/\/openai.com\/policies\/terms-of-use.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

As artificial intelligence becomes common in everyday life, its substantial influence on the arts is hard to overlook. This article outlines the main issues arising from AI use in literary work, taking film screenwriting as an example.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":15,"featured_media":1645,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_seopress_robots_follow":"","_seopress_robots_imageindex":"","_seopress_robots_snippet":"","_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"294","_seopress_robots_breadcrumbs":"","_seopress_robots_freeze_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_custom_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_canonical":"","_seopress_social_fb_title":"","_seopress_social_fb_desc":"","_seopress_social_fb_img":"","_seopress_social_fb_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_height":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_title":"","_seopress_social_twitter_desc":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_height":0,"_seopress_redirections_value":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled_regex":"","_seopress_redirections_logged_status":"","_seopress_redirections_param":"","_seopress_redirections_type":0,"_seopress_analysis_target_kw":"","_seopress_news_disabled":"","_seopress_video_disabled":"","_seopress_video":[],"_seopress_pro_schemas_manual":[],"_seopress_pro_rich_snippets_disable_all":"","_seopress_pro_rich_snippets_disable":[],"_seopress_pro_schemas":[],"iawp_total_views":0,"_djp_featured_image_mode":"full","footnotes":""},"categories":[{"term_id":294,"name":"Articles","slug":"articles-en","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":294,"taxonomy":"category","description":"","parent":0,"count":100,"filter":"raw","cat_ID":294,"category_count":100,"category_description":"","cat_name":"Articles","category_nicename":"articles-en","category_parent":0},{"term_id":300,"name":"Creators","slug":"creators-en","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":300,"taxonomy":"category","description":"","parent":0,"count":3,"filter":"raw","cat_ID":300,"category_count":3,"category_description":"","cat_name":"Creators","category_nicename":"creators-en","category_parent":0},{"term_id":291,"name":"General","slug":"general-en","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":291,"taxonomy":"category","description":"","parent":0,"count":153,"filter":"raw","cat_ID":291,"category_count":153,"category_description":"","cat_name":"General","category_nicename":"general-en","category_parent":0}],"tags":[305,307,306,308],"djp_center":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-4870","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles-en","category-creators-en","category-general-en","tag-ai-en","tag-copyright-en","tag-film-en","tag-intellectual-property-en"],"acf":{"djp_promote_now":false,"djp_promotion_days":7},"images":{"thumbnail":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/pexels-ron-lach-8036340-scaled-1-150x150.jpg","medium":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/pexels-ron-lach-8036340-scaled-1-300x200.jpg","medium_large":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/pexels-ron-lach-8036340-scaled-1-768x512.jpg","large":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/pexels-ron-lach-8036340-scaled-1-1024x683.jpg","full":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/pexels-ron-lach-8036340-scaled-1-djp-web.webp"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4870","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/15"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4870"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4870\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5518,"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4870\/revisions\/5518"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1645"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4870"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4870"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4870"},{"taxonomy":"djp_center","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/djp_center?post=4870"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=4870"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}