AI Can Write The Script - But Who Owns The Movie?
Google Nano Banana 2: Curt Doty
By Robert Rosenberg, Forbes Councils Member for Forbes Business Council
Hollywood loves efficiency. So when generative AI started being used to produce loglines, concept art, rough cuts and even serviceable dialogue, the industry did what it always does: It experimented.
But AI is not just a creative tool. It is a chain-of-title event. And chain of title determines whether your film can be financed, insured, distributed and defended in court.
This is where the AI hype collides with copyright law.
The Human Authorship Rule
Under U.S. law, copyright requires human authorship. If a machine independently generates expressive content, that content is not protected.
The key issue is creative control. Typing a prompt is not enough, but selecting, editing and revising AI output can qualify. There is no magic percentage; the question is whether or not a human determined the expressive elements that make the work original.
This matters because if you cannot claim copyright, you cannot enforce exclusivity. And without enforceable exclusivity, distributors, lenders and completion bond companies become uncomfortable.
Work-Made-For-Hire Meets A Non-Human Tool
Hollywood runs on work-made-for-hire. Studios rely on it to ensure that what writers and creators produce belongs to the company.
But AI is not an employee. It cannot sign a contract. It cannot assign rights. If significant portions of a script or visual asset are generated without meaningful human authorship, you cannot fix that with clever drafting.
