Here’s a scenario that’s not hypothetical anymore. A screenwriter uses an AI tool to generate dialogue for a scene. They rewrite most of it, but some phrases remain essentially as the AI produced them. Another writer uses AI to generate a story outline and then writes the full script themselves. A third writer feeds their completed draft into an AI tool and uses its suggestions to restructure the second act.

Who owns what in each of these scenarios? Under current Australian copyright law, the answers are uncertain. And that uncertainty is a problem that’s going to get worse before it gets better.

The Legal Landscape

Australian copyright law requires that a work be created by a human author to receive copyright protection. Works generated entirely by AI, with no significant human creative input, are likely not protected by copyright. But the boundary between human-created and AI-assisted work is blurry, and no Australian court has yet ruled on where that line falls for screen content.

The Copyright Act doesn’t mention artificial intelligence. It was written for a world where creative works were produced by humans, and the closest analogy, computer-generated works, isn’t neatly applicable to modern AI tools that can produce text, images, and audio with minimal human direction.

This matters for Australian filmmakers because copyright is the foundation of the screen industry’s business model. If you can’t establish clear copyright ownership of a script, you can’t licence it, sell it, or use it as the basis for seeking production funding.

Screen Australia’s Position

Screen Australia requires that projects seeking funding demonstrate clear chain of title, meaning unambiguous ownership of the underlying creative material. If a script was generated or substantially assisted by AI, the chain of title becomes questionable.

The agency has been cautious in its public statements, acknowledging that AI tools are part of the creative landscape while emphasising that funded projects must meet existing copyright requirements. In practice, this creates a grey area for filmmakers who are using AI tools in their writing process.

My understanding from conversations with industry professionals is that Screen Australia is likely to require disclosure of AI involvement in the creative process as part of future funding applications. This is a sensible approach, but it doesn’t resolve the underlying copyright questions.

The Guilds and Unions

The Australian Writers’ Guild has been actively engaging with AI issues. Their position, broadly, is that AI-generated material should not be credited as writing and should not displace human writers from employment. The guild has been pushing for contractual protections that prevent production companies from using AI to generate scripts and bypassing writers.

The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, which covers a broader range of screen industry workers, has also raised concerns about AI’s impact on employment across the production chain. Their focus extends beyond writing to include concerns about AI-generated performances, AI voice synthesis, and AI-assisted editing.

These industry bodies are right to be concerned. But the pace of technological development is outrunning the pace of policy and contractual change, which means the current protections are incomplete.

What This Means for Filmmakers

If you’re an Australian filmmaker using AI tools in your creative process, here’s my practical advice.

Be transparent about your use of AI. If you used AI tools during script development, disclose that in funding applications and to your collaborators. Hiding it creates risk down the track.

Keep records of your creative process. If you need to demonstrate that a script is primarily human-created, documentation of your drafts, notes, and development process will be important.

Don’t rely on AI-generated material for core creative elements without substantial human revision. The more you transform AI output through your own creative effort, the stronger your copyright claim.

Stay informed about legal developments. The copyright law around AI is evolving rapidly in multiple jurisdictions, and Australian law will eventually catch up. What’s ambiguous today may be clarified tomorrow.

For production companies, the recommendation from team400.ai working with screen industry clients is to establish clear internal policies about AI use in the creative process before issues arise, rather than dealing with them reactively.

Looking Forward

The copyright questions around AI and screenwriting are not going to resolve quickly. They involve fundamental questions about the nature of authorship, the purpose of copyright, and the economic structures that support creative work. These are big questions with significant implications for the Australian screen industry.

In the meantime, the industry needs to have honest conversations about how AI tools are being used, what risks they create, and how to protect the interests of human creators while acknowledging that the technology isn’t going away.

The screenwriters, producers, and lawyers who engage with these issues now will be better positioned than those who pretend the problem doesn’t exist.