If You Prompt a Movie or Song Into Existence With AI, You Shouldn’t Be Able to Profit From It; The Hollywood Reporter, August 31, 2026

 David Barber, The Hollywood Reporter; If You Prompt a Movie or Song Into Existence With AI, You Shouldn’t Be Able to Profit From It

"Preserving the value of human creativity is not as difficult as it would seem. I propose that the following two provisions be the framework of legislation for the protection of artists:

1. Legislation prohibiting prompt-driven outputs or assets of Generative AI models, and whole works that contain prompt-driven outputs or assets of Generative AI models as any part of said whole, from being copyrighted.

2. Legislation stating that all prompt-driven Generative AI outputs, assets, and their derivatives be clearly labeled as such: Visibly – pictures, images, and videos; Audibly – songs, scores, sound effects/design;  Metadata – trackable for ALL generative AI outputs.

The goal of a law, or laws, built upon these foundational principles, is to disallow the:

• prompting of a song into existence and profiting from it
• prompting of a film or video into existence and profiting from it
• killing of creative departments and using prompt-driven outputs to replace their artistry
• existence of unidentifiable deepfakes

Under such regulations, individual prompted outputs would be ineligible for copyright protection, as would whole works that contain them. Examples include films that use a prompt-generated score, sound effects, visual effects, or VoiceOver, and songs that use prompt-generated horn sections, backup vocals, or other core elements that contribute to the song’s final presentation. Beyond the ethical and moral reasons for these provisions, there is also a legal basis for them.

The language must also prevent corporations from hiding any prompt-driven Generative AI usage under Trade Secret Law."