Also known as GAI material · generative AI output · AI-generated text
Text or other material produced by a generative-AI system. Under current WGA MBA rules, GAI is not a writer and its written output is not literary material; separate conditions govern assigned material, source material, and separated rights.
The WGA's AI rules separate a tool from a writer's covered contribution: generative AI cannot receive writing credit, and written material produced by traditional AI or GAI is not literary material. If a company furnishes GAI-written material that has not previously been published or exploited, separate MBA rules say it does not count as assigned material for compensation or source material for credits and cannot disqualify the writer from separated rights.
A writer may choose to use AI while performing writing services only when the company consents and the writer follows the company's applicable policies. Companies cannot require a writer to use generative AI. Current WGA guidance also requires disclosure when material furnished to a writer was generated by AI.
The 2026 MBA preserves those protections and requires companies to notify the Guild when licensing writers' work to train a commercial GAI system, with an opportunity for discussion that can include remuneration. Inkwell's reviewable suggestions and BYOK controls support deliberate tool use, but no setting makes a particular use contract-compliant.
No. Current WGA guidance says GAI is not a writer, so it cannot receive literary credit under the MBA.
Current WGA guidance says companies cannot require writers to use GAI. A writer's voluntary use still requires company consent and compliance with applicable policy.
No. Provider choice and billing controls do not decide contract compliance. The engagement, company consent, policy, material, and current MBA rules still govern.
