AI In Entertainment: Redefining Creativity, Ownership And The Future Of Storytelling

Every major creative revolution begins with fear. When photography was invented, painters feared that it was going to mark the end of art and painting. When sound started entering cinema, actors feared that it was going to destroy performance and when Computer Generated Imagery ("CGI") emerged, filmmakers were worried that CGI was going to replace real talent with a digital spectacle.

Each time, those fears proved both right and wrong. Whilst some may be of the view that technology has disrupted the entertainment industry, it can also be said that technological advancements rather expanded what creativity could mean and how it could be reinvented.

Today, artificial intelligence ("AI") stands at the same crossroads. From writing scripts to composing music and generating lifelike visuals, AI is reshaping the entertainment industry in ways that challenge our definitions of authorship, originality, and even humanity itself.

AI's expanding role in creative production

AI is no longer experimental technology, it has shown that it can be embedded in nearly every stage of entertainment production:

• Scriptwriting: Tools such as ChatGPT, ScriptBook, and Sudowrite assist screenwriters in refining plotlines, analysing script quality, budget projection and predicting audience response.
• Visual effects: Films such as Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023) used AI-powered de-aging to create younger versions of actors. Recently Netflix has also dived in and used AI to generate a building collapse scene in El Eternauta, Netflix has provided that the VFX ("Virtual Effects") sequence was completed ten times quicker than it would've taken had traditional VFX tools been used therefore helping with cutting overall costs of production.
• Marketing and distribution: Platforms such as Netflix and Spotify also rely on AI and machine learning to personalise music, movie or series recommendations.
• Gaming: AI is creating worlds that think for themselves. From adaptive storylines and realistic Non-Playable Characters ("NPC") that can adapt to different gameplay, to procedural map generation and even image generation.

These applications blur the line between creative assistance and creative authorship, leaving the industry to ask: where does the artist end, and where does the algorithm begin?

Legal questions behind the magic

AI's integration into entertainment brings deep legal and ethical challenges particularly in copyright, performance rights and data usage.

• Authorship and ownership

South African copyright law protects specified categories of works where certain conditions are met, including originality. The author of a work is the cornerstone of copyright law. But what if a song or screenplay is generated entirely by AI? Who owns it? The user, the developer or no one at all?

Under South African law, the Copyright Act, 1978 does contemplate that a juristic person may be the author of a work. However, the current accepted view is that only natural persons may be the author of certain types of works (literary, musical and artistic works). This is where things get interesting – special provision is made for the authorship of computer-generated works where there is no human author of the work. Under these conditions, the person "by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work were undertaken" is deemed to the author (and be the first owner of copyright in the work).

Practically, this means that purely AI-generated outputs that lack human authorship are unlikely to qualify for copyright protection in South Africa. However, where a human makes creative choices that rise to the level of authorship (for example, curating inputs, structuring prompts, editing, arranging and selecting AI-generated material with sufficient skill and judgment) copyright may subsist in the resulting work, but protection will extend only to the original human contributions.

Employer ownership remains highly relevant as well. If AI is used by an employee in the course and scope of employment to create a protectable work (and the work does qualify for copyright protection), the employer is typically the first owner of copyright, unless contractually varied.

• Performer and personality rights

The use of AI-generated likenesses as seen in The Flash (2023) and other films raises concerns about consent, control, and posthumous image rights. In South Africa, these issues fall under the Performers' Protection Act,1967 the performers common-law personality rights and their constitutional rights to dignity and privacy.

The Performers' Protection Act regulates fixation, broadcasting, communication to the public and certain forms of exploitation of performances. Consent is required for specified uses of a performer's performance, and contractual agreements commonly allocate rights for audiovisual productions. AI-enabled cloning of a performer's likeness or voice can infringe upon both statutory performers' rights and the common law of personality rights. Using a living or deceased person's image, voice or identity without consent can also constitute an unlawful infringement, passing off, or unlawful competition, depending on context, especially where the use suggests endorsement or exploits commercial value. Clearance of digital replicas and ethical guardrails around consent, scope, duration and compensation are therefore essential in South Africa, independently of copyright ownership in the underlying film or sound recording.

• Disclosure and transparency

Some filmmakers are already responding. Heretic (2024) included a closing credit: "No generative AI was used in the making of this film." Meanwhile, Universal Pictures began adding warnings like: "This work may not be used to train AI." These measures reflect a growing industry effort to preserve trust and assert control due to rising challenges introduced by AI.

South African law does not currently mandate disclosure of AI use in creative works. Whilst voluntary disclosures may build audience trust under South African law disclosure of the use of generative AI will not assist in avoiding liability or damages.

A global shift toward accountability

Globally, the conversation is intensifying:

• The EU AI Act (2024) mandates disclosure when AI is used to generate or manipulate content presented as real.
• The SAG-AFTRA strikes (2023–2024) in the United States ("US") were centered on protecting performers from unauthorised digital replication.
• The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences ("AMPAS") has amended its rules to allow movies created with AI to be eligible for the Oscars and has recently started considering AI disclosure rules for Oscars.

South Africa does not yet have a dedicated AI framework, but as a growing content hub, it will inevitably face similar questions especially as AI-generated media begins to blend indistinguishably with human work.

The path forward: collaboration, not competition

The real question is not whether AI belongs in entertainment, but how we integrate it responsibly.

• Creators should document human contributions to AI-assisted works, including prompt design, selection, editing and arrangement, to evidence originality. They should embrace transparency, acknowledging AI use where relevant, without diminishing human input and should further take proactive steps to protect their brand image, and likeness.
• Studios and platforms should develop policies and proper contractual frameworks on data sourcing, consent, and digital likeness rights, these policies will be vital in ensuring that studios and platforms are well protected and actually guide creators on using AI responsibly.
• Lawmakers must design adaptive frameworks that balance innovation with accountability, protecting both creative integrity and economic opportunity.

AI will not erase creativity. It will redefine it, just as every technological leap before it has done. The challenge lies in guiding that transformation with integrity and foresight.

Closing thought

Every era fears its tools until those tools eventually become the standard of art. The camera did not end painting; it expanded it. CGI did not erase actors; it enhanced their worlds. AI will likely do the same, it won't replace human imagination it will allow us to create works that were previously unimaginable and challenge us to use it more consciously. It may also have other benefits, such as savings in both costs and time in media productions allowing a greater number of people the opportunity to participate in creative endeavours.

The future of entertainment is not machine-made or human-made. It is collaborative and is a shared canvas between mind and machine.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.