A.I. Rights for Writers

Creative work is increasingly coming under threat as the capabilities of artificial intelligence grow, raising urgent questions about how writers’ work is used and reproduced, and how work has been mined in the past without consent.

For playwrights, this raises concern about protecting the intellectual and creative rights that sit at the heart of authorship, ownership, and artistic control.

Protecting your work in the age of A.I.

Over the past year, the Scottish Society of Playwrights (SSP), the Federation of Scottish Theatre (FST) and National Theatre of Scotland (NTS) negotiated revised Standard Play Contracts for commissioning new work in Scotland. Effective from 1 April 2026, they see the introduction of a new A.I. clause. The purpose is to give playwrights greater control over how their scripts are handled, and to reduce the risk of draft scripts or final production texts being uploaded into A.I. systems without prior consent. The clause is built around a rights-reservation approach that reflects wider developments and best practice in copyright, text and data mining, and contracting in the publishing industry.

At its simplest, the clause says this: a producer, or anyone working on a production, should not reproduce or upload any part of a draft of the play, the final manuscript used in production, or submitted materials into artificial intelligence technologies or systems unless the playwright has given explicit written consent.

It requires playwrights to place an approved copyright reservation statement at the start of any shared materials, so anyone handling the script is on clear notice that the work is not being made available for text and data mining by default.

What material does this cover?

This is primarily about draft manuscripts and final production scripts used within the life of the commission and production process. That includes early drafts, redrafts, rehearsal versions, cast copies, production copies, and the final script used for staging the work. If materials circulate among the writer, producer, director, dramaturg, cast, stage management or wider production team, it should be treated as covered by the agreed A.I. protections.

If the play later goes on to become a published playtext, that should be treated as a separate matter. Any continuation of these protections, or any revised wording for the publishing context, should be negotiated separately with the proposed publisher. Publishing contracts are increasingly dealing with A.I. and machine-learning uses expressly, rather than leaving them implied, so playwrights should not assume that a theatre commissioning contract will automatically govern a later publishing deal.

Why the reservation statement matters

To be effective, the clause requires the following wording to be included at the start of every draft of the play:

“The playwright additionally expressly reserves this work from ‘the text and data mining exception’ in accordance with Article 4(3) of Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (Copyright Directive).”

This language matters because Article 4 of the Directive allows text and data mining by those with lawful access to a work, unless the rightsholder has expressly reserved that right. The Directive also envisages rights reservation through machine-readable means or other clear statements by the rightsholder. In other words, the clause is designed to put users on notice that the playwright is not consenting to these kinds of uses as a default.

In plain English, the statement is there to make the writer’s position unmistakable. It makes clear that the script is not being offered up for text and data mining or related A.I. processing. It is best understood as a reservation of rights and a deterrent to unauthorised use.

How playwrights should implement it

Once agreed in your contract as part of your commission, the safest approach is to place the statement prominently at the front of the script, ideally on the title page or immediately after it, before the play begins. It should appear on every version circulated during the commission and production process.

A simple reusable example would be:

Title of Play
by [Writer Name]
Draft [number/date]

Copyright © [YEAR] by [Writer Name]. All rights reserved.

A.I. / Text and Data Mining Rights Reservation
The playwright additionally expressly reserves this work from ‘the text and data mining exception’ in accordance with Article 4(3) of Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (Copyright Directive).

That wording should travel with the script wherever it goes: first draft, revised draft, rehearsal draft, production draft, and final production script. The aim is to ensure that every copy, whether printed or shared digitally, carries the same clear reservation.

Why playwrights and agents should negotiate this early

An important practical point is that any specific permissions, restrictions, or exclusions relating to A.I. should be raised during the contract negotiation process with the producer.

In practice, this will often be done by a playwright’s agent, rather than by the writer personally. For represented writers, this sort of issue should be discussed and settled at contracting stage, not left to informal assumptions later down the line.

If a playwright has personal reservations about the use of particular A.I. vendors and wants to prohibit their use, or vice-versa, to allow the use of a named system for a tightly defined purpose, that should be clearly written into the signed commissioning agreement, or a formally agreed written addendum. This creates clarity for everyone from the outset. This approach is consistent with current publishing-sector guidance, which increasingly insists that A.I.-related uses should require specific consent rather than being treated as automatically included within a general rights grant.

If a writer does not want the producer, staff, freelancers or contractors to use named A.I. vendors in connection with the script, that should be expressly stated. Equally, if a writer is willing to permit limited use of a named tool for a narrowly defined purpose, that permission should also be recorded in writing.

Accessibility is a necessary exception

The clause includes an important exception where use is required by access providers. This is vital. Theatre must remain accessible, and some access services may involve carefully controlled software use in order to support captioning, audio description, surtitling preparation, or BSL-related work.

The clause recognises that there can be legitimate reasons for limited technological use where this is genuinely necessary to make a production accessible, and that A.I. has created new possibilities for the sector.

That exception should not be seen as weakening the principle of protection. It reflects a different priority: ensuring disabled audiences are not excluded. In the creative industries, accessibility is not a luxury or a bolt-on. It is a core part of participation and inclusion. The point of the clause is therefore not to block access provision, but to stop casual or unnecessary script uploading, while still allowing strictly limited and carefully monitored use where access services genuinely require it.

In practical terms, this means that a producer should not be able to justify general A.I. use simply because it is convenient. But where a specialist provider genuinely needs to use a tool in order to deliver captioning, audio description, or related services, that can fall within the exception, provided the use is narrow, necessary, and responsibly managed.

What if a playwright is using A.I. deliberately?

The clause also leaves room for situations where a playwright is consciously and deliberately engaging with A.I. as part of their own creative practice. That matters because not all A.I. use is the same. The clause is not trying to prohibit experimentation or hybrid forms of authorship. Instead, it makes the default position one of writer control: if A.I. is going to be used, that should be by explicit agreement, not by assumption. That principle closely aligns with the position increasingly advocated by authors’ bodies in the publishing sector.

How this aligns with emerging practice in publishing

This clause does not sit in isolation. The publishing industry has increasingly been adopting contract language and policy positions designed to respond to data mining, machine learning and the unlicensed use of creative works in A.I. systems. The Society of Authors has argued that publishers should not be able to license works for machine-learning purposes without explicit, specific consent from the author. That is very much in step with the direction of the SSP/FST clause: reserve rights clearly, require permission, and avoid treating A.I. use as a hidden or automatic part of the deal.

More broadly, both the EU copyright framework and current UK policy discussions show how central these questions have become. The UK government’s copyright and A.I. consultation was explicitly framed around the need to support both the creative industries and the A.I. sector while providing legal clarity.

What playwrights should do now?

For playwrights, the message is straightforward. Ensure your position on A.I. is clear, and negotiate this clause as part of your commission. Include the required reservation statement at the front of every draft manuscript and final production script shared during the commission and production process.

If you are represented, speak to your agent about whether you want any additional vendor-specific restrictions or permissions negotiated with the producer and written into your contract. And if the play later moves toward publication as a playtext, treat that as a separate but similar negotiation with the publisher rather than assuming any protection will automatically carry across. Many publishers will have similar A.I. clauses for you to consider.

The aim is clarity for all who will work with the materials you create.

Your script should not be uploaded into A.I. systems by default. Your consent should matter. Accessibility should remain protected. And any exceptions should be agreed properly, in writing, at the point of contract.

Where do we go from here?

Launching the A.I. clause as part of the ‘New Deal’ for playwrights in April 2026, Kris Haddow, Chair of the Scottish Society of Playwrights, said:

“Many writers and creatives understandably feel that the rapid growth of A.I. has left us exposed, with too little control over how our work may be used or copied. This clause is an important first step towards restoring some balance. It is best understood as putting people on clear notice by reserving rights against text and data mining, rather than suggesting the use of A.I. is automatically unlawful. It is a meaningful and considered attempt to strengthen a playwrights’ position, asserting that our intellectual and creative rights must be respected.

The SSP, FST and NTS are committed to keeping the operation of the new A.I. clause under review over the coming year. We will actively gather feedback on how the revised Standard Play Contract and the A.I. exemption are working in practice. That will include listening to experiences from playwrights, agents, producers, and other relevant stakeholders, so that we can understand where the wording is working well, where further clarification may be needed, and how the contract is being applied across the sector.

Alongside this, we will continue to monitor wider developments in this fast-moving area, including any changes to copyright law, emerging industry practice, and the UK government’s evolving position on artificial intelligence and the creative industries.

As the legal and policy landscape develops, we will consider what further updates or guidance may be needed to ensure that playwrights’ intellectual and creative rights remain properly protected.”

If you would like to share your views or experiences, please get in touch.

More Campaigns