Studios now test digital actors in everything from trailers to tentpoles. Unions, performers, and lawmakers feel the pressure immediately. The industry faces urgent questions about control and compensation. Negotiations have restarted across guilds and employers. The outcome will reset creative and economic expectations.
Why AI Performers Change the Bargaining Agenda
AI systems can clone faces, bodies, and voices with startling fidelity. They can also generate never-filmed performances on demand. That capability disrupts how Hollywood budgets, credits, and schedules productions. It also blurs lines between a person and a productized likeness. Stakeholders therefore seek clear rules before practices harden.
The technology reduces expensive reshoots and increases library reuse. It also creates reputational and ethical risks for performers. Unions want enforceable consent boundaries and predictable pay formulas. Studios want flexibility, speed, and legal certainty. These competing goals drive the new negotiations forward.
Likeness Rights at the Center of the Fight
Performers argue their visage and voice are core identity assets. Any digital clone can affect future employability and personal brand. They therefore demand explicit consent for each new synthetic use. They also want the right to revoke permission under defined conditions. This insistence reflects hard lessons from earlier scanning practices.
Contracts, Consent, and Scope of Use
SAG-AFTRA’s 2023 contract addresses “digital replicas” and requires informed consent and compensation. It limits background scanning to specific productions and uses. Producers must disclose intended modifications and storage durations. Performers can negotiate additional protections and approvals. These guardrails now form a floor for further bargaining rounds.
Actors want narrower scopes and clearer audit rights. They also seek specific labeling for any synthetic scene. Producers prefer broader grants and long-lived reuse rights. Both sides acknowledge the need for standardized documentation and notices. That shared recognition pushes model contract language into focus.
Dead Celebrities and Postmortem Rights
Studios increasingly license deceased performers for new uses. Estates see new revenue, but fans scrutinize authenticity and taste. Postmortem publicity rights vary across states. California protects postmortem rights for 70 years, while other states differ. These disparities complicate national release strategies and negotiations.
Estates want control over context, performance quality, and moral implications. Producers want consistent clearance workflows and predictable costs. Disagreements often turn on the script’s portrayal and tone. Negotiators now consider advisory boards and ethical review clauses. These mechanisms could reduce controversy and litigation risk.
Residuals in the Age of Synthetic Talent
Residuals reward ongoing exploitation of a performance. AI-generated performances challenge traditional definitions of “performance” and “performer.” Unions argue that a licensed likeness still merits residuals. Studios counter that software outputs require different accounting. The parties must bridge these divergent views.
Attribution, Measurement, and Credits
Residuals depend on credit, revenue, and distribution data. AI complicates attribution because many models blend multiple sources. Systems may interpolate a composite that reflects several contributors. Performers want credit when a model relies on their captured data. They also seek revenue shares tied to viewership or title success.
Studios explore performance logs and watermarking to track source influence. Vendors propose provenance metadata and standardized asset IDs. These tools could support audits and credit determinations. However, measurement precision still lags creative practice. Negotiators therefore consider pragmatic formulas and thresholds.
Background Performers and Digital Crowd Work
Extras face immediate pressure from crowd simulation. Productions can now populate scenes using scanned bodies and faces. Extras want day rates, reuse payments, and strict reuse limits. They also ask for clear destruction policies after project delivery. Studios prefer vendor-managed libraries for efficiency.
Union contracts have begun to shape this space. They require consent, compensation, and project-limited usage. Yet enforcement remains challenging across multiple vendors. Auditable registries and chain-of-custody logs could help. The parties debate which entity should host and govern those systems.
Unions, Studios, and Makers of AI Tools
Guilds now bargain not only with studios but also with tool providers. Voice cloning startups seek lawful training sources and clear licenses. Visual effects houses want predictable deliverable requirements. Everyone needs compatible contracts across the production stack. Fragmented terms create friction and compliance gaps.
What WGA and SAG-AFTRA Agreements Already Cover
The 2023 WGA agreement addresses AI in writing, authorship, and credit. It restricts studios from forcing writers to use AI tools. It also preserves writers’ status when AI material appears in drafts. SAG-AFTRA’s 2023 deal sets boundaries for digital replicas. Those frameworks now inform new proposals on residuals.
Voice actors have raised strong concerns about cloning. Some union-led talks examined template agreements with voice AI firms. Members demanded robust consent, pay, and opt-out processes. Those debates now influence screen actor negotiations. Cross-guild alignment gives unions additional leverage with studios.
Studio Strategies and Risk Management
Studios run pilot projects to test compliance and efficiency. Legal teams craft approval flows and archival controls. Business affairs groups study residual models across distribution windows. Marketing executives weigh disclosure and audience trust. These internal efforts shape bargaining positions at the table.
Insurance carriers now ask detailed questions about AI usage. Underwriters want documented permissions and security safeguards. They also examine vendor agreements for indemnities. Carriers can push standardized terms through coverage conditions. That financial pressure supports adoption of safer practices.
Legal Landscape in the United States
Right of publicity laws protect name, image, and likeness. California’s statute and common law provide significant coverage. Other states offer narrower or different protections. This patchwork complicates national production planning and distribution. Federal proposals seek to harmonize key elements.
Right of Publicity and State Variations
California Civil Code Section 3344 covers living persons. A separate statute protects postmortem rights for decades. Tennessee’s ELVIS Act expanded voice and image protections in 2024. New York recognizes privacy and publicity interests with specific limitations. These differences drive customized clearance strategies for projects.
Performers often combine contract rights with publicity claims. They also rely on unfair competition and false endorsement theories. Plaintiffs can seek statutory damages where available. Defendants raise First Amendment and newsworthiness defenses. Courts balance speech interests against commercial exploitation.
Copyright, Training Data, and Fair Use Debates
Copyright protects creative expression, not a person’s likeness. Training on copyrighted footage triggers infringement questions. Companies argue fair use for learning from public materials. Rights holders contest unauthorized copying and derivative outputs. Ongoing litigation will influence licensing norms and costs.
Watermarking and dataset documentation can improve transparency. Registries of training sources support due diligence. Studios push vendors to certify lawful datasets. Vendors seek indemnities and clearer safe harbors. Standards bodies may help align technical and legal expectations.
International Considerations
The European Union’s AI Act introduces transparency duties for certain systems. Performers in Europe also hold neighboring rights in audiovisual performances. Those rights affect dubbing, synchronization, and reuse. The United Kingdom lacks a standalone publicity right. Producers therefore rely heavily on contract and passing off claims.
Global productions must map rights across jurisdictions. They also navigate data transfers and privacy compliance. Regional rules can affect dubbing, localization, and merchandising. Co-production treaties may influence applicable law and venue. These factors feed into negotiation strategies and contingency plans.
Possible Paths to Compromise
Parties increasingly discuss tiered consent models and time limits. A project-specific license can renew with additional payments. Residuals could use success-based pools tied to viewership metrics. Clear credit rules would trigger share allocations. These mechanisms mirror existing streaming bonus structures.
Technical standards can support compliance at scale. Watermarks, provenance metadata, and asset IDs enable audits. Secure repositories can enforce project scoping and expirations. Neutral auditors could verify vendor claims and deletion events. Those assurances reduce friction and help rebuild trust.
Ethical guidelines will influence business decisions and acceptance. Studios may adopt voluntary bans for sensitive portrayals. Estates could require sensitivity readers for certain uses. Unions can publish best practices for consent dialogues. Together, these steps can lower reputational risk while enabling innovation.
What to Watch Next
Expect more side agreements covering voice and stunt doubles. Watch for pilot projects that test residual formulas with AI. Track state legislation that narrows deepfake exceptions. Follow federal proposals that address cross-state enforcement. Each development will influence future bargaining dynamics.
Audience attitudes will also shape outcomes. Transparent labeling could boost trust and reduce backlash. Strong disclosures may even enhance marketing narratives. Conversely, hidden uses can trigger public criticism and legal risk. Studios will weigh these tradeoffs with every release.
The next contract cycles will determine long-term norms. Negotiators will refine consent, credit, and compensation provisions. Vendors will align product features with compliance needs. Insurers will reward clear, auditable workflows and documentation. These pressures together will define the boundaries for AI actors.
Hollywood has navigated technological change many times. Sound, color, and digital effects each demanded new rules. Synthetic performers now force another reset in expectations. Fair compensation and control remain the central themes. The negotiations will set a durable framework for the AI era.
