Where Actors Could Make a Deal With Studios on AI

Ashley Cullins
·6 min read

Just about six weeks before artificial intelligence became a hot-button issue in the writers strike, a Berlin-based photographer took the internet by storm with Harry Potter by Balenciaga, a video melding characters from the wizarding world with avant-garde models representing the luxury fashion brand. Even more recently, a company called Curious Refuge used AI to create a viral trailer for a Wes Anderson Star Wars film called The Galactic Menagerie. While clearly these are spoofs that aren’t trying to fool anyone, they show that re-creating someone’s likeness and voice using AI is no longer merely sci-fi fodder — in fact, Robert Zemeckis’ upcoming movie Here will use a tool called Metaphysic Live to de-age Tom Hanks and Robin Wright.

Just as AI became a sticking point during the Writers Guild’s talks with studios, the tech’s impact on onscreen talent will likely be an issue when SAG-AFTRA heads to the negotiating table in June. “For writers, the AI construct is limited to language. Whereas for actors an entire scene can be impacted in a multitude of ways by AI — from lighting, to the age of the actor, to removing a blemish, to superimposing a rocket ship in the scene,” says talent lawyer Darren Trattner.

More from The Hollywood Reporter

“We are transitioning into an era of assistive computing,” notes Amy Webb, founder and CEO of Future Today Institute, which does long-range scenario planning and consultation for Fortune 500 companies and Hollywood creatives. “I can totally envision a very near future in which some new person on the set, some type of AI specialist, puts in a line of code that says ‘de-age Tom Hanks 20 years’ and it just applies it automatically throughout.”

She notes that smartphone apps already do this on a lesser scale, allowing people to make themselves look like a baby, or 10 years older, or a Renaissance painting. So it’s only a matter of time before the tech is available in the more sophisticated context of filmmaking. Says Webb, “We’re getting pretty close to that happening, [in a way] that is affordable and just frictionless and easy.”

That potential raises questions about just how much AI could be used to change, or even re-create, an actor’s image — and how much control talent will have over it. “The talent normally surrenders a lot when signing up to act in a project,” says Trattner, adding that “there is typically a full page of methods by which the studio or financier can alter the talent’s image and/or voice.”

He suggests that existing deal points like body double approval or nudity waivers could provide some framework for obtaining consent for AI alterations — but a threshold issue will be defining what qualifies as AI. “For certain talent we negotiate approvals over how photos look and how they get touched up,” says Trattner. “Is photoshopping the same as AI? What if the camera has a filter to make an actor look better or different? Where are we drawing the line? Will we require disclosures to the talent saying the role will require computer enhancements of the talent’s image?”

Meanwhile, talent lawyer Leigh Brecheen notes that reps are also looking for ways to protect actors after a project ends. “We now try to insert language to prevent client performances and work from being used to train AI as well as to prohibit the creation of digital versions of our clients and their work,” she says. “Reps are making more and more comments aimed at curtailing the use of the rights granted and limiting them to the specific production for which they are being paid. I always comment that the client’s name, image, likeness and performance can only be used in and in the work for which they are being hired.”

Ahead of the SAG-AFTRA talks, the guild’s position is that these issues shouldn’t be ruled by what is or isn’t in any individual talent contract. “This is, from our point of view, clearly a mandatory subject of bargaining,” says SAG-AFTRA national executive director and chief negotiator Duncan Crabtree-Ireland. “To the extent that the companies want to do something new with AI, they have to negotiate that with us. It’s not like if it’s not mentioned in the contract they can just do what they want. They have to bargain for it, just like any other term and condition of employment that doesn’t exist today that they want in the future.”

Talent lawyer Richard Thompson says it may seem like “a no-brainer” for the guild and talent to demand transparency and consent, “but it isn’t that simple because a lot of AI uses will be harmless, and it is hard to predict what will be possible or become standard in advance.” Thompson says he could easily come up with examples of problematic ways AI may be used, but that for each of those it’s just as easy to find a reason why a competing interest should outweigh an actor’s approval. While it’s not advisable to put off the issue entirely, he warns that too much regulation too early could backfire: “If we start stabbing in the dark now, we will miss important issues and we will do things that will inhibit beneficial developments.”

Dubbing is one of the areas where experts see potential. Crabtree-Ireland points to Flawless AI as an example: “They can actually modify the mouth and facial movements of performers to match a dubbing track so that the scripts don’t have to be modified in order to match the mouth movements, which lets them have a more authentic translation product.”

He emphasized that this application isn’t using synthetic voices to replace human dubbing performers and says the tech can’t replicate their artistry. “As an example, if you use Apple’s new text-to-speech tool for reading an audio book it’s not the same thing as listening to an audio book that’s been recorded by a professional performer,” Crabtree-Ireland says. “It’s like listening to someone read a tax return.”

SAG-AFTRA sees another potential upside to the emerging technology, too. “One of the things that can really harm a performer’s career is lack of availability to take on other projects that they might be offered,” Crabtree-Ireland explains. “To the extent that AI technology can help with reshoots that otherwise they would have to remain available for, and therefore decline other work opportunities, that could be a real plus for our members.”

Of course, the possibility of entirely AI-generated actors is a real concern — even if the copyright implications might be a deterrent. (Currently, AI-generated content doesn’t qualify for copyright protection.)

“Mid Journey and Stable Diffusion create images based off of text,” notes Trattner. “They can create a scene where the actor is not real and not based on a real person. Can a studio make an AI-generated cast member and save costs by not hiring an actual person to play the role?”

To provide protection for actors without stifling innovation, SAG-AFTRA will want to ensure AI is used for “augmentation rather than replacement,” the negotiator says.

“Obviously, there are other kinds of implementations of generative AI that we are concerned about that seem to replace performers,” says Crabtree-Ireland. “But if there are appropriate human-centered ethics and guardrails around them, it’s not fundamentally the technology that’s the concern. It’s the use. When it’s used with informed consent and compensation for real-life performers, we think that can be OK.”

A version of this story first appeared in the May 17 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine. Click here to subscribe.

Best of The Hollywood Reporter

Click here to read the full article.