How Scarlett Johansson could shape California’s AI debate

SACRAMENTO, California — Scarlett Johansson's claim — that OpenAI used her voice for ChatGPT even after she said no — animates complicated debates playing out in Sacramento and Los Angeles.

California lawmakers and labor groups concerned about the growth of artificial intelligence have been raising alarms that the voices and likenesses of entertainers could be replicated without their consent — a stance that's pitted them against Hollywood studios and Silicon Valley.

Her story brings those fears into focus.

“She didn’t agree to this, and that in itself is a huge issue,” said Lorena Gonzalez, head of the powerful California Labor Federation. “We knew that this was coming, so how do we regulate this? How do we allow performers to be able to sue on behalf of their own likeness?”

Hollywood, one of California’s marquee industries, has increasingly butted heads with the state’s powerful labor groups as it seeks to capitalize on the advancements in technology.

Studios have already been pushing to use digitally replicated — or, in some cases, entirely synthetic — copies of performers, which was a major point of contention in last year’s negotiations between studios and SAG-AFTRA.

Meanwhile, lawmakers in Sacramento are considering dozens of AI bills, including two that would limit how and when companies can digitally replicate a person — even after they've died. None deal directly with the situation Johansson described, but Gonzalez, a former state lawmaker, said the actor's story highlights a problem that lawmakers may have to address down the road.

A proposal from San Jose Democrat Ash Kalra that is co-sponsored by the California Labor Federation would prevent studios from replicating a person’s voice or likeness unless that performer gave informed consent. It would also require terms to be negotiated with an attorney or union representative present.

Supporters of the legislation say it would ensure artists aren’t unknowingly signing away their likeness in perpetuity. Opponents, including the Motion Picture Association of America, are playing to state officials’ fiscal worries, arguing such a law would burden the state’s judicial system.

Another California bill touches on an even more complex AI dilemma: the use of someone’s image or voice after they've died without the consent of their estate.

Its author, Bay Area Democrat Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, once memorably described it as "the right to not be reanimated without their consent.”

The San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation argues that bill doesn’t allow for important uses like plays, films and news commentary. “And it does all of this not to protect any living person, but only those who hope to grow rich exploiting their identities long after they are long gone,” the group argued in its written testimony.

Johansson’s story could help Kalra make the case for the protections he’s pushing for entertainers. His bill awaits a vote on the Assembly floor as a Friday deadline looms.

"At the end of the day," he said, "people should have self-determination in how their voice or image or likeness is used."

Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO’s California Playbook newsletter.