SAG-AFTRA, AI, and the Performer's Image

SAG-AFTRA’s 118-day strike ended on 8 November 2023 with a contract that addressed, for the first time in American labour history, specific rights related to AI-generated performer likenesses. Six months into the contract, the specific provisions are being tested in specific productions, and the results are worth summarising.

What the contract requires

The AI provisions in the SAG-AFTRA contract, most of which became effective 12 November 2023, establish several categories of required practice.

Informed consent. A performer’s likeness, voice, or performance cannot be used to generate AI-produced material without the performer’s specific informed consent for the specific use. Blanket consents, or consents that reference generalised AI use, are not valid under the contract.

Compensation. If a performer consents to AI use of their likeness, the producer must negotiate specific compensation for that use. The compensation can be a flat fee, a royalty, or a combination; the contract specifies minimum compensation floors but not maximums.

Use-scope limits. AI-generated material using a performer’s likeness cannot be used in productions other than the specific production for which consent was given, unless additional compensation and consent are negotiated.

Background-performer digital replicas. Background performers whose likenesses are captured on set for the purpose of producing digital “extras” in post-production receive specific compensation and approval rights. This provision addresses a specific practice that had been spreading across the industry in the months before the strike.

Deceased-performer protections. The contract establishes, for the first time, specific protections for deceased performers’ estates regarding AI-generated performances. Estates must be consulted before AI-generated performances can be produced using the deceased performer’s likeness; estate compensation is required for any approved use.

The first production tests

Several major productions have, in the six months since the contract’s ratification, surfaced specific AI-related disputes that the new language is being applied to.

Production A (a streaming sci-fi series, name withheld per source confidentiality). The production initially planned to use AI-generated crowd sequences featuring digital replicas of approximately 200 background performers. Under the new contract, the production negotiated individual consents and compensation with each background performer, at a total additional cost of approximately $400,000. The production went forward.

Production B (a theatrical feature). A lead performer declined to consent to the use of AI-generated ADR (automated dialogue replacement) sequences that would have modified the performer’s delivered lines in specific dialogue passages. The production was required to record conventional ADR with the performer, at an additional production cost of approximately $120,000 and roughly two weeks of scheduling delay.

Production C (a major studio franchise film). A deceased performer’s estate was consulted regarding proposed AI-generated appearances of the performer in a supporting role. The estate declined consent. The production was restructured to eliminate the AI-generated appearances, at a reported cost of approximately $4 million in set revisions and narrative restructuring.

None of these specific examples have been publicly litigated. All were resolved through contract compliance. The contract, in other words, is functioning as intended in specific tested cases.

Where the contract has been strained

Two specific cases have involved more significant friction.

A major-studio production, publicly identified as such in trade reporting, attempted to use archived performance footage from a deceased performer in conjunction with AI-driven expressions modifications. SAG-AFTRA intervened to confirm that the deceased performer’s estate had been consulted and had consented. The estate disputed that the specific use had been accurately described during the consent process. The production and SAG-AFTRA entered arbitration. The outcome, as of this writing, is pending.

A streaming platform attempted to deploy an AI-generated advertising campaign using the likeness of a living performer. The performer had not consented. SAG-AFTRA filed a grievance. The streaming platform withdrew the campaign within seventy-two hours. No arbitration was required.

What the contract does not cover

Three specific areas remain outside the contract’s direct reach.

Voice-cloning for audiobook and podcast production. SAG-AFTRA has jurisdiction over specific audio-production categories but not all of them. AI-generated narration for audiobook or podcast production involving SAG-AFTRA members has produced specific ambiguities that the contract does not fully resolve.

International production. The contract governs productions that employ SAG-AFTRA members in SAG-AFTRA jurisdictions. Productions shot entirely in non-jurisdictional locations (including many international productions) are not bound by the contract’s AI provisions, even if the performers involved are SAG-AFTRA members. This creates specific arbitrage pressure toward international production.

Reality and unscripted content. Reality and unscripted productions involving SAG-AFTRA-covered performers are bound by the contract, but the AI provisions were written primarily with scripted content in mind. Applications to unscripted contexts have produced specific interpretive disputes.

The 2026 renegotiation

The current SAG-AFTRA contract expires in June 2026. The next negotiation will, almost certainly, involve substantial revisions to the AI provisions. Both sides will have eighteen additional months of industry experience with the current language, and both will have specific priorities for the revisions.

SAG-AFTRA’s likely priorities include: extending coverage to international co-productions involving SAG-AFTRA members; addressing the specific voice-cloning and reality-production gaps; and increasing the compensation floors for AI-involved uses.

The producers’ likely priorities include: clarifying specific operational definitions that the current contract language leaves ambiguous; reducing the administrative burden of obtaining and documenting individual performer consents; and preserving the producer’s ability to use AI in adjacent areas (script analysis, pre-visualisation, marketing) that the current contract does not directly address.

The 2026 negotiation will, by all available indications, be harder than the 2023 one. The AI landscape is evolving more rapidly than the contract language can anticipate. The tools that will exist in June 2026 are, in specific respects, already observably different from the tools that existed in November 2023.

The SAG-AFTRA contract remains, at present, the most specific body of AI-related labour protection in the American entertainment industry. Whether it is also sufficient is the question the 2026 negotiation will test.