AI Issues: Will AI Deepfake Actor Portrait Rights Be Guaranteed?
Image from original article, image source GPT-5
In the age of AI, who will own your face in the era of deepfakes and portrait rights?
AI Deepfakes and Portrait Rights in the Entertainment Industry
AI deepfakes are transforming Hollywood, raising issues of consent, copyright, and ownership.
SAG-AFTRA's 2023 strike created new protections demanding consent and compensation for digitally created performers.
California laws and the proposed 'No Fakes Act' show that legal protections against unauthorized AI likenesses are strengthening.
Ethical debates continue: preserving legacy vs. violating identity.
Control over one's own face is emerging as a core principle of the AI era.
The Actor's Reality: Copyright, Portrait Rights, and AI-Created Challenges
Copyright has always been an important part of creative work.
Whether it's a novel written by an author, a song composed by a musician, or a cartoon drawn by an animator, respect for art should always come first.
But what about an actor's performance? Can there be copyright in the performance itself, and more importantly, in their image?
As an actor working in the field of AI, I constantly wrestle with this complex puzzle in my mind.
What makes a particular drama or movie compelling isn't just the storytelling -- it's the actors who create those stories by expressing vivid human emotions.
Even if the actor doesn't personally 'feel' those emotions, such performances are enough to make audiences laugh with joy, cry with sadness, and think about life's biggest questions.
There's no doubt that acting is a true art form and a deep expression of humanity, one that helps us learn about and empathize with ourselves and others.
But Hollywood has started blurring the line between 'real' and digital illusion.
Now filmmakers and advertisers can use the latest deepfake technology to eerily replicate an actor's face and voice without them ever setting foot on set.
This has created the burning question of who actually owns and controls an actor's appearance in the AI era.
As this issue has recently emerged as a hot topic in the entertainment industry, studios, unions, and lawmakers are grappling with the legal and ethical implications of AI-generated fake faces.
AI Enters Hollywood: On-Screen Deepfakes and Digital Replicas
AI deepfakes have rapidly evolved from a novelty technology to a mainstream production tool.
Film and TV studios can now 'de-age' stars or use CGI and deepfake technology to resurrect long-gone legends on screen.
One example: Disney recently used AI to rejuvenate Mark Hamill's Luke Skywalker for a recent Star Wars cameo.
Not all such uses happen with consent.
In 2023, Tom Hanks warned fans about an unauthorized ad that used an AI-generated version of himself to promote dental insurance.
Hanks noted that anyone can now "recreate themselves at any age" through AI, and even after death, a fake actor could "continue performing so convincingly that they can't say it's not me" -- pointing out this is both an artistic challenge and a legal issue.
The potential of this technology to let actors 'perform' forever regardless of their consent has many in Hollywood on edge.
Perhaps the clearest signal of this new era was when a film studio 'cast' the legendary James Dean as a full CGI creation in a new film.
Dean died in 1955.
This announcement sparked immediate backlash from actors like Chris Evans and Elijah Wood, who were uncomfortable with a deceased colleague starring posthumously.
The filmmakers had secured Dean's estate, emphasizing that using a deceased actor's image through their estate is legally possible.
But ethically, it can feel quite unsettling.
As one critic put it, Hollywood seemed ready to make "Joan Is Awful" (the Black Mirror episode about AI cloning real people) a reality.
In that sense, do watch that episode! It's a stunning and frightening story.
Actors Fight Back: Unions and AI Protections
In 2023, SAG-AFTRA members sounded the alarm about proposals to scan actors and create digital replicas without proper consent or compensation.
No one has a greater stake in this issue than actors themselves.
AI became the spark that ignited the strike, as union negotiators revealed that studios proposed scanning background actors' faces and bodies, paying a single day's wage, and then having the right to use digital replicas indefinitely across all projects without additional consent or payment.
This scenario, compared to a sci-fi dystopia, led to demands for actor protections.
The strike ended after 118 days with a new contract that for the first time restricted AI use in film and TV.
The SAG-AFTRA contract ratified in December 2023 created comprehensive rules ensuring prior consent and fair compensation whenever a performer's 'digital replica' is created or used.
In practice, producers must now specify planned AI manipulation in the actor's contract and obtain the actor's explicit consent to digitally alter or insert their performance into new scenes.
Reusing an actor's digital appearance outside the original project requires new consent and negotiation, and in such cases, the actor (or their estate) has the right to compensation (e.g., residuals) for AI-generated appearances.
The Legal Landscape: From Hollywood to Capitol Hill
Beyond union contracts, the law itself is racing to respond to deepfakes.
In the US, an individual's name, image, and likeness are generally protected by publicity rights, which allow individuals to control commercial use of their identity.
Many states, including California, have long recognized such rights.
However, existing laws were not created with AI replicas in mind, and bad actors have exploited these gray areas.
That's starting to change.
California created new legislation in late 2024 that directly targets digital replicas:
AB 2602 makes it illegal for studios to use AI to recreate an actor's appearance or voice without explicit consent in the contract, and requires the actor's representative (e.g., agent or union) to be present when negotiating such consent.
AB 1836 prohibits unauthorized use of deceased performers' voices or images in audiovisual works, closing the loophole for 'digital resurrections' without consent from the estate.
At the federal level, Hollywood's fight against deepfakes has given momentum to new legislation.
The bipartisan 'No Fakes Act' ("Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe") introduced in Congress would make it illegal to create or distribute AI-generated replicas of real people without their consent.
The bill has support not only from actors' unions but also from studios and record labels, acknowledging that all parties have a stake in preventing unauthorized digital doppelgangers.
As of mid-2025, 'No Fakes' is gaining attention in Congress alongside related bills banning malicious deepfakes.
While there is no federal deepfake law yet, legal experts note that state laws and pending bills reflect a growing consensus that using someone's likeness without permission -- whether for profit or propaganda -- is a serious violation.
The Ethical Dilemma: When Consent Meets Technology
Despite stronger contracts and laws, deep ethical questions remain.
Is it acceptable to cast a digital replica of an actor who cannot consent?
Zelda Williams, daughter of the late Robin Williams, has said that "many people want to train these models to recreate actors like my father who cannot consent."
"This is not theoretical -- it is very real."
She and others say that hearing their father's voice 'performing' through AI saying things he never said is "unsettling."
She argues that such recreations are at best "poor imitations" of the real person.
At worst, they are "grotesque Frankenstein's monsters" that violate everything the performer stood for.
Working actors are also worried about a future where famous faces can be hired as pure data.
If studios can generate an A-list star's appearance by computer, will it diminish actors' agency and the artistry of performance?
SAG-AFTRA's position is that actors must have control because their image, voice, and digital self are extensions of their identity and talent.
There's also the question of compensation.
If an AI version of an actor appears in a film or commercial, can the real actor (or their family) receive a fee?
Of course, there are cases where technology is used positively or with consent.
Some elderly or retired actors see AI as a means to continue their legacy.
For example, James Earl Jones authorized an AI company to recreate his iconic voice (Darth Vader) so the character could live on in future Star Wars projects under the actor's blessing and supervision.
But even consensual deepfakes spark debate.
Directors and casting agents may be tempted to 'cast' avatars of profitable stars rather than taking chances on new faces, fundamentally changing the economics of stardom.
And for audiences, there's a fine line between marveling at a technical feat and feeling uneasy about its authenticity.
A virtual Princess Leia or Anthony Bourdain may look or sound like the real person, but knowing they're not alive or didn't actually perform leaves viewers with an odd aftertaste, reminding us that just because we can doesn't always mean we should.
Balancing Progress and Consent: The Future of AI in Entertainment
The entertainment industry continues to wrestle with this issue at the crossroads of technology and human rights.
AI-generated likenesses offer exciting creative possibilities, from reviving beloved characters on screen to enabling new forms of storytelling.
But they also sound the alarm about a media landscape where someone's face or voice can be puppeted by AI without permission, shaking our notions of authenticity, artistry, and ownership.
Studios are beginning to acknowledge that safeguards around AI are needed not just to secure talent but also to build viewer trust in what and who they see on screen.
This isn't over.
Every new project using digital AI replicas will test the boundaries of law, ethics, and public acceptance.
But the progress made over the past year is notable.
Hollywood's creative community is actively setting standards for AI use rather than being swept along by the technology.
Legislators are finally moving to give these standards teeth.
And most importantly, the principle that individuals should be able to control their likeness in the digital age is taking concrete shape.
In an era of rapidly advancing AI, this principle may be the key to ensuring progress proceeds while respecting the real humans that AI seeks to imitate.
Q&A
Q: Can a performance itself have copyright?
A: Creative works like books, songs, and cartoons are protected, but performances create unique issues. Current law focuses more on publicity rights than copyright of the performance itself.
Q: What protections did SAG-AFTRA gain in 2023?
A: The new contract requires prior consent and fair compensation for all AI replicas, including clear contract terms and residual rights for reuse.
Q: How are individual states handling AI replicas?
A: California's AB 2602 and AB 1836 prohibit unauthorized digital replication and close loopholes for deceased performers' likenesses.
Q: What is the No Fakes Act?
A: A bipartisan bill that would make it illegal to create or distribute AI-generated replicas without consent.
Q: Are AI deepfakes being used positively?
A: Yes. Some actors like James Earl Jones have authorized AI to recreate their voice or image to continue their legacy, but even this raises ethical questions.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of Patrick McAndrew personally and do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or entity he is affiliated with.
IMPAKERS Blog | The Dangers of Blind Faith in AI Read more
Source: Patrick McAndrew, Contributing Writer, AiNews, "Deepfakes and Consent: Who Owns Your Likeness in the Age of AI", https://www.ainews.com/p/fake-hits-real-damage-how-ai-deepfakes-and-consent-who-owns-your-likeness-in-the-age-of-ai, (2025-09-25)