Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are expressed solely by Patrick McAndrew and do not necessarily reflect those of any organizations or affiliations he is associated with.

Copyright has always been such an important element in a creative’s work. Whether that be a novel written by an author, lyrics by a songwriter, or a cartoon drawn by an animator, respect for artistry should always be something to prioritize. But what about the performance of an actor? Are performances themselves copyrighted and, perhaps more importantly, can our image be copyrighted?

As an actor myself who works in the AI space, this dualistic conundrum circles around in my head from time to time. The allure of specific shows or movies is not only in the storytelling, but in the embodiment of those stories through actors expressing authentic, raw human emotion. Even if the actor themself isn’t “feeling” anything, the portrayal of such is enough to make an audience laugh with joy, cry in sorrow, or contemplate life’s biggest questions. There is no doubt that acting is a true art, a deep expression of humanity, and an art form that should be celebrated for its ability to help us learn and empathize with those who may be different from ourselves.

All of that said, Hollywood is beginning to blur the line between “reality” and digital illusion. Advanced deepfake technology now lets filmmakers and advertisers create uncanny replicas of actors’ faces and voices, often without the actor ever stepping on set. This raises a burning question: in the age of AI, who really owns and controls a performer’s likeness? Recent developments have brought this issue to the forefront of the entertainment industry, forcing studios, unions, and lawmakers to grapple with the legal and ethical implications of AI-generated likenesses.

AI deepfakes have rapidly moved from a novelty to a mainstream production tool. Film and TV studios can “de-age” stars (as outlined in one of my previous articles) or even resurrect long-gone legends on-screen using CGI and deepfake techniques. In one example, Disney used AI to rejuvenate Mark Hamill’s Luke Skywalker for recent Star Wars cameos.

Not all such uses are consensual. Back in 2023, Tom Hanks warned fans about an unauthorized ad that used an AI-generated version of him to promote a dental plan. Hanks noted that anyone can now “recreate themselves at any age” with AI, and even after death a fake actor could “go on and on… with nothing to tell you that it’s not me,” calling this both an artistic and legal challenge. The technology’s potential to keep actors “performing” forever, with or without their approval, has many in Hollywood on edge.

Perhaps the clearest sign of this new era came when a film studio “cast” the legendary James Dean in a new movie using a full CGI body double. Dean died way back in 1955. The announcement sparked immediate backlash from actors like Chris Evans and Elijah Wood, who balked at a deceased colleague being posthumously inserted into a starring role. The filmmakers had secured Dean’s estate’s permission, highlighting that legally an estate can license a late actor’s image. Ethically, however, it could feel a bit unsettling. As one critic quipped, Hollywood seemed ready to make “Joan Is Awful” (the Black Mirror episode about AI replicating a real person) a reality. On that note, DEFINITELY watch that episode! It is both amazing and terrifying.

In 2023, SAG-AFTRA members raised alarms about proposals to scan actors and create digital replicas without proper consent or compensation. No one has a bigger stake in this issue than the actors themselves. AI was a flashpoint of the strike and union negotiators revealed that studios had proposed scanning background performers’ faces and bodies and paying for just one day’s work in exchange for the right to use those digital likenesses indefinitely in any project, without further consent or pay. This scenario, likened to a sci-fi dystopia, galvanized actors to demand protections.

The strike ended after 118 days with a new contract that, for the first time, restricts AI usage in film and television. Ratified in December 2023, the SAG-AFTRA agreement established a comprehensive set of rules to grant informed consent and fair compensation whenever a “digital replica” of a performer is made or used. In practice, this means producers must now spell out any planned AI manipulations in an actor’s contract and get the actor’s explicit permission if they want to digitally alter their performance or insert them into new scenes. Any reuse of an actor’s digital likeness outside the original project requires new consent and bargaining, and even then, the actor (or their estate) will be entitled to compensation (such as residual payments) for those AI-generated appearances.

Beyond union contracts, the law itself is racing to catch up with deepfakes. In the United States, a person’s name, image, and likeness are generally protected by the right of publicity, which gives individuals control over commercial uses of their identity. Many states like California have long recognized these rights. However, existing laws were not built with AI replicas in mind, and bad actors have exploited the gray areas.

That is beginning to change. California enacted new legislation in late 2024 that directly targets digital replicas:

On the federal level, Hollywood’s deepfake fight has given momentum to new legislation. A bipartisan bill in Congress cheekily named the NO FAKES Act (“Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe”) would make it illegal to create or distribute an AI-generated replica of a real person without their consent. The bill has earned support not only from actor unions but also from studios and music labels, a recognition that everyone has a stake in preventing unauthorized digital doppelgängers. As of mid-2025, NO FAKES was gaining traction on Capitol Hill, alongside related proposals to outlaw malicious deepfakes. While no federal deepfake law is on the books yet, legal experts note that the patchwork of state laws and these pending bills reflect a growing consensus: using someone’s likeness without permission, whether for profit or propaganda, is a serious violation.

Even with stronger contracts and laws, profound ethical questions remain. Is it ever okay to cast a digital replica of an actor who can’t consent? Zelda Williams, daughter of the late Robin Williams, has spoken out about how “many people want to train these models to recreate actors who cannot consent, like Dad. This isn’t theoretical… it is very, very real.” She and others find it “disturbing” to hear her father’s voice “AI’d” into saying things he never said. Such recreations, she argues, are often “poor facsimiles” of the real person at best. At worst, “a horrendous Frankensteinian monster” that violates everything the performer stood for.

Living actors, too, worry about a future where famous faces can be hired out as pure data. If a studio can generate an A-list star’s likeness on a computer, does it diminish the actor’s agency and the artistry of performance? SAG-AFTRA’s stance is that performers are the ones who must retain control: their images, voices, and digital selves are an extension of their identity and talent. There’s also the issue of compensation. If an AI version of an actor stars in a film or advertisement, does the real actor (or their family) get paid?

There are, of course, more positive or consensual uses of the technology. Some aging or retired actors see AI as a way to extend their legacy on their own terms. James Earl Jones, for example, had authorized an AI company to recreate his iconic voice (Darth Vader) so that the character can live on in future Star Wars projects, with the actor’s blessing and oversight. Still, even consensual deepfakes spark debate. Directors and casting agents might face the temptation to “cast” a bankable star’s avatar rather than take a chance on a new face, fundamentally changing the economics of stardom. And from the audience’s perspective, there’s a thin line between marveling at a tech feat and feeling uneasy about authenticity. A virtual Princess Leia or Anthony Bourdain might look or sound like the real person, but knowing they aren’t alive or actually performing can leave viewers with an uncanny aftertaste, a reminder that just because we can do it, doesn’t always mean we should.

As we continue to navigate this issue, the entertainment industry stands at a crossroads of technology and human rights. AI-generated likenesses offer thrilling creative possibilities, like bringing beloved characters back to the screen and enabling new forms of storytelling. But they also raise the alarm bells of a media landscape where anyone’s face or voice can be puppeteered by AI without approval, upending notions of authenticity, artistry, and ownership. Studios, for their part, are beginning to accept that guardrails on AI are necessary not just to appease talent, but to ensure audiences’ trust in what (and who) they see on screen.

The conversation is far from over. Each new project that employs a digital AI replica will test the boundaries of law, ethics, and public acceptance. Yet the progress in the last year is noteworthy. Hollywood’s creative community is actively shaping standards for AI use, rather than letting technology shape them. Legislators are finally moving to give those standards teeth. And perhaps most importantly, the principle at stake has crystallized: individuals should have control over their own likeness in the digital age (here’s looking at you, Denmark!). In a time of rapidly advancing AI, that principle may be the key to ensuring that innovation proceeds with respect for the very real humans it seeks to imitate.

Q: Can performances themselves be copyrighted?
A: While works like books, songs, and cartoons are protected, performances raise unique questions. Current law focuses on likeness rights rather than copyright of the performance itself.

Q: What protections did SAG-AFTRA win in 2023?
A: The new contract requires informed consent and fair compensation for any AI replicas, including clear contract terms and residuals for reuse.

Q: How are states addressing AI replicas?
A: California’s AB 2602 and AB 1836 prohibit unauthorized digital doubles and close loopholes around deceased performers’ likenesses.

Q: What is the NO FAKES Act?
A: A bipartisan bill in Congress that would make it illegal to create or distribute an AI-generated replica without consent.

Q: Are there positive uses of AI deepfakes?
A: Yes. Some actors, like James Earl Jones, have authorized AI recreations of their voices or images to extend their legacy — but even these raise ethical concerns.

About The Author:

Patrick is a responsible AI strategist, writer, and actor based in New York City. He is the Founder of the Future of Entertainment Alliance, a new initiative that advocates for human creativity in entertainment as emerging technologies like AI continue to revolutionize the industry. Patrick’s work focuses on the benefits of implementing responsible AI practices with expertise in entertainment and media. He currently works on the responsible AI team at HCLTech and has worked for the Responsible AI Institute and the Entertainment Community Fund.