You are allowed to use AI to help make the movie, but you are not allowed to use AI actors or writers.
Now actors and writers must be human. As the Academy released its rules for the 99th Academy Awards, the organization announced that any movies with “AI-generated actors” or “AI-written screenplays” would not be eligible for acting or writing awards (but otherwise still eligible).
So what do you do, exactly, in a time when we can no longer be sure whether AI is a tool or a threat? Hollywood will have to make that call soon. The Academy has released its latest statement on Oscar eligibility, including how they will address AI actors and writers at the next Oscars. And they say: An AI-generated actor will never win an Oscar for acting. Screenplays should be written by people.
The Academy did not specifically ban the use of AI, which was an important difference. The Academy says that, at the 99th Oscars, only human actors who are nominated as actors in a film are eligible to win for acting, “in accordance with their consent as expressed in their employment contracts, or otherwise as permitted by law.”
Credit will be required for all Screenplays. ” And in those sentences, the Academy also included language that “will seek more information about the use of AI technology and human writing.”
Basically, the Academy is saying, “If you want to use AI, fine, you can. Just don't try to say the robot was in the movie, or the screenwriter.” But that distinction is important because Hollywood has discovered that AI and artificial actors are already making for awkward conversation, if not outright conflict.
The AI player is ready for everything: They can act, and they can talk, and they are never slow to set up. So what's wrong? Who owns that performance? Who agreed? To whom should the performance fee go? What about a real actor who would play that role?
These are some of the questions raised by the debate about AI actors and the actors who have given permission for their digital version to exist, as it spilled over into a labor battle last year.
The announcement also comes as the industry grapples with AI after the writers and actors strike. The Writers Guild recently stated that its 2023 agreement already sets guidelines for the work of artificial intelligence in the area of collective projects, including those designed to protect writers from having their work used to reduce debt or payments due to the use of AI.
This background helps explain why the Academy operates now. Although the rules of the awards can be seen as mere ceremonies, in Hollywood they often drive the practice of the industry very quickly. No one wants to campaign for a year only to find out that their project is no longer viable.
Actors, too, have been fighting hard to control digital copies. SAG-AFTRA's fact sheets on digital likenesses and prosthetics address issues of consent, voice, likeness and compensation. That is really the essence of the question.
The character's face is a specific image. An actor's voice is separate audio data. And the essence of acting is that one brings history, anxiety, ego, grief, time, and yes occasionally one's magic to the role. Take all that away, and you may have a visual representation, but have you retained the functionality?
The controversy over Val Kilmer made that even more difficult. The previous coverage of Kilmer's AI entertainment in As Deep as the Grave showed just how serious the technology can feel. His estate authorized the use, and the filmmakers argued that it was an acknowledgment of Kilmer's relationship with the part.
While this is a less favorable scenario than a studio creating a new digital celebrity, it still shows the industry is walking a tightrope. Respectful revival versus creepy pastiche.
The school also implemented other rule changes, allowing actors to receive more than one nomination in the same acting category if the multiple roles are balanced enough and allowing international films to qualify in different ways. And coverage of the Oscars' rules overhaul revealed that AI rules will be part of the changes that modernize the awards in many ways at once.
Anyway, let's be honest: the AI's decision is one people will argue over over dinner. Most of the appointments are amazing; fake, artificial stars are all other can of worms. But, as it seems so far, the academy seems to be extremely clear.
They don't pretend that AI doesn't exist. At this point, that would be absurd. Visual effects people and film editors and sound technicians and production staff have begun exploring machine learning methods.
But the new guidelines establish a clear boundary between ownership and performance: technology can be used as an aid to the craft but not to replace an award-winning actor or director.
There is a real active part as well. The studios now have a clear notice before the awards season, for example, that if they submit the screen they wrote with excessive AI, there will be questions, or if the “performance” is done by an artificial actor or a digit double, and does not represent any authorized human performance, then there will be problems.
Some of the most brilliant of these experiments will probably never be done, and in a way, this is probably a good thing. It is one of the constants of Hollywood that it always loves the shiny new things, and then expresses shock when it turns out to be very expensive.
The emotional part of this decision is simple; that the audience still wants to feel that what they are watching on the screen represents human performance, in a way that they know is real; and I know, this may sound old-fashioned. Good.
The Academy Awards are based on that classic idea of human performance and the possibility that it will surprise you or make you feel another strong emotion: anger or joy, disgust, or maybe just crying in a bright movie with a stranger sitting next to you.
AI can mimic aspects of these emotions, maybe one day mimic them very well. Today, that imitation does not get a sculpture.
