Hollywood is at a crossroads as artificial intelligence (AI) technology evolves, enabling the recreation of actors’ performances with unprecedented precision. The ability to generate realistic digital replicas raises significant questions regarding ownership, consent, and the economic implications for performers and creators. As this technology advances, the entertainment industry must grapple with who controls these AI-generated performances and the rights of the individuals whose identities they replicate.
Victor Li, in his October 1, 2026 article for the ABA Journal, outlines the implications of AI in Hollywood, tracing the historical context of how technology has reshaped the industry’s approach to replicating performers. The piece argues that the implementation of AI is the culmination of years of technological evolution that has altered production methods, raising fundamental questions about existing legal protections.
Historical Context of Performer Replication
Li highlights past instances of recreation in the film industry, such as how the Three Stooges completed work after the death of Shemp Howard in 1955 through stand-ins and archival footage. He also details a notable legal case involving Crispin Glover, who sued Universal Pictures after the studio used a substitute actor to portray his likeness in Back to the Future Part II without his consent. This case set precedents concerning the rights of individuals regarding the use of their likenesses, but those protections were crafted long before the advent of generative AI.
Today’s technology allows for the creation of entirely new performances, even mimicking deceased actors. The case of the late Val Kilmer demonstrates this potential. He had previously endorsed AI-assisted technology for creative endeavors, highlighting the need for a clear distinction between consensual reproductions and unauthorized uses of an actor’s identity.
Legal and Ethical Challenges
The right of publicity laws are designed to protect individuals from unauthorized commercial exploitation of their identities. However, these laws are inconsistent across the United States, creating gaps that could be exploited as AI technology proliferates. Some states offer robust protections, but others lack comprehensive frameworks. The proposed NO FAKES Act aims to create federal standards to protect individuals from digital impersonations, though critics caution that overly broad regulations could threaten artistic expression.
As generative AI technology becomes more prevalent, it is crucial to differentiate between commercial applications and artistic parodies. Experts suggest that any legislative approach must balance protecting individuals’ rights with preserving freedom of expression. Performing arts professionals, thus, advocate for a structured framework addressing consent, economic participation, transparency, and protection of artistic freedom.
The Future of Human Creativity
James Grimmelmann, a professor at Cornell Law, questions whether AI can replicate the spontaneity and intuition of human performances, noting that genuine creativity emerges from human experience and emotional interaction. This raises profound ethical considerations: should a performer’s identity be reduced to a mere commercial asset or should it retain inherently personal protections?
Looking ahead, the integration of AI in Hollywood necessitates a new legal and ethical framework. The industry must develop guidelines that allow for innovation while ensuring that performers and creators are protected. These guidelines should stipulate informed consent, fair compensation for the use of likenesses, and clarity regarding the implications of AI technologies.
As Hollywood navigates these complexities, it faces the critical task of ensuring that advancements in technology complement rather than overshadow the human elements that define creative artistry. With ongoing discussions about AI’s role in entertainment, the industry stands at a pivotal moment that may redefine the landscape of performance rights and creative ownership.
