About this resource
This resource covers how AI is changing performer agreements; specifically, the difference between using AI on a film’s world and using it on a performer’s actual face, voice, and performance. Every fact and example has been verified for accuracy. It is a working reference for filmmakers and performers preparing to negotiate or draft an agreement that involves AI.
Gal Gadot spent six months negotiating one movie contract. Not over her salary. Over AI.
She’s starring in Doug Liman’s Bitcoin, a film that uses AI to build its sets and lighting. The actors shot in what amounts to a bare warehouse, and the world around them gets generated. Before Gadot agreed, she drew a line: AI could create the environment, but it was not going to touch her performance. Figuring out how to protect that contractually took six months. She called it the longest contract she has ever worked on, and said her lawyers went through every AI scenario they could think of. According to Gadot, SAG even called her lawyers for pointers on updating its own contract protections for other actors.
Sit with that. A movie star with enormous leverage spent half a year, and a team of lawyers, drawing a single line around one question. That tells you the question is new, it’s hard, and it’s not going away. So let’s break down what’s actually happening, because it changes how performer agreements have to be written from now on, whether you’re the one signing or the one asking someone to sign.
The Question That Changed
For decades, a performer agreement answered a fairly stable set of questions about the use of a performance: Can you use my image? For how long? In what media, and in what territories? Can you reuse my performance in a sequel, a trailer, a piece of marketing?
Those are all questions about using something the performer actually did. The performance is a fixed thing, and the negotiation is about where and how it travels. AI introduces a completely different question, and it’s the one Gadot spent six months on:
The new question
Not “where can you use what I did,” but “what can you do TO my performance after I give it to you?” Can you alter my face, my voice, my movements? Can you generate a performance I never gave — a line I never spoke, a scene I never shot? Can you use my performance to train a model that produces new “performances” without me?
That is not a variation on the old questions. It’s a new category. And most performer agreements, especially at the indie level, were written for the old world and are silent on the new one.
Why This Isn’t a Copyright Issue (and Why That Matters)
Here’s the piece people get wrong. When you worry about AI and your performance, your instinct is to think about copyright. But a performer’s likeness, voice, and identity are not primarily governed by copyright at all. They’re governed by the right of publicity, a state-law right in your own identity, and for union performers, by the SAG-AFTRA agreement, which now treats digital replicas as a distinct thing requiring specific consent.
Why does the distinction matter? Because a standard “work made for hire” or “results and proceeds” clause (the language that hands the producer ownership of the performance as copyrightable work) does not automatically give the producer the right to digitally recreate or alter the performer’s likeness. Those are different rights, living in different bodies of law. A producer can own the footage completely and still not have the right to make an AI double of the person in it, unless the contract specifically grants it.
Key point
Owning the footage is not the same as owning the right to recreate the person. Work-for-hire language covers the copyrightable work; it does not automatically grant AI-replica or likeness-alteration rights. That gap is exactly where the fights happen and exactly what a real AI clause has to close, on purpose.
Consent Is Not All-or-Nothing
The other thing old paperwork gets wrong is treating consent as a single switch. It isn’t. A performer might be fine with AI cleaning up a shot or de-aging them for one flashback, and completely not fine with AI generating new dialogue in their voice, reusing their likeness in a sequel, or feeding their performance into a training model. Agreeing to one of those is not agreeing to all of them.
What filmmakers get wrong
“Performer consents to the use of artificial intelligence” is not a clause. It’s a loophole. The SAG framework already reflects this: consent to be scanned for visual effects on one film does not equal consent to build an AI replica for the next one. Each use gets its own specific, informed yes.
What a Real AI Clause Actually Addresses
A workable AI clause isn’t the performer winning and the producer losing, or vice versa. It’s both sides knowing exactly what was agreed. Here’s what it has to pin down.
World vs. performer
Distinguish AI used on the world (sets, lighting, background, environment — the Bitcoin scenario) from AI used on the performer (face, voice, body, performance). Those are not the same permission and shouldn’t be bundled into one sentence.
Digital replicas
Can the production create a digital double of the performer at all? If yes, for what, exactly? A specific stunt, a single de-aged scene, or open-endedly? If no, say no.
Alteration of the actual performance
Separate from creating a replica: can AI change the performance the performer actually delivered, i.e. the voice, the line readings, the facial expressions? This is the line Gadot drew. It deserves its own sentence.
Generated performance
Can the production generate a performance the performer never gave — new lines, new scenes, in the performer’s likeness or voice? This is the most sensitive one and the one most likely to be silent in an old contract.
Training data
Can the performer’s footage or scans be used to train an AI model, for this production or beyond it? A performance can become training data that outlives the project and shapes outputs the performer never sees. This needs its own answer.
Scope, term, and consent
If the performer grants some AI use, the same limits that apply to traditional rights should apply here: this film only, or beyond it? For how long? Where? And if new AI uses come up later that the contract didn’t cover, does the producer have to come back for consent, with separate compensation? For union work, guild minimums and consent requirements apply and control.
Sample Clause Decoded
Original clause:
“Producer may use artificial intelligence in connection with the Picture and Performer’s performance.”
⚠ Translation
You have agreed to anything. This says nothing about whether AI touches the world or the performer, whether a digital replica can be created, whether your actual performance can be altered, whether a performance you never gave can be generated, or whether your footage trains a model. It reads like a permission and functions like a blank check.
Replace with:
“Producer may use artificial intelligence solely for environmental and post-production elements (sets, lighting, background, and visual effects not depicting Performer). Producer shall not create a digital replica of Performer, alter Performer’s recorded performance, generate any performance Performer did not render, or use Performer’s likeness, voice, or footage as training data, without Performer’s separate, specific, written consent. Any consent granted applies only to the Picture and only for the uses expressly described. Where the SAG-AFTRA Agreement applies, its consent and compensation requirements govern.”
The Two Sides of the Table
If you’re the performer
Your default: grant narrowly and reserve everything else. Let the production do what it genuinely needs (often that’s just world-building and ordinary post-production) and withhold the rest (digital replicas, performance alteration, generated performances, training use) unless it’s specifically negotiated and paid for. Silence in your favor is not protection; if the clause doesn’t address it, a broad grant elsewhere in the contract might. Get it in writing, specifically.
Performer’s note
Check the OTHER clauses too! Work-for-hire, results and proceeds, likeness. A broad ownership grant elsewhere can quietly sweep in AI rights the AI clause seems to withhold. Reserve, in writing, what you don’t intend to give.
If you’re the producer
Vague AI language is not your friend either. “Producer may use artificial intelligence” feels like it protects you, but it’s the kind of overbroad grant that gets challenged, and if you’re dealing with union talent, it can run straight into SAG consent requirements you didn’t satisfy. What actually protects you is a clear, specific grant of exactly the AI uses your production needs, with the performer’s informed, documented consent.
Producer’s note
Precision protects the person asking for the rights just as much as the person giving them. Don’t rely on your work-for-hire language to cover AI; it doesn’t automatically. Grant exactly what you need, document the consent, and if you’re using union talent, satisfy the SAG requirements before you shoot.
The Indie Reality
Here’s the honest part. Gal Gadot had the leverage to spend six months and a team of lawyers drawing her line. Most indie productions, and most working actors, don’t. You won’t get six months. You might not get six days.
The lesson
Leverage isn’t the same as knowledge. You don’t need Gadot’s leverage to know where the line is. You need to know that “we’re using AI in this movie” and “we’re using AI on your performance” are two entirely different deals and that the difference has to be written down, specifically, before anyone signs. That knowledge costs you nothing, and it’s what keeps a performer from signing away their own face by accident, or a producer from building a movie on a right they never actually got.
Your Companion Handout: The AI Clause Checklist
FULL ACCESS DOWNLOAD: THE AI CLAUSE CHECKLIST
This resource comes with a companion checklist you can have open when an AI clause is in front of you. Part One is the core set of questions both sides need answered (world vs. performer, digital replicas, performance alteration, generated performance, training data, scope, and union compliance) as check-off items. Part Two is the performer’s side (grant narrowly, reserve the rest, check the other clauses). Part Three is the producer’s side (grant specifically, document consent, don’t rely on work-for-hire language). It turns this resource into something you can actually work from, line by line, before you sign or send.
Final Takeaway
For decades, performer agreements answered one kind of question: where can you use what I did? AI introduced a new one: what can you do to what I did? Most contracts are silent on it, and silence is where people get hurt — a performer signing away their own face by accident, a producer building a film on a right they never secured. The fix isn’t leverage. It’s precision: name the AI uses, split the world from the performer, and get specific, informed consent in writing. “We’re using AI in this movie” and “we’re using AI on your performance” are two different deals. Write them like it.
FAQ: AI and Performer Agreements
Not necessarily. Work-for-hire and results-and-proceeds language transfers ownership of the copyrightable performance. It does not automatically grant the right to create a digital replica or alter your likeness — those are governed by the right of publicity and, for union performers, the SAG-AFTRA agreement. Address AI specifically.
No. A performer’s likeness, voice, and identity are governed primarily by the right of publicity (a state-law right) and by union agreements — not copyright. That’s why owning the footage doesn’t automatically let a producer recreate the person.
Yes, and you should. Consent isn’t all-or-nothing. You can allow AI for environmental or post-production work and withhold digital replicas, performance alteration, generated performances, or training use. Each use should get its own specific, informed consent.
AI on the film means the world around you — sets, lighting, background. AI on your performance means your face, voice, body, or the performance itself. They are entirely different permissions and should never be bundled into one sentence.
Yes. The technology is the same at every budget level. You may not have leverage to negotiate for months, but you still need your performer agreements to address AI specifically — both to protect your performers and to make sure you actually hold the rights you think you do.
SAG-AFTRA now treats digital replicas as requiring specific consent and compensation. Those requirements control regardless of what your contract says, so satisfy them — vague AI language won’t cure a missing guild consent.
