Web Summit Lisbon 2026: Hollywood&#8217;s AI Challenge – Protecting Human Likeness and Creativity
<video style="width: 100%;height: auto" controls><source src="https://d2qu7nggdaeihr.cloudfront.net/output/9baf35c7-6e54-458a-b741-6fd9fefee613-1794500567.mp4" type="video/mp4"></video>
<aside>(This article was generated with AI and it&#8217;s based on a AI-generated transcription of a real talk on stage. While we strive for accuracy, we encourage readers to verify important information.)</aside>
<img decoding="async" src="https://web-summit-engine.imgix.net/faf5ya191fm25jhnrv60q67azlwu?auto=format&amp;fit=fill&amp;fill=solid&amp;fill-color=white&amp;w=600&amp;h=600&amp;fm=jpg&amp;dl=Stewart Clarke.jpg" alt="Stewart Clarke, Dan Neely, Duncan Crabtree-Ireland" align="left" hspace="10" width="200" style="float:left;margin-right: 15px">
AI&#8217;s ability to imitate performers raises critical questions in Hollywood regarding consent, payment, and proof of use. Mr. Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, National Executive Director &amp; CEO of SAG-AFTRA, highlighted the crucial distinction between replicating a real person&#8217;s likeness and creating a purely synthetic AI actor.

For replicating an actual person&#8217;s image, informed consent, control, and fair compensation are paramount. However, purely synthetic AI performances, not based on existing individuals, raise concerns about the loss of human creativity and the uncompensated use of human-created training data.

SAG-AFTRA advocates for clear distinctions between humans and algorithmic outputs. While digital replicas, like James Earl Jones&#8217;s voice for Darth Vader with consent, can be adjuncts to human performance, fully synthetic creations often lack the human spark and are readily detectable as non-human.

Mr. Dan Neely, Co-Founder and CEO of Vermillio, presented Trace ID, a technology designed to detect unauthorized AI uses of likeness, voice, image, and intellectual property. The system provides &#8220;guardrails&#8221; for consented use, allowing granular control and ensuring attribution and compensation for artists.

Vermillio&#8217;s platform uses ingested content from major IP holders as &#8220;ground truth&#8221; for automatic takedowns of unauthorized material, though artists can permit fan-generated content. The responsibility for action is complex: IP holders manage intellectual property, but individuals own their likeness, creating gray areas.

Unauthorized AI creations often leverage existing fandom and fame to drive interest, rather than being original works. Mr. Crabtree-Ireland emphasized using technology to defend artists&#8217; rights, noting that collective bargaining has been more effective than public policy in implementing detailed rules for digital replication.

SAG-AFTRA has observed a shift in membership attitude, with growing acceptance of AI&#8217;s inevitability and a desire to coexist under clear rules. The majority are open to using AI tools for augmentation, not replacement, driven by their passion for creation, despite a small percentage wishing to block AI entirely.

Legislation in New York and California now mandates prominent disclosure for synthetic AI characters in marketing, reducing their use due to transparency concerns. The proposed &#8220;No Fakes Act&#8221; in the US and UK aims to establish a property right for likeness, empowering individuals to demand takedowns of unauthorized content.

Mr. Neely described the current phase as a &#8220;messy middle,&#8221; where artists seek protection to explore AI, and platforms recognize the need for engagement. The primary goal for artists facing unauthorized AI use is content removal, reflecting a moral imperative to prevent their image or voice from being used without permission.

Hollywood’s identity crisis

Rewriting the rules of female longevity

Who gets a say in football’s future?