When AI Performs, Who Gets Credit?
Late last year, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed two SAG-AFTRA–backed bills into law that regulate the use of AI performers in film, television, and advertising. One requires disclosure when synthetic performers are used in advertising, while the other limits the creation of AI replicas of deceased performers without consent from their estates.
The timing of these bills wasn’t accidental. AI tools that generate faces, voices, and performances are already showing up in production workflows and developing faster than contracts or labor protections can keep up. These laws don’t try to stop the technology; they respond to how quietly it’s being used.
We’ve been keeping a close eye on how AI tools have been evolving in the industry. We wrote a blog post about the intersection of AI and creativity in 2022, but the technology has transformed so rapidly since then that it’s almost unrecognizable. At the time, it was impossible to predict just how far AI tools would advance, particularly in creating simulated performances.
For performers, the stakes are immediate. AI replicas and synthetic characters don’t just raise questions about the future of work, they change who gets hired, who gets paid, and whether a performance can exist without a performer at all.
When a performance is synthetic, who needs to know? And who gets to decide who knows?
Disclosure as a First Line of Protection
One of the bills requires advertisers to clearly disclose when a synthetic performer is used. On paper, that can sound small. In practice, it changes a lot.
Commercial work has long been an entry point for performers. It’s where many people get their first on-camera jobs, build credits, and make a living between larger projects. AI-generated characters introduce a way to replace that labor quietly, without anyone necessarily noticing. Disclosure makes that replacement visible. When advertisers are required to say a performance is synthetic, it becomes harder for AI to slide in unnoticed.
SAG-AFTRA has been clear about the urgency here, pointing to real and immediate risks of unchecked AI use in commercial media, where synthetic substitutes can replace human actors without much notice. Disclosure isn’t just about protecting jobs. It’s about protecting trust. Audiences deserve to know what they’re looking at, and performers deserve clarity about how performances, voices, and likenesses are being used.
Question of Consent and Legacy
The second bill deals with something more personal: legacy. It updates New York’s post-mortem right of publicity to explicitly forbid the creation of AI replicas of deceased performers without approval from their estates.
This builds on similar protections passed in California in 2024, and it reflects a growing understanding that a person’s image, voice, and presence aren’t just data points—they’re tied to identity, reputation, and legacy. Once those things can be recreated digitally, the question isn’t just what’s possible, but what’s allowed.
At the federal level, SAG-AFTRA is continuing to push for the NO FAKES Act, which would extend protections against non-consensual deepfakes to performers and non-performers alike. Taken together, these efforts point toward a shift in how the industry treats likeness.
What This Means for Filmmakers and Production Teams
For people working in production, this isn’t a future concern—it’s already happening. AI tools are already showing up across workflows, from pre-production to post-production and finishing. Sometimes they’re clearly useful. Other times they’re introduced partway through a project, before everyone involved fully understands how they’re being used or what they replace.
As regulations start to catch up, expectations will shift too. It won’t be enough to ask whether a tool works or saves time. Questions around disclosure, consent, and approval will start coming up earlier, in planning meetings and contracts rather than after the fact. What’s being generated, whose likeness or voice is involved, and whether anyone needs to be informed will matter more than before.
For production teams, this likely means more conversations up front. It may slow things down in the short term, but it also creates protections for everyone involved, from performers to crews to clients.
The conversation is shifting. It’s no longer just about speed, efficiency, or what new tools can do. It’s about responsibility. Laws like these make it clear that how something is made, and under what conditions, matters just as much as the end result.
Looking Ahead
AI is not leaving the entertainment industry anytime soon. But as its role expands, so too must the ethical and legal rules that guide its use. New York’s legislation doesn’t offer a final solution, but it begins to draw some lines.
At Bard Tales, we’re open to new technologies that can improve our workflow, and AI is no exception. But, we find that it fits best in roles that enhance human-led work, rather than replacing it. Whether it’s removing background noises from the audio of an interview or helping us time out a voiceover before a professional artist records the real track, it can be a powerful support tool. Last year, we were even able to add some subtle animation to a series of US Rugby Hall of Fame Gala videos, transforming what would have been static photographs into something more dynamic. That being said, our clients will always know if we’re utilizing AI in any capacity and we are happy to cut it out of our workflow based on their wishes.
As these tools become more common, expectations around disclosure and consent will likely keep shifting. For the people working in and watching this industry change, the open question is what feels reasonable and fair. What do you think should be disclosed, who should be involved in giving consent, and at what point in the process should those decisions be made?
