FIt’s common for actors on film and TV sets to be asked to enter a booth lined with cameras prepared to capture their likeness from multiple perspectives. However, the cast and crew are increasingly anxious about the implications of AI in the industry, complicating this process further.

“It occurs unexpectedly,” Olivia Williams notes. She recalls being scanned more times than she can count throughout her career, from *The Sixth Sense* to *Dune: Prophecy*.

“You’re on set, in costume, with a friendly assistant director who knows you well, bringing you tea or managing your phone while you act. Then VFX says, ‘You’re on set. The visual effects team is here today—can you please head to the VFX bus as soon as the scene wraps?’ And off we go.

“Actors often strive to please. Being approached for a scan mid-scene can be detrimental to your creativity and instill a fear of never working again or losing your agent. So you comply.”

Lead and supporting actors, stunt performers, and dancers have shared similar experiences with the Guardian, where they’ve been ushered through scanners on set, often unclear about their rights regarding the biometric data collected.

Williams mentioned that the cast was informed that a scan was needed “if they wanted to be part of the scene or to create visually interesting moments, like aliens coming out of their brains.”

While anxiety regarding this issue has lingered, recent discussions about “AI doubles” and the rise of “AI actors” have sparked a pressing need to clarify the fate of data captured on set.

This concern was highlighted by reports of an AI character named “Tilly Norwood.” Although it may seem improbable that a production company will unveil the first AI star, it underscores the ongoing struggle to establish performers’ rights.

Worries about the future for emerging actors and the existential threats faced by performers, often referred to as support artists (SAs), prompted Williams to speak out.

Dave Watts, a seasoned SA with experience in numerous superhero films, has also encountered scanning several times and pointed out the wider implications for the industry.

“I can easily envision crew members saying, ‘We don’t need to cast anyone anymore. We can just have the AI create a crowd of 1,000 people based on our existing data,’” he remarked.

“If the usual 100, 200, or 500 SAs aren’t necessary for big productions, there’s no need for an assistant director to oversee them. We wouldn’t need hair and makeup artists, costumers, caterers, or drivers. AI threatens nearly every job out there.”

An anonymous dancer, fearing repercussions for voicing their opinion, echoed these sentiments regarding the pressure associated with scanning and data usage. “Filming is challenging. You’re awake at 3 a.m. and can’t leave until the day’s over at 8 p.m. Situations like this arise, leaving you with limited options.

“We all ponder whether we might as well quit our jobs, don’t we? It seems somewhat foolish when you frame it that way.”

Alex Lawrence Archer, a data rights attorney at AWO, which is navigating this issue with actors, stated that performers are hindered by a labyrinth of complex and overlapping regulations. He emphasized the necessity for clearer agreements regarding production, rather than scrambling to address data issues after they occur.

“Contracts are often vaguely written and standard industry language that is outdated,” he explained. “They weren’t made to address this technology. There exists a vacuum of ambiguity, wherein AI developers and studios can maneuver as they please.”

“Actors and their representatives need to focus on this upcoming training case. They must negotiate clearer contracts that accurately convey fair agreements between performers, studios, and AI developers.”

Signs of a rebellion are beginning to appear. On a recent shoot, the cast was informed in advance about the scan following concerns that were voiced.

One cast member, speaking anonymously, shared, “Performers are collectively resisting an environment that feels ambushing. We managed to add an addendum to our contract that essentially prevents the use of our digital scans for any purpose outside of the show without our written consent.”

The struggle for rights may appear daunting in the face of the data-hungry AI industry, which can gather information from countless sources without involving professional performers. However, there’s a shared understanding of the need to regain some control.

Theo Morton, a professional stunt performer and member of the British Stunt Register, stated, “This technology could either reduce the need for human performers drastically or enhance creativity in a positive manner. But the uncertainty looms large, highlighting the necessity for contractual safeguards to prevent a loss of control.”

Yet, Williams expresses a deep concern about the potential loss of control.

A key unknown is the origin of data-trained AI models. Lawrence Archer highlighted that this remains a closely guarded secret that must be revealed. He also warned against reducing the discourse to merely compensation issues for performers.

“The AI industry depends on vast amounts of data,” he explained. “Someone is gathering it. We recognize these are sensitive topics for AI developers and studios. We are assisting performers in making data access requests to learn more. I know several performers who have been compensated by AI companies to withdraw such requests.”

“We must foster an environment where human creativity, actor connectivity, and performance are valued. If we focus solely on legal and compensation matters, we risk relegating actors to the status of data gig workers instead of recognizing them as creative artists.”