As deepfakes spread across entertainment and social platforms, the battle over AI likeness misuse is becoming one of the most urgent issues in TV and video. Speaking at Web Summit in Lisbon, SAG-AFTRA national executive director and chief negotiator Duncan Crabtree-Ireland said most performers affected by AI likeness misuse are not looking for big court awards—they simply want the content removed.
That message cuts to the heart of the current debate around generative AI in Hollywood. For actors, presenters, and on-screen talent, the main concern is not only compensation. It is consent, control, and the right to decide how their face, voice, and identity appear online.
AI Likeness Misuse Is Becoming a Defining TV & Video Issue
Crabtree-Ireland said that in more than 90% of cases involving AI likeness misuse, the goal is straightforward: get the unauthorized material taken down. According to his remarks, most performers do not want to launch lengthy legal fights just to seek damages. They want harmful or deceptive content to stop spreading.
That stance reflects a broader reality in media. In the TV and video ecosystem, fake clips, cloned voices, and manipulated performances can travel quickly, especially when attached to recognizable talent. Once shared, the damage can be immediate:
- Audience trust can erode
- Personal reputations can be harmed
- Brands and productions may face confusion
- Performers can lose control of their public identity
For unions like SAG-AFTRA, AI likeness misuse is therefore not just a tech story. It is a labor, rights, and platform accountability story.
Why SAG-AFTRA Supports Faster Takedowns
At the center of the discussion is the proposed No Fakes Act, which would strengthen protections around a person’s voice and likeness. The core idea is simple: individuals should have a say in what appears to be them speaking or doing something online.
Crabtree-Ireland emphasized that the aim is not to create a gold rush for lawsuits. Instead, the priority is building a system that helps platforms respond quickly when AI likeness misuse occurs without permission.
What performers appear to want most
- Rapid removal of unauthorized deepfake content
- Clear consent standards for voice and image use
- Better reporting tools on digital platforms
- Practical legal remedies when takedowns fail
This matters because deepfake harm is often time-sensitive. A fake trailer, manipulated interview, or cloned celebrity endorsement can do its damage long before a courtroom process begins.
Hollywood’s Position on AI Is More Nuanced Than Total Rejection
One of the more revealing takeaways from the Web Summit session was that SAG-AFTRA’s membership is not monolithic on AI. While a segment of performers wants stronger resistance to the technology, Crabtree-Ireland suggested many members accept that AI is here to stay.
That does not mean actors are comfortable with replacement. Rather, many appear open to using AI as a creative aid—as long as guardrails are in place and human performance remains central.
The emerging middle ground
For much of Hollywood, the practical position seems to be:
- AI tools can support creativity and workflow
- Performers must retain consent and bargaining power
- AI replicas of real people should not be treated like ordinary digital assets
- Human creators should not be displaced without protections
That distinction is crucial in any conversation about AI likeness misuse. There is a major difference between using AI to enhance post-production and generating a convincing copy of a real performer without approval.
AI Characters vs. Real Human Replicas
Crabtree-Ireland also drew a line between fully synthetic characters and AI-generated replicas of actual people. In entertainment, that is one of the most important distinctions regulators, studios, and audiences will need to understand.
An original AI character may be a fictional construct. But AI likeness misuse involves borrowing the identity markers of a living person—their face, voice, gestures, and perceived intent. That raises ethical and legal concerns that go far beyond standard visual effects.
For TV and video professionals, this distinction has real production implications. Contracts, licensing arrangements, residual models, and performer approvals may all need to evolve as generative tools become more common.
What This Means for Platforms, Studios, and Creators
The SAG-AFTRA position sends a clear signal to the wider industry: content moderation and consent systems can no longer be treated as secondary issues. If AI likeness misuse is primarily a takedown problem, then platforms and distributors will face growing pressure to build faster response systems.
Key industry implications
- Platforms: Need better detection and takedown pipelines for fake audio and video
- Studios: Must define clearer performer protections in contracts
- Creators: Should understand where augmentation ends and unauthorized replication begins
- Lawmakers: Will likely face renewed calls to update publicity and identity rights for the AI era
For viewers, the issue is equally significant. The more convincing synthetic media becomes, the harder it may be to know whether a clip is authentic, licensed, manipulated, or entirely fabricated.
Read More:
- Read more on media, culture and digital trends at Luxe Digest
- Read more breaking stories and analysis at Daily Digest
Explore More:
- Explore more human-centered storytelling at Human of Dublin
- Explore more entertainment and lifestyle features at Luxe Digest
- Explore more news coverage at Daily Digest
The Takeaway on AI Likeness Misuse
The clearest message from SAG-AFTRA is that AI likeness misuse is, above all, a consent issue. Most performers do not want a drawn-out legal spectacle. They want unauthorized deepfakes, cloned voices, and fake performances removed quickly and effectively.
As TV and video industries adapt to generative tools, that principle is likely to shape the next phase of policy, contracts, and platform enforcement. If the future of AI in entertainment is going to work, it will depend on a simple rule: innovation cannot come at the expense of human identity. And when AI likeness misuse happens, swift takedowns may matter more than headline-grabbing damages.
