Actors Demand AI Protections in Video Game Industry Standoff

In a replay of last year's strike, hundreds of actors have taken to the picket lines outside WB Games in Burbank, California, demanding robust protections against the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the video game industry. The strike, led by the SAG-AFTRA union, highlights the growing tensions between performers and game publishers over the control and compensation of digital likenesses.

Actors Refuse to Surrender Their Digital Identities

The ongoing dispute between SAG-AFTRA and the video game industry centers on the issue of consent and compensation for the use of AI replicas of performers. Actors argue that their movement, voice, and mannerisms are not just "data" to be exploited, but rather an integral part of their identity and creative expression.

Protecting the Essence of Performance

Ted Evans, a voice actor on the picket lines, eloquently captures the performers' perspective: "They're calling the information data — our movement, our voice, the way we talk. For them, it's just data. For us, it's our hopes and dreams and life purposes... It's basically taking everything we have and throwing us in the garbage." The actors contend that their digital likenesses are not merely assets to be commodified, but the very essence of their craft and artistic contribution.

Lessons from Last Year's Strike

The current strike is a continuation of the battle that unfolded during last year's film and TV strike, where the union ultimately secured robust protections over the use of an actor's likeness. However, the agreement left some loopholes, particularly around the creation of "synthetic" actors that do not directly resemble any individual performer.

Seeking Comprehensive AI Protections

Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, the union's chief negotiator, emphasizes that the current strike is not about banning AI outright, but rather establishing appropriate safeguards and compensation for performers. "Our members have been working with AI in certain ways. The companies want to expand upon that. And that is something we're willing to do with protections in place."

Uneven Protections and Loopholes

Union leaders argue that the video game companies' latest offer falls short, leaving out certain categories of performers and allowing for the potential exploitation of an actor's previous performances to create synthetic characters. Ray Rodriguez, the union's chief contracts officer, points out that the proposed protections for on-camera performers apply only to those whose image is recognizable, which is not the case in many video game roles.

The Threat of Synthetic Performances

Sarah Elmaleh, chair of the union's negotiating committee, expresses concern that the video game companies could use an actor's past performances to create synthetic characters, effectively replicating their work without consent or compensation. "The way they've written it right now is that you could prompt anyone based on any of the characters they've done in the history of their career to recreate their performance," she says.

Lessons from Previous Strikes

Unlike the previous strike in 2016, which lasted nearly a year, the union is adopting a different approach this time. Instead of daily in-person picketing, they are exploring alternative ways to draw attention to the strike, particularly through online channels. Crabtree-Ireland believes the pressure on the companies will be greater, as the public increasingly demands fair treatment of workers in the face of AI advancements.

Broader Implications for the Workforce

The strike's significance extends beyond the entertainment industry, as Crabtree-Ireland points out: "All of us want that — not just actors, not just people in the entertainment industry. Every worker in this country wants to be treated fairly with respect to AI." The outcome of this dispute could set a precedent for how AI is regulated and integrated into various industries, with far-reaching implications for the future of work.As the standoff continues, the actors' fight for control over their digital identities and fair compensation for the use of their performances in video games has become a high-stakes battle that extends beyond the entertainment industry, shaping the broader conversation around the ethical and legal boundaries of AI in the workplace.