De-aging, face replacement or digital youthification
Do we need consent to de-age an actor?
Yes, and the consent has to describe the de-aging specifically. Under the 2026 SAG-AFTRA TV/Theatrical Agreement, which took effect July 1, 2026, consent for a digital replica must be clear and conspicuous and based on a reasonably specific description of the intended use. A consent obtained for the shoot does not extend to a de-age invented in post — that is a different use, and it needs its own instrument before the work happens rather than after.
Full treatment, with citations and effective dates: SAG-AFTRA 2026 TV/Theatrical AI provisions · SAG-AFTRA and the AMPTP — General Provisions §§ 64 and 64.1
Standard all-media likeness grant relied on for AI use
Our contract already says we can use the performer’s likeness in all media. Isn’t that enough?
That language is close to the paradigm of what the current consent standard is aimed at. Both SAG-AFTRA agreements require consent based on a reasonably specific description of the intended use, and a grant covering all media now known or hereafter devised describes no particular use at all. California goes further in the same direction: Cal. Lab. Code § 927 makes a replica provision vulnerable where the use is not described with particularity and the performer was not represented by counsel or a union representative. Breadth is exposure here, which inverts the usual instinct in rights drafting.
Full treatment, with citations and effective dates: SAG-AFTRA 2026 TV/Theatrical AI provisions · SAG-AFTRA and the AMPTP — General Provisions §§ 64 and 64.1
Drafting or reviewing a digital replica consent
How specific does the intended-use description have to be?
No published guidance draws the line, so the working test is whether a stranger could hold the description against the finished material and answer yes or no. Name the technique, the material it is applied to, the context it appears in, and the media it will run in. "Replica of Performer’s face composited onto a stunt double for the rooftop sequence in Episode 104, for use in the Series and its trailers" can be checked; "digital replica may be used in the Picture and in any and all media" cannot. The Commercials Contract supplies the only test either agreement offers — the description should convey information consistent with what a performer would receive, such as scripts and storyboards, at casting and audition.
Full treatment, with citations and effective dates: Digital Replica Rider · SAG-AFTRA and the Joint Policy Committee
Crowd tiling, background replication or generated extras
We used AI to multiply a crowd. Is that a likeness question?
It usually is, and it is the case productions most often miss. If the crowd was built by replicating identifiable background performers, each of those performers has a likeness in the finished picture and the replica consent standard reaches them. If the figures were generated rather than replicated, no individual’s likeness is involved — but they may be synthetic performers, which raises the New York disclosure obligation in advertising and, under California’s substitution test, the question of whether they replaced background performers who would otherwise have been hired. Vendors describe this work as a "tile" or a "population pass", which is why it reaches nobody who would have flagged it.
Full treatment, with citations and effective dates: SAG-AFTRA 2026 TV/Theatrical AI provisions · SAG-AFTRA and the AMPTP — General Provisions §§ 64 and 64.1
AI-assisted post work on a delivered performance
Where is the line between AI cleanup and a digital replica?
It is drawn by the facts and the drafting, and no authority has fixed it. Cleanup, timing adjustment and lip-sync fixes applied to a performance the performer actually delivered sit at one end; lines the performer never spoke sit clearly at the other. California’s test is the most useful one to run in the middle: would this work have been performed by the human being if the tool did not exist? If the answer is that they would have been called back to do it, treat it as substitution. Paper the borderline cases — a rider costs less than the argument about whether one was needed.
Full treatment, with citations and effective dates: California digital replica consent · State of California
Digital recreation of a deceased performer or personality
Can we recreate a performer who has died?
Only with consent from the party that actually controls the post-mortem rights, and establishing who that is is the hard part. Under Cal. Civ. Code § 3344.1(a)(2)(A)(i), producing or distributing a digital replica of a deceased personality in an expressive work or advertisement without that consent creates statutory liability in California. Post-mortem rights move through estates, trusts, licensing companies and sometimes several assignments, and a signature from someone who genuinely believes they hold the right but does not is the same position as no consent at all. Verify the chain in writing, before shooting, by asking for the instrument granting the authority rather than an assertion of it.
Full treatment, with citations and effective dates: California digital replica consent · State of California
Digital replica of a performer under 18
The performer is a minor. What changes?
A minor cannot give effective consent in their own right, so the instrument must be executed by a parent or legal guardian. Where the term of the replica use would run past the minor’s eighteenth birthday, court approval of the underlying contract may additionally be required depending on the jurisdiction — in California and New York this is a live question on any long-tail term. Settle it before the instrument is executed and record the conclusion with its reasoning, including where the conclusion is that approval was not needed.
Full treatment, with citations and effective dates: California digital replica consent · State of California