# California passes law against using AI to replace actors **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Tags:** movies, ai\ **Created:** [October 13, 2025, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-passes-law-against-using-ai-to-replace-actors/1023924 "2025-10-13T11:58:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2025, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-passes-law-against-using-ai-to-replace-actors/1023924/21 "2025-10-14T03:16:26Z")
How does this affect movies filmed outside California? ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2025, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-passes-law-against-using-ai-to-replace-actors/1023924/22 "2025-10-14T03:25:59Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The code that re-created something resembling Peter Cushing’s face can fairly be called “AI” I disagree, because it wasn’t “code” that did it, it was multiple techniques from multiple artists which achieved that. However, that just underscores your other point, that AI needs to be clearly defined. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2025, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-passes-law-against-using-ai-to-replace-actors/1023924/23 "2025-10-14T03:31:20Z")
> [@FlikTheBlue](#): > > Doomed to fail. The only way this can possibly be enforced will be to end up banning all social media in the state. Or by setting up a sufficient large, pervasive and ruthless system of enforcement, like with copyright law. Which is probably the real reason it won’t happen; actors _aren’t_ rich and powerful enough to get society to cripple itself to protect their profits, while corporations _are._ ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2025, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-passes-law-against-using-ai-to-replace-actors/1023924/24 "2025-10-14T03:38:04Z")
> [@FlikTheBlue](#): > > And that’s because it’s TikTok, which ironically seems to be a lot less political, toxic, and enshitified than the US based social media\* [![](https://media.tenor.com/wE8ie6blvPYAAAA1/white-guy.webp) ](https://media.tenor.com/wE8ie6blvPYAAAA1/white-guy.webp) Say what? TikTok is _incredibly_ politically toxic, and deliberately so on behalf of a foreign power rather than in myopic pursuit of profit. The only reason it isn’t currently banned is because Trump realized at the last minute that TikTok was of huge help to him in winning the young male vote. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2025, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-passes-law-against-using-ai-to-replace-actors/1023924/25 "2025-10-14T03:40:30Z")
> [@FlikTheBlue](#): > > I agree with that. But at least based on my reading of the new laws from the link in the OP, the 30 second short I watched on TikTok earlier today, of Mr. Rogers inviting Notorious BIG to be his neighbor, is now illegal in the state of California. I don’t think so. I believe the point is to prevent studios making a blockbuster Tom Cruise action movie without hiring Tom Cruise. It could soon be possible to make a movie with a no-name no-face actor, and then put Tom’s face over the top, without his permission, or paying him for it. This is obviously unfair to him. It wouldn’t prevent putting Tom Cruise’s face over a stuntman in a Tom Cruise movie. Or a time travel story where old Tom Cruise meets young Tom Cruise. I don’t think it’s intended to block short TikTok videos either. As long as the creator isn’t making a big profit from them. Nor do I think it will prevent the portrayal of real people, living or dead. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2025, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-passes-law-against-using-ai-to-replace-actors/1023924/26 "2025-10-14T03:42:09Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > And then, if that’s allowed, now we decrease the involvement of the human flesh-and-blood actor. Nowadays, it’s common for a lot of action scenes, especially ones from a distance, to use computer-generated characters, instead of stunt doubles. So what if someone’s using digital makeup to look like a different actor, but they’re not actually in an action scene, and it’s just the computer-generated image (that looks like the previous actor) that’s moving through the scene? At what point was the line crossed? You make me think of Dialogue Doubles. Hire Ryan Reynolds and shoot a few minutes of him so that he’s legally in the movie. Then for every action scene you CGI him in and for every dialogue scene you pay an intern to talk on camera and then replace him with Ryan Reynolds in post. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2025, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-passes-law-against-using-ai-to-replace-actors/1023924/27 "2025-10-14T03:45:49Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > I believe the point is to prevent studios making a blockbuster Tom Cruise action movie without hiring Tom Cruise But why should that be banned if Tom Cruise wants to sign over his image? And what would stop him from being “in the movie” for one scene and having stunt doubles fill in the rest, including dialogue, using AI? Wouldn’t this make more sense for the SAG to negotiate an agreement on this with the studios instead of a law? Would this stop Tom Cruise from making an AI movie in Georgia or Vancouver and then screening it in California? ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2025, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-passes-law-against-using-ai-to-replace-actors/1023924/28 "2025-10-14T03:48:52Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > But why should that be banned if Tim Cruise wants to sign over his image? It wouldn’t be. It doesn’t ban using his image. It bans using his image without his consent or paying him. (ETA, I also keep typing “Tim” instead of “Tom” .) ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2025, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-passes-law-against-using-ai-to-replace-actors/1023924/29 "2025-10-14T03:53:36Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > It wouldn’t be. That’s precisely what we are discussing: _According to AB 2602, a contract between an individual and anyone else can be rendered “contrary to public policy” if it, “allows for the creation and use of a digital replica of the individual’s voice or likeness in place of work the individual would otherwise have performed in person.”_ > [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > It doesn’t ban using his image. It bans using his image without his consent or paying him. That would be a sensible law, and is also already illegal as I understand it. ---
**Author:** ![Elmer\_J.Fudd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmer_j.fudd/32/1211_2.png) [@Elmer\_J.Fudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elmer_J.Fudd)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2025, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-passes-law-against-using-ai-to-replace-actors/1023924/30 "2025-10-14T07:34:07Z")
I think this issue can better be handled by SAG than Sac. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2025, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-passes-law-against-using-ai-to-replace-actors/1023924/31 "2025-10-14T08:03:31Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > it wasn’t “code” that did it, it was multiple techniques from multiple artists which achieved that. A lot of the reason for that was because that was the state of the art at that point in history. If there had been a way to just prompt a model with “replace that guy’s face with Peter Cushing” or "Generate a performance with Peter Cushing as Grand Moff Tarkin’, they’d probably have used it, especially if it means they have to pay fewer pesky artists. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2025, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-passes-law-against-using-ai-to-replace-actors/1023924/32 "2025-10-14T10:53:19Z")
> [@markn\_1](#): > > Wikipedia says the suit was settled out of court with Glover awarded $760,000, and the Screen Actors Guild collective bargaining agreement was amended to state that producers and actors are not allowed reproduce the likeness of other actors. So, was Fred Rogers a member of the SAG? Because Tom Hanks recently reproduced his likeness. Not perfectly, of course: You could still tell that it was Hanks playing the role. But well enough that you could also tell that Rogers was the part that he was playing. ---
**Author:** ![FlikTheBlue](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fliktheblue/32/10972_2.png) [@FlikTheBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FlikTheBlue)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2025, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-passes-law-against-using-ai-to-replace-actors/1023924/33 "2025-10-14T12:36:52Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > Say what? TikTok is _incredibly_ politically toxic, and deliberately so on behalf of a foreign power rather than in myopic pursuit of profit. > > The only reason it isn’t currently banned is because Trump realized at the last minute that TikTok was of huge help to him in winning the young male vote. In my particular experience, I haven’t seen anything overtly political in many months. Sure, there’s the old fashioned politically incorrect stuff, but nothing overtly political. I have yet to see a single TikTok about Charlie Kirk, the meeting of generals called by Pete Hegseth, the government shutdown, etc. No videos featuring Donald Trump or some random MAGA extolling Trump’s virtues. None from the other side either. My Facebook feed, however, is filled with that junk. The only reason I use it is to keep up with acquaintances and to keep up with our water supply situation here in Corpus Christi. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2025, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-passes-law-against-using-ai-to-replace-actors/1023924/34 "2025-10-14T12:47:25Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Or by setting up a sufficient large, pervasive and ruthless system of enforcement, like with copyright law. According to ChatGPT, " in FY 2021, there were **36** cases involving copyright and trademark offenses under the U.S. Sentencing Commission." I tried to get the same number for burglary, and was told there are " **79,800** state or federal prisoners whose _most serious offense_ was burglary." This isn’t exactly comparable, and ChatGPT can be inaccurate, but it still is obvious to me that, compared to other forms of stealing, rather than copyright enforcement being ruthless, it is minimal. Is there justification for copyright enforcement being less ruthless than for burglary? Sure. While the number of copyright crimes may be extremely high, the number of discrete victims is moderate. But, for reasons good or bad, copyright enforcement is far from pervasive and ruthless. Instead, copyright violation is a common crime that all but a few high volume perpetrators get away with. Another way I would reflect on relative ruthlessness is to compare digital rights management on eBooks to the kind of physical prisons those burglars are in. What about using AI to make money off of the acting skills of a living actor without paying them? Unlike burglary and copyright violation, it is a rare crime. But I find it morally wrong, and California is correct to use the imperfect vehicle of the law to deter it. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2025, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-passes-law-against-using-ai-to-replace-actors/1023924/35 "2025-10-14T14:07:10Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > According to ChatGPT, " in FY 2021, there were **36** cases involving copyright and trademark offenses under the U.S. Sentencing Commission." “According to ChatGPT” is functionally equivalent to “I made it up”. Meaningless. It also ignores that there’s a lot more to copyright enforcement than that, and a lot of it is done without involving law enforcement at all. Just the threat/fear of it. There’s no need to bring things to court when nearly everyone just instantly and preemptively folds from the threat of it. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2025, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-passes-law-against-using-ai-to-replace-actors/1023924/36 "2025-10-14T14:48:17Z")
> [@FlikTheBlue](#): > > In my particular experience, I haven’t seen anything overtly political in many months. Sure, there’s the old fashioned politically incorrect stuff, but nothing overtly political. I have yet to see a single TikTok about Charlie Kirk, the meeting of generals called by Pete Hegseth, the government shutdown, etc. No videos featuring Donald Trump or some random MAGA extolling Trump’s virtues. None from the other side either. That would be because you scroll past those videos quickly enough that TikTok figured out you don’t care about them long ago and stopped showing them to you. When I still had TikTok, my feed was entirely science facts, liberal politics, and skits. My sister in law’s feed is entirely makeup tutorials and very far left “scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds” type content. My wife’s feed was skits, parenting videos, and progressive politics. I assure you that all that political stuff is still going incredibly strong on TikTok, including the sorts of videos that made young men go for Kirk so hard. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2025, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-passes-law-against-using-ai-to-replace-actors/1023924/37 "2025-10-14T15:17:59Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > “According to ChatGPT” is functionally equivalent to “I made it up”. The software didn’t make it up. The source, which looks good to me, is page 1 here:. > **[Copyright\_FY20.pdf](https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/quick-facts/Copyright_FY20.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com)** > > 1983.54 KB > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Just the threat/fear of it. There’s no need to bring things to court when nearly everyone just instantly and preemptively folds from the threat of it. If so, that means 37 jail sentences in a year, nationally, is preemptively folding AKA deterring “nearly everyone.” I fear that is too good to be true. But in as much as it is even close to accurate, this is the total opposite of ruthless law enforcement. Compare and contrast copyright (and AI) enforcement with the school to prison pipeline. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2025, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-passes-law-against-using-ai-to-replace-actors/1023924/38 "2025-10-14T15:48:25Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > So, was Fred Rogers a member of the SAG? Because Tom Hanks recently reproduced his likeness. Not perfectly, of course: You could still tell that it was Hanks playing the role. But well enough that you could also tell that Rogers was the part that he was playing. He almost certainly was. But you can be sure Hanks paid the Rogers estate for the rights to use his likeness. In no way would this become illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2025, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-passes-law-against-using-ai-to-replace-actors/1023924/39 "2025-10-14T15:55:55Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > Wouldn’t this make more sense for the SAG to negotiate an agreement on this with the studios instead of a law? Not all productions are SAG productions. If you look at casting calls, some specify that they are non-union. So SAG by itself is not going to be able to do much. I don’t know what the current contract is, but if it isn’t in there it will be soon. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Or by setting up a sufficient large, pervasive and ruthless system of enforcement, like with copyright law. Which is probably the real reason it won’t happen; actors _aren’t_ rich and powerful enough to get society to cripple itself to protect their profits, while corporations _are._ Copyright law only gets enforced if people find out about it and think it is worth their while. My wife sometimes Googles herself and finds her articles and sections of her books ripped off. She is not a corporation. When it is a book ripped off she can direct it to the legal arm of her publisher. If it is an article she tries to get payment from the magazine that ripped it off, but it’s usually not worth it. Your attitude hurts hard working writers more than big deal publishers. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2025, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-passes-law-against-using-ai-to-replace-actors/1023924/40 "2025-10-14T16:07:23Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Not all productions are SAG productions. If you look at casting calls, some specify that they are non-union. So SAG by itself is not going to be able to do much. I don’t know what the current contract is, but if it isn’t in there it will be soon. I understand that, but that’s exactly my point. I _don’t_ think it should straight up illegal for movies to be made with digitized actors. If the SAG doesn’t like it, they can negotiate for movies they’re involved with, and if they truly offer real value to the movie industry, that will have weight. But if people who aren’t involved with the SAG want to make a production that uses AI, I don’t think the SAG or anyone else should be able to shut that down just because they’re sour grapes. Using someone’s likeness without permission is an entirely different matter. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-passes-law-against-using-ai-to-replace-actors/1023924.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-passes-law-against-using-ai-to-replace-actors/1023924.md?page=3)