Introduction

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming the media and entertainment industry. Once viewed by many as a threat, AI is increasingly being embraced as a powerful tool. Studios and tech-forward production companies are leveraging AI to streamline development pipelines, support casting decisions and automate post-production workflows. Writers are using generative tools for ideation, outlining and drafting, while voice actors are licensing their vocal likenesses to AI platforms.

Labor Agreements: Guardrails for a Shifting Landscape

The 2023 labor strikes by the Writers Guild of America (WGA) and the Screen Actors Guild–American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) brought widespread attention to the growing unease surrounding AI’s role in the entertainment industry. The resulting labor agreements provided some short-term clarity and reassurance. The WGA’s Minimum Basic Agreement prohibits AI from receiving writing credit and affirms that writers cannot be compelled to use AI in the writing process.¹ Similarly, SAG-AFTRA’s Basic Agreement requires informed consent and compensation for any use of an actor’s likeness, voice, or performance that is generated or altered by AI.²

Global Regulatory Trends

While the labor agreements provide foundational safeguards, they are not a long-term solution. They highlight, rather than resolve, the broader legal and ethical questions around authorship, ownership and creative control—issues that ultimately require comprehensive regulatory frameworks to address. Some governments and international bodies are beginning to develop diverse regulatory frameworks aimed at managing the risks and responsibilities associated with AI use in creative industries:

• United States: The U.S. has largely maintained its existing intellectual property framework, with no broad federal legislation on AI and copyright introduced to date. Instead, congressional efforts have focused on assessing existing federal agency authority and encouraging voluntary industry commitments.³In the absence of federal action, several states have enacted their own regulatory measures, such as California’s Assembly Bill No. 12, which mandates that AI developers disclose the training data used to train their models.⁴
• European Union (EU): The EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act), adopted in 2024, introduces a binding, risk-based regulatory framework for AI systems.⁵ It includes specific transparency requirements for generative AI used in content creation, such as disclosure obligations when synthetic content is produced, and mandates documentation of training data sources.⁶
• United Kingdom: Like the U.S., the U.K. has retained its current intellectual property regime while evaluating how AI-generated works fit within its copyright framework.⁷The U.K. Intellectual Property Office has issued guidance on AI and copyright and is consulting on potential reforms to address authorship and licensing challenges.⁸
• Canada: Canadian regulators have published a federal guide on generative AI that includes considerations for copyright, transparency and responsible innovation. The guide emphasizes the need for clear attribution and accountability in AI-assisted creative works.⁹
• Australia: In December 2023, the Australian Attorney-General established the Copyright and Artificial Intelligence Reference Group to address copyright challenges posed by AI. The group is actively consulting on issues such as transparency, training data usage and regulatory safeguards.¹⁰
• United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO): UNESCO’s “Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence,” adopted unanimously by all 193 member states, sets the first global ethical framework for AI. It emphasizes principles such as transparency, fairness and human oversight, and encourages member states to implement national policies aligned with these values.¹¹

Ongoing Challenges and Legal Grey Areas

Despite regulatory progress, many unresolved issues continue to challenge the media and entertainment industry as it adapts to AI integration:

• Copyright Ownership: The U.S. Copyright Office maintains that works generated entirely by AI are not eligible for copyright protection. However, hybrid works involving human input are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, leaving uncertainty around authorship and ownership in collaborative projects.¹²
• Consent and Likeness Rights: As AI tools become more adept at replicating human voices and appearances, the question of what constitutes informed consent is gaining urgency. Regulatory bodies like the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have emphasized the need for clear, affirmative consent when biometric data—such as facial scans or voiceprints—is used in AI applications.¹³In parallel, industry and academic groups are exploring the use of digital watermarking and metadata tagging to help performers track and control the use of their digital likenesses.¹⁴
• Training Data: Creators are increasingly pushing back against the use of their works as training data for AI models, particularly when done without transparency or compensation. Reflecting the growing tension, on June 11, 2025, Disney and Universal filed the first major lawsuit by Hollywood studios against an AI company—Midjourney—alleging direct and secondary copyright infringement related to Midjourney’s AI-generated images of copyrighted characters.¹⁵  While the suit alleges that existing copyright laws are sufficient to address infringement by AI software, it remains to be seen whether further regulatory guidance is desirable.

^{1 Writers Guild of America. (2023). 2023 MBA summary: Generative AI. WGA Contract 2023. https://www.wgacontract2023.org/summary-of-the-2023-wga-mba.}

^{2 SAG-AFTRA. (n.d.). SAG-AFTRA and AMPTP statement on AI and performer rights. https://www.sagaftra.org/ai.}

^{3 Harris, L. (2025, June 4). Regulating artificial intelligence: U.S. and international approaches and considerations for Congress (CRS Report No. R48555). Congressional Research Service. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48555.}

^{4 California State Legislature. (2024). AB-2013 Generative artificial intelligence: training data transparency. California Legislative Information. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2013.}

^{5 European Commission. (2024). AI Act and text and data mining directive. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=oj:JOC_2021_517_R_0009.}

^{6 European Commission. (2021). Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain Union legislative acts (COM/2021/206 final). EUR-Lex. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=oj:JOC_2021_517_R_0009.}

^{7 UK Government. (n.d.). Certainty for businesses and choice for consumers as UK maintains IP rights regime. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/certainty-for-businesses-and-choice-for-consumers-as-uk-maintains-ip-rights-regime.}

^{8 UK Intellectual Property Office. (n.d.). IP support. https://www.ipo.gov.uk/ip-support/welcome.}

^{9 Government of Canada. (n.d.). Guide to the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI). https://www.canada.ca/en/government/system/digital-government/policies-standards/policy-service-digital-announcements/guide-use-generative-artificial-intelligence-ai.html.}

^{10 Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department. (n.d.). Copyright and artificial intelligence reference group (CAIRG). https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/copyright/copyright-and-artificial-intelligence-reference-group-cairg.}

^{11 UNESCO. (n.d.). UNESCO’s recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence: Key facts. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/unescos-recommendation-ethics-artificial-intelligence-key-facts?hub=32618.}

^{12 U.S. Copyright Office. (2023). Copyright registration guidance: Works containing material generated by artificial intelligence. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/.}

^{13 Federal Trade Commission. (2024). Biometric information and Section 5 of the FTC Act. https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/policy-statements/biometric-policy-statement.}

^{14 International Biometrics + Identity Association. (2024). Ethical use of biometric AI in media. https://www.ibia.org.}

^{15 Disney Enterprises, Inc., Marvel Characters, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Universal City Studios LLC, & DreamWorks Animation LLC. (2025, June 11). Complaint for copyright infringement against Midjourney, Inc. U.S. District Court, Central District of California. https://variety.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Disney-NBCU-v-Midjourney.pdf.}