[13:36 Tue,5.May 2026 by Thomas Richter] |
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which is responsible for awarding the Oscars, passed a series of new rules last Friday. Among other things, these rules clarify—partly in response to the use of AI in film production—that only screenplays written by humans and performances by real human actors are eligible for Oscars. The Val Kilmer PrecedentGiven the steadily growing use of AI at all levels of film production, such a clarification was overdue. Following the controversies surrounding the "AI actress" Tilly Norwood, the situation is currently culminating in a project to feature an AI-generated replica of Val Kilmer in a leading role in the independent film “As Deep as the Grave.” Kilmer had wanted to act in the film but passed away shortly before production began. His heirs have taken up the cause and, like screenwriter and director Coerte Voorhees, want Kilmer to "perform" in the form of an AI-generated version of himself.
 No General AI Ban for the OscarsHowever, the Academy is not issuing a general ban on the use of generative AI or other digital tools. Instead, it explicitly states that their use will neither diminish nor improve the chances of a nomination. For every submission, it will be carefully examined to what extent a human was centrally responsible for the work/performance. To ensure this, the Oscar committee reserves the right to request additional information from films proposed for nomination regarding the extent to which AI was used in production. Indirectly, this means that the use of AI as a creative tool (such as Ben Affleck&s AI startup InterPositive, recently acquired by Netflix) is likely acceptable, provided that a human performs the actual creative work ("human authorship").  Val Kilmer resurrected via AI How creepy is an actor-zombie?An AI-zombie of Val Kilmer would be based on his previous creative acting performances as training material, but the actual performance in the new film would not truly be his; it would be more like that of a virtual hand puppet. According to the Malcolm Measure of creepiness for the revival of dead actors, the project might still be considered acceptable, but a bitter aftertaste naturally remains. And following the earlier—ultimately unsuccessful—attempt to digitally resurrect James Dean for a film, further attempts to have famous stars appear in entirely new films are naturally following in the wake of increasingly better and easier-to-use AI—the temptation of money is likely too alluring for both producers and heirs.  Malcolm&s Measure of creepiness This is why the Academy had to issue these new rules, which just a few years ago would have been expected in a science fiction film rather than in reality: "Only roles credited in the film’s legal billing and demonstrably performed by humans with their consent will be considered eligible." After all, AIs can now write screenplays and independently generate films (or short clips) complete with dialogue and action scenes—simply via a prompt. Is the creator 100% human? Or only 87%?It will be interesting to see when the Academy will initiate such an "audit" of a film proposed for nomination in the future, and what that process will look like to ensure that the creative work was performed by a human. Presumably, every step of the production process would have to be made traceable to give the awards committee a more precise assessment of the use of digital generative AI in a specific case. What falls under permitted AI use will depend on each individual case; the possibilities of AI as a tool in all sorts of work steps are too nuanced to formulate general rules.  more infos at bei www.oscars.orgdeutsche Version dieser Seite: Academy stellt klar - Nur menschliche Leistungen sind Oscar-würdig |
 |
|
|