Hollywood is in an uproar against the use of AI in films, with attacks coming from all sides, such as AI actors like Tilly Norwood (there are “40 more to come,” says the maker) and AI short films from Sora and Seedance. But don’t worry! Even if AI eventually creates perfectly crafted feature films that are indistinguishable from non-AI films, audiences may not embrace them – even if they know. The moment I realize that a short film is made by AI (as is common now), I move on to the next one, because just knowing that the short film is made by AI takes away all the fun and drama, even if the short film seems completely realistic. Just knowing that it was created by AI leads to a shrugging “next” attitude. Imagine watching the drama of the World Series and then being told in the middle of it that it was all created by AI, with no real players. You’d almost certainly turn it off even if it were frame-for-frame identical to the actual games. Who wants to watch it when all the action and “drama” is created by AI? Yawn… The same will be the case with feature films. Just knowing that they are made with AI can reduce attendance. Part of the success of the Mission Impossible films is knowing that Tom Cruise is doing the stunts himself. Imagine the lack of enthusiasm if audiences thought the entire film was made by AI. A selling point of films in the future could be that films do not contain AI elements, especially if films with AI elements become commonplace. All that needs to be done is give the audience fair warning if a movie uses AI, and the law will move in that direction: 1. Many states require disclosure of AI use in political ads, and New York has expanded this disclosure to require it in almost all ads (political or otherwise) that feature an AI-created image of a human. It would be a small step to extend that to films. 2. The EU requires disclosure of AI use in all films from August 2026. The language is ambiguous, but disclosure in the credits will likely suffice. The problem with this approach is that the audience needs to know before they watch the movie, so the disclosure needs to happen at the beginning of the movie, such as in the main titles. 3. There is a pending US federal legislation (the AI Labeling Act) that would require “clear and conspicuous disclosure” of the use of AI-generated content in almost all content, including movies. The “clear and conspicuous disclosure” requirement likely requires disclosure in the main titles, and the law requires audible disclosure if there is audible AI content in the film.
If the MPA (formerly the MPAA) wants to stave off federally mandated legislation on the subject, including the requirement for an audible warning, it should add an “AI” rating to films that use any form of AI, just as it used the current rating system in the 1960s to avoid federally mandated censorship. Under this approach, a distributor would certify that AI was or was not used in some way in connection with the film (including the screenplay, actors, music, or set), and if AI were used, the film would receive an ‘AI’ rating in addition to the regular rating (e.g. ‘PG’ or ‘R’). This way the public is at least fairly warned, and from there the market can decide.
