Academy Permanently Bans AI-Generated Performances and Scripts From Oscar Eligibility
The rule changes protect actors and writers from displacement — but leave visual effects and sound categories untouched for now
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has permanently banned AI-generated performances and non-human-authored scripts from Oscar eligibility, delivering the film industry’s most consequential institutional rebuke of generative AI to date. The updated guidelines, announced last week, mark a significant victory for actors and writers who have fought to protect their livelihoods as studios and directors accelerate AI adoption.
Under the new rules, only acting performances “credited in the film’s legal billing and demonstrably performed by humans with their consent” will qualify for awards such as Best Actor or Best Supporting Actress. Screenplay categories will similarly require human-authored scripts, though the Academy reserves the right to request additional context about a script’s creation — leaving some ambiguity about the degree to which AI-assisted writing may still be permitted.
A Direct Response to Industry Controversy
The rule changes arrive amid mounting tension over AI’s expanding role in Hollywood — and appear to be a direct response to the controversy surrounding As Deep as the Grave, an upcoming indie film that features an AI-generated recreation of the late Val Kilmer. Kilmer was cast in the film in 2021 but was unable to shoot any scenes due to his battle with throat cancer. He died in 2025, and his likeness was subsequently recreated using generative AI technology, in cooperation with his estate.
Director Coerte Voorhees told Variety that the recreation reflects what Kilmer wanted. Whether or not that claim holds up, the film could now be entirely barred from any Oscars campaign under the new eligibility standards.
The case illustrates precisely why the Academy’s intervention matters: without clear rules, the industry’s most powerful players — studios, directors, and tech companies — will set the terms, and workers will bear the costs.
What the Rules Cover — and What They Don’t
The updated guidelines also include a notable reform for international features: awards will now go to directors rather than the countries sponsoring the films, a long-overdue correction that better reflects creative authorship.
However, the Academy has stopped short of restricting AI use in categories like visual effects and sound — fields where the technology is already deeply embedded in production workflows. The distinction is defensible: AI tools in technical categories function more like sophisticated software than replacements for creative labor. Getting the language right in those areas will require more careful deliberation.
Protection Against Exploitation, Not a Ban on Technology
The new regulations do not — and cannot — stop studios from using generative AI in production. High-profile figures including directors Steven Soderbergh and Darren Aronofsky have already incorporated the technology into their work, and actors like Matthew McConaughey and Sandra Bullock have publicly suggested AI integration is essentially inevitable.
That framing deserves scrutiny. Inevitability is a choice, not a fact — and it is typically invoked by those who stand to profit from the technology’s adoption, not those whose jobs and likenesses are at risk.
What the Academy’s rules do accomplish is meaningful: they ensure there is no institutional reward for replacing human actors with digital facsimiles or outsourcing screenwriting to algorithms. For workers in two of Hollywood’s most exploited crafts — already battered by years of streaming-era contract erosion and the 2023 strikes — that protection matters.
The harder work of regulating AI across all filmmaking categories lies ahead. But the Academy has drawn a clear line where it counts most: around the human beings who make storytelling possible.