Plans to digitally recreate the late actor Val Kilmer for a lead role prompted the Academy to rule that AI-created performances and AI-written material are ineligible for Oscars. The move follows a string of high-profile uses of generative tools in film, including London-based actor and comedian Eline van der Velden's disclosure last year that she had built a wholly artificial AI actor. The ruling draws a clearer line on what counts as human authorship in acting and writing, and sets the terms for how machine assistance can be acknowledged in award submissions.
What the Oscars decided
The Oscars announced that material created by artificial intelligence won't be eligible for awards in acting or writing categories. The rule bars AI-generated actors and AI-written scripts from receiving Oscars. The announcement makes clear the academy won't hand prizes to work that relies solely on generative systems for core creative elements.
Officials framed the change as a boundary on what counts as human authorship. This move sets eligibility rules for content when machine tools play a central creative role. It also separates human-driven contributions from fully synthetic outputs.
Recent examples that pushed the issue
Two recent cases brought the debate into public view. One is a planned digital recreation of Val Kilmer, who died in 2025, where AI would be used to produce a leading screen performance. The other is a project disclosed by Eline van der Velden, a London-based actor and comedian, who said she created a wholly artificial actor last year.
The Kilmer example involved using AI to generate a central character for an upcoming film. That proposal raised immediate questions about how to credit a performance and who holds the rights to a digitally reconstructed actor. The van der Velden disclosure showed how an entire virtual performer can be manufactured, and then presented as if it were a real, discoverable talent.
Why the academy moved now
Pressure on awards bodies has grown as generative tools became more capable. Filmmakers have started experimenting with digital likenesses and machine-written dialogue.
Some projects have suggested replacing or reconstructing performers with algorithmic creation instead of live actors.
The academy's decision acts as a line in the sand. It says the presence of human creative authorship matters when deciding what work can receive a prize.
The rule aims to preserve the link between a named person and the acting or writing being judged.
Practical effects for filmmakers
Filmmakers will now face clearer limits when they use AI. If a credited actor's image or voice is substituted with an AI replica, that performance may be ineligible. If a screenplay is produced entirely by a generative system, it can't win an Oscar for writing.
At the same time, human creators can still use AI as a tool. The ruling doesn't ban the use of machine assistance when a human author shapes the result. But it raises the bar for how much of the creative work must come from people rather than a model.
The policy change touches on legal and ethical issues. Recreating a deceased actor's likeness involves questions about consent and who controls posthumous use. Using an actor's image without clear permission can create disputes over ownership and compensation.
Similarly, creating a fake actor prompts questions about attribution. If a virtual performer is sold or promoted like a human star, who owns the intellectual property? Who answers for contracts and public statements? The academy's rule avoids awarding such work, but it doesn't resolve those other legal matters.
The ruling is likely to be welcomed by people who see awards as recognising human craft. It will also fuel debate among those who view AI as a legitimate creative collaborator. Some creators have argued that machine tools are new kinds of instruments, while others insist that key creative decisions must stay with people.
What counts as a meaningful human contribution will be contested. Some filmmakers use AI for reference or draft ideas, then polish and transform the result. Others lean on synthetic actors or rely on models to generate scenes. The academy's decision forces a line that will shape how and where those tools are used in prestige filmmaking.
The Oscars' change ties eligibility to authorship and contribution. Panels and committees that evaluate submissions will need to assess the extent to which humans directed the creation. They will have to separate human creative choices from material produced autonomously by models.
That work is administrative and subjective. Committees will look at production notes, credits and disclosures to determine whether entries meet the academy's standards. Filmmakers may be asked to document how AI was used and which parts of a performance or script were machine-generated.
The academy's stance sets a precedent. Other awards bodies and festivals may adopt similar policies or refine their rules in response. Institutional decisions often ripple through the industry. When a major prize sets a standard, it changes behaviour among studios, producers and creators.
Smaller festivals and guilds might draw different lines. Some could allow limited uses of AI so long as humans retain clear authorship. Others could ban synthetic performers outright. The academy's move will be a key reference point in those debates.
Related Articles
- 40 Quiz stores face closure after £40m debts
- Keira Knightley returns to West End in stage adaptation of The Lives of Others
- Hims & Hers alumni launch Golden Child with $19.95 'drizzle' and $3-a-day fresh meals
Val Kilmer, who died in 2025, was set to be recreated with AI for a lead role in an upcoming film.
This article was created with AI assistance.
