In newly updated eligibility rules released on Friday, the Academy stated that performances eligible for awards must be “demonstrably performed by humans,” while screenwriting submissions “must be human-authored.” The move marks what the organization itself described as a “substantive” shift, reflecting mounting concern about how rapidly AI tools are reshaping film production.
For an institution that oversees Hollywood’s most prestigious honors, the need to explicitly define “human” contributions is unprecedented. Until now, such distinctions were largely assumed. But as AI-generated performances and scripts become more sophisticated, the Academy appears intent on drawing firm boundaries.
Why the Change Now?
The rule update comes amid a surge in high-profile uses of AI across the entertainment industry. One widely discussed example involves the late actor Val Kilmer, who is set to be digitally recreated using AI technology for a leading role in an upcoming film. Elsewhere, London-based performer Eline van der Velden revealed she had developed a بالكامل artificial AI persona designed to “become a global superstar.”
Such developments have intensified debate about authenticity, ownership, and the future of creative labor in Hollywood.
The issue was already front and center during the Writers Guild of America strike 2023, where concerns over studios using AI to generate scripts became a major sticking point. Writers pushed back against the possibility of being replaced—or even having their past work used to train systems that could mimic their voices.
No Blanket Ban on AI
Despite the stricter rules, the Academy stopped short of banning artificial intelligence altogether. Instead, it drew a nuanced distinction: AI tools can still be used in filmmaking, but their presence neither guarantees nor disqualifies a project from Oscar consideration.
As the Academy put it, such tools “neither help nor harm the chances of achieving a nomination.” What ultimately matters is the extent of human involvement. “The Academy and each branch will judge the achievement, taking into account the degree to which a human was at the heart of the creative authorship,” the statement added.
The organization also reserved the right to scrutinize productions more closely if AI use becomes a concern, noting that it may request additional details about “the nature of the use and human authorship.”
A New Phase in an Old Relationship with Technology
Technology has long been intertwined with filmmaking. Since the 1990s, computer-generated imagery (CGI) has revolutionized visual storytelling, enabling filmmakers to create worlds and effects once thought impossible. But unlike AI, CGI has traditionally been viewed as a tool guided and refined by human hands.
AI, by contrast, is designed to automate creative processes—often producing scripts, voices, or even entire performances from simple prompts. That distinction appears to be at the heart of the Academy’s new stance.
Legal and Ethical Questions Linger
Beyond awards eligibility, the broader industry is still grappling with unresolved legal battles. Studios, authors, and performers have filed lawsuits against AI companies, alleging copyright infringement and unauthorized use of their work to train machine-learning models.
These systems—often built on vast datasets of human-created text, images, and video—raise fundamental questions about ownership and compensation in the digital age.
The Bottom Line
The Academy’s latest rule changes signal an attempt to preserve the essence of filmmaking as a human-driven art form, even as technology evolves at breakneck speed. By allowing AI as a tool—but not as a substitute for human creativity—it is trying to strike a balance between innovation and tradition.
Whether that balance holds, however, may depend on how quickly the industry—and the technology itself—continues to change.