Industry

As artificial intelligence continues to reshape the creative industries, the audiovisual sector finds itself at the intersection of innovation and regulation. During Conecta Fiction & Entertainment (Cuenca, June 16-19, 2025), at the panel titled "AI and the Audiovisual Sector: Navigating the Current Legal Landscape", Sophie Valais, Deputy Head of the Department for Legal Information at the European Audiovisual Observatory, was interviewed by legal analyst Justine Radel Cormann. Their in-depth discussion shed light on the pressing legal questions raised by the integration of generative AI in content creation, from copyright and image rights to labour law and ethical standards.

When Copyright Meets Code
At the heart of the debate is copyright law, a pillar of the creative industries. Yet as Valais highlighted, applying it to AI-generated content is far from straightforward. “We’re right at the heart of copyright law,” she explained, “but this is an area where rules are mostly national.”

Two primary scenarios currently emerge in legal assessments:
Original AI Outputs: If the result of an AI process is sufficiently original — independent, novel, and demonstrating creative choices — it might qualify for copyright protection. But therein lies a conundrum: who is the author? Can a machine be an author? What if the work is 50% human, 50% machine? These unresolved questions are a legal minefield. As Valais admitted, “These are questions I find embarrassing. Lawmakers are still working through them.”

Derivative or Infringing Works: When AI-generated content borrows heavily from existing copyrighted material — in terms of visual style, structure, or substance — it could be deemed infringing. Ultimately, it will fall to judges to make these determinations.
A helpful mechanism in navigating these cases is transparency. The forthcoming EU AI Act includes provisions mandating clear disclosures about the data used and how AI-generated content is produced.

Faces, Voices, and the Digital Self
As AI capabilities evolve, replicating a person’s face, voice, or entire presence without their consent becomes increasingly feasible. This raises not only legal but ethical concerns — especially in a sector dependent on talent and performance. Valais posed the increasingly relevant question: “Can someone recreate a performance using AI without the actor ever standing on the set?” Justine Radel Cormann expanded on the implications: “We all control our personal attributes — our voice, image, face. These should not be replicated without our consent.”
Real-world examples abound. The voice of James Earl Jones was digitally preserved for Darth Vader in Obi-Wan Kenobi, and in The Brutalist, a film editor created an AI version of his own voice to aid actors with complex Hungarian dialects. In both cases, consent and contract were key. Without them, such uses can violate personality rights — even for non-celebrities. To ensure proper safeguards, the AI Act mandates that AI-generated or AI-altered content be clearly labelled, extending protections not only to actors but to all individuals.

Labour Law and the Creative Workforce
Beyond individual rights, AI raises systemic concerns about employment and working conditions for creatives. Valais acknowledged that “many professionals — scriptwriters, actors, stunt performers — fear being replaced.”
While the EU has only shared competence on labour matters, it can promote broader goals. One such goal is ensuring fair conditions for artists affected by digitalisation and AI. Drawing parallels with the U.S., Valais referenced the 2023 Hollywood strikes, where writers and actors secured landmark agreements regulating AI usage — notably the SAG-AFTRA deal requiring consent for AI-generated performers.

In Europe, strategies vary. Some countries rely on guilds and associations; others favour collective management organizations (CMOs), which are increasingly active in advocating for AI-related licensing frameworks.

On the legislative front, Valais cited a 2003 European Parliament resolution promoting the rights of artists in the digital age. More recently, the new European Commissioner for Culture announced a forthcoming “Cultural Compass”, intended to balance innovation with ethical use and safeguard human creativity.

In parallel, the European Parliament is developing a new legal report focused on generative AI and copyright, which will likely address remuneration, fair attribution, and working conditions for creatives.

A Call for Sustainable Innovation
As Justine Radel Cormann concluded, the complexity of regulating AI in the audiovisual sector is growing — but so is the urgency. With AI no longer a future possibility but a present-day reality, legal structures must evolve rapidly to protect creativity without stifling innovation.

“The forthcoming implementation of the AI Act,” she noted, “raises questions about how this new tool will shape the future of the audiovisual sector.” While much remains to be clarified, one thing is clear: there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

The hope is that the evolving legal framework — spanning copyright, image rights, labour law, and transparency — can foster an environment where both human and AI-assisted creators thrive. This, in turn, may help preserve Europe’s cultural diversity and creative dynamism.

For those eager to explore the legal landscape further, the European Audiovisual Observatory’s full report on AI and the audiovisual sector is available on their website.