Synthetic performers make human contribution a production issue.

The union’s 2026 agreement summary describes stronger protections for replicas and additional conditions on using synthetics in human roles. These include a principle favouring human performance and a producer commitment tied to the additional value a synthetic brings to a production. The union can challenge violations through the agreement’s processes.

These are requirements for covered work under that agreement. They are not a universal rule for every filmmaker, every country or every online upload. A production needs to establish which contract applies before interpreting its obligations.

A digital replica relates to an identifiable person. The 2026 agreement separately defines a synthetic through conditions that include appearing to be a natural performer without being recognisable as a particular real performer. The distinction matters because a team cannot resolve every issue by asking whether a familiar actor’s face appears.

The agreement also addresses how replicas are created and used, including consent and safeguards. The exact conditions belong in the contract and the production’s clearance process. Keep those records with the people responsible for them rather than treating a general AI label as a substitute.

The debate around Tilly Norwood made this tension explicit. In September 2025, SAG AFTRA objected to the proposed synthetic performer and argued that replacing actors devalues human artistry. That is the union’s stated position, rather than evidence about how any particular model was trained.

For a human production, the useful response is practical. Identify the people doing the work, document the methods that matter to your commission and keep the approved version clear. A client who values human performance should be able to understand what that commitment means in the production they receive.

For each release, ask three questions. Who contributed? What uses were approved? What evidence describes the recorded creative work? A signed permission does not establish who operated an editing tool. An activity record does not grant rights to someone’s likeness. Each part supports a different decision.

DigiBridge focuses on the recorded process behind human creation. Registered contributors, authorised activity and version review provide context for its device, system and creative tool checks. The dedicated verification agent helps assess prohibited assistance and synthetic control. Where findings need review, contributors can see the evidence and add their explanation.

Under the strict programme, a first confirmed incident holds the affected recording or version. Three distinct confirmed incidents make the project ineligible for directory publication. A model suspicion alone is not an incident. Clear rules help a studio uphold its human creation commitment without turning every unexplained event into an accusation.