AI: digital replicas, copyright law and what producers need to know in 2026

On screen, AI is already doing plenty of work that audiences rarely notice. It localises a drama so that a dubbed performance keeps the original actor’s voice and rhythm. It handles de-ageing and digital doubles for stunt or continuity work, and it cleans up restored archive footage. 

Off screen, the benefits are arguably bigger. Scheduling, budgeting, script breakdowns, production contracts, transcription and logging, subtitle drafts, and searching decades of archive all used to eat up hours that could have gone on creative decisions.

In that sense, AI is less a rival to the writers’ room than a highly capable production coordinator. 

One of the more commercially interesting changes is that a performer’s face and voice have become distinct, licensable assets. A digital replica (made with proper consent) can let a performer appear in reshoots, foreign-language versions or promotional material without being on set, thereby earning income while also keeping a degree of control.

This concept has been around for a while, but after the 2023 strikes, SAG-AFTRA secured formal consent and pay requirements for digital replicas. In June 2026, SAG-AFTRA members ratified a new deal that adds protections against “no scan” replicas, requires consent for dubbing, and commits producers to “strongly favouring human performances”.

In the UK, 99% of Equity members who voted in an indicative ballot in December 2025 said they were prepared to refuse digital scanning on set. Pact responded with an improved offer in January, but its position is that output uses such as de-ageing and replicas already have an agreed mechanism for consent and payment. 

For writers and directors in the UK, protection currently depends largely on individual contracts. Therefore we can expect commissioning agreements to include further clauses on AI disclosure, training use and ownership of outputs going forward.

The real touchpoint issue, however, is the use of performance data to train systems that generate new content. In March 2026, the UK government formally dropped its preferred proposal of a copyright exception that rights holders would have to opt out of. That idea had been overwhelmingly rejected by the creative industries. The government has since reiterated the current position under English law: that AI developers must obtain licences unless an existing exception applies. It has also promised a consultation on digital replicas, though to date has not committed to a new timetable for this.

In August, 2026, more than 80 performers, including Hugh Bonneville, Nicola Coughlan and Matt Lucas, backed the Save Our Voices Now campaign. The campaign has written an open letter to the Prime Minister and launched a parliamentary petition calling for a statutory right for everyone in the UK to own their own voice. Its founders describe voice cloning as an “existential threat” to their industry.

The English courts have so far given limited help. In Getty Images v Stability AI, the High Court held that the model did not store or reproduce Getty’s images, and the training claim failed because the training did not happen in the UK. The case is currently being appealed.

By comparison, the EU AI Act’s transparency obligations now require AI-generated content to be labelled. In October 2026, Denmark introduced a bill giving people copyright-style control over realistic imitations of their face and voice, with exceptions for parody and satire.

So what does this mean for producers? For now, the practical answer is good housekeeping: know where your tools’ training data comes from; record consent for each specific use (not as a blanket release); make sure AI terms in talent and commissioning contracts match each other; and prepare for labelling requirements, especially on content sold into Europe.

There are reasonable people on both sides of this debate, and many hold both views at once. Some roles will change, and some may not survive in their current form; it would be unrealistic to pretend otherwise. What seems clear is that the arrangements agreed now on consent, credit and pay will shape whose work is valued over the next decade, and how fairly the gains and losses are shared. If the industry gets those terms right, AI can strengthen British creativity rather than take its place.

Henry Birkbeck is counsel at Reed Smith