AI has become a rising topic in many industries in recent years. Video games and entertainment are no exception. However, as companies eagerly explore this novel technology, workers and artists who created the content that AI trains on have begun to fight back.
On June 26, 2024, SAG-AFTRA, a US union representing around 160,000 artists, including voice actors, began a strike against video game companies for their refusal to offer clear protection for its members against abuse and exploitation using AI. The strike was authorized with a 98.32% vote from SAG-AFTRA members after over a year and a half of negotiations without a deal, beginning in October 2022. Companies at the table included Disney, EA, WB Games, and Activision, among many others (the “bargaining group”). The union members demanded AI transparency, fair compensation and the right to informed consent for the AI use of the artist’s face, voice, and body.
Nearly a year later, the strike continues. In a recent message on March 11, 2025, SAG-AFTRA states that though some proposals have been agreed on with the bargaining group, the two sides remain far apart on fundamental AI protections for all performers. For one, the bargaining group would like to use all past performances and any performance from outside a specific contract without informed consent or payment, which the union finds unacceptable. On a more positive note, other video game employers from outside the bargaining group have given much more favourable responses to the union, with over 160 games now signed on to the union’s interim and independent agreements.
The strike and the impacts of AI has had many ripple effects in the industry, including non-union members taking a stand in solidarity, as well as entire voice casts refusing contracts over AI clauses.
The core of the issue is not that the union is anti-AI but that companies refuse to provide fair compensation and transparency in the use of AI. For example, in October 2024, SAG-AFTRA signed a contract with AI company Ethovox to ensure consent and fair compensation for its members who participate in Ethovox’s foundational voice model. The agreement included ongoing payments for actors for the life of the model. Statements from SAG-AFTRA and Ethovox reveal their stance that AI should be a choice and that voice actors should be protected from AI misuse and exploitation through informed consent and fair compensation.
What are your thoughts on the stances of both sides? Should a voice actor’s past performances be automatically available as “training data” or should there be compensation for the use of their voice in AI? What do you think the results of the strike will be?
Sources:
https://www.sagaftra.org/sag-aftra-members-who-work-video-games-go-strike
https://www.sagaftra.org/contracts-industry-resources/contracts/interactive-media-video-game-strike
https://www.sagaftra.org/member-message-video-game-strike-update
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/sag-aftra-announces-agreement-with-ai-voice-company-ethovox
Check out theVideos of Interest to Law 423 on YouTube 
Communications Law
Join the Community!
This is a really interesting topic I didn’t know too much about until now.
I think that although SAG-AFTRA’s position isn’t inherently anti-AI, I think it reflects the broader multi-industry fear that AI will ‘steal’ our jobs. This raises a lot of questions about the extent of how much you own your voice and likeness, and what level of similarity may be considered ‘stealing’. Ethovox offers a reasonable compromise in my opinion. However, as money is the motivator for these video game companies, it’s not surprising to see why the efficiency of AI is appealing to them (and also not surprising that they don’t want to pay actors a single thing for it). It’s unfortunate that video game companies aren’t willing to offer a fair compromise or explore a middle ground.
It’s difficult to predict the outcome of the strike, although previous SAG-AFTRA strikes have been lengthy and exemplify the industry’s stubbornness with these matters. Ultimately, it will most likely have at least a minor positive impact on the use of actor’s voices and likenesses in video games, even if only for the sake of avoiding legal battles.