As of today, video game performers and voice actors are officially on strike over disagreements about AI that 18 months of negotiations couldn’t solve. Where, exactly, are companies and the union at odds, though? SAG-AFTRA chief contracts officer Ray Rodriguez told Aftermath that the core problem comes down to protections being extended to voice actors, but not physical performers.
"Until a couple of days ago, the employers were adamant that AI protections would only extend to voice, not to on-camera coverage," said Rodriguez. "So anybody doing a stunt or creature performance, all those folks would have been left unprotected under the employers' offer. At the 11th hour, when we were about to go on strike, they gave us new language that does make a reference to on-camera performers."
Unfortunately, according to Rodriguez, that new language came with asterisks that, in SAG-AFTRA’s eyes, made it untenable.
"The protections only extend to on-camera performers and to voice performers under their offer if the performer is identifiable in the output of the AI digital replica,” he said. “But the truth is, in video games, it's not going to be identifiable, as you could be doing the stunts that form the movement for Spider-Man, but what the player is going to see is Spider-Man. So that requirement of identifiability really leaves movement performers out of the scope of coverage."
Similar – and similarly disqualifying – requirements reared their head elsewhere, as well.
"There is a requirement of a one-to-one relationship between the performer and the resulting character that you see in the game, and that's not how games are usually made,” Rodriguez said. “There's usually more than one person whose work will be integrated into the character. So again, when you compare that to the reality of this work, they're really not covered."
He added that there was another stipulation concerning AI systems trained on “the whole internet” – in other words, not meant to resemble any specific person – where protections once again only covered voice actors, not physical performers.
“We're not going to leave half our members behind and make a deal only on behalf of voice performers,” said Rodriguez.
Audrey Cooling, a spokesperson representing EA, Take-Two, Activision, Insomniac, and other companies with which SAG-AFTRA has been bargaining, told Aftermath that the proposed agreement is in line with those of other major industries.
“I would reiterate that we have proposed terms that provide consent and fair compensation for anyone employed under [SAG-AFTRA’s Interactive Media Agreement], if an AI reproduction or digital replica of their performance is used in games,” Cooling said. “Our proposal clearly extends AI protections to all performers working under the IMA; it ensures companies will get consent before using a digital replica of their performance in games and also ensures fair compensation for the use of that performance. These terms are among the strongest in the entertainment industry.”
Other industries’ agreements, however, tend to cover 1:1 performances, which are standard in Hollywood but not necessarily the default in video games. Thus, the current impasse.
That said, the terms of the strike are not as rigidly defined as they might initially seem. Companies can sign interim agreements to continue working with SAG-AFTRA talent, which is all well and good as far as Rodriguez is concerned. However, there are also agreements in place that render any game that was in development before September 2023 exempt from the strike – including, as Kotaku recently reported, Grand Theft Auto VI.
"We're obviously not happy about that," Rodriguez said. "That language was bargained into one of the legacy Interactive Media Agreements before merger [of SAG and AFTRA]. It's language that the merged union basically inherited, that I think is insane. But it’s there.”
Rogriguez went on to say that video game performers are typically hired as day players, meaning that their contractual agreement only lasts for a day. After that, performers are free to do as they please. This, he hopes, will include opting out of further work on exempt games made by struck companies.
“We're hopeful that performers, in solidarity with their fellow members – and recognizing that showing solidarity is going to shorten this strike and help us gain critical protections – will exercise their discretion, even with respect to some of those non-struck titles," he said.
Some exempt games, Rodriguez added, may not stay that way.
“We do believe that there are certain titles that we can challenge, and we are preparing ourselves to bring a challenge with respect to the application of this language with respect to some of the titles,” he said. “So we are doing our best to wage the strike as effectively [and] as strongly as we can – even in spite of that language being there."
Live-service games like Fortnite and Apex Legends are also currently exempt under this provision, as they’ve been in development for many years. But if the strike lasts 60 days or more, it’s a whole different ball game.
"If you apply this [language] that we're talking about to live-service games, they become contracts of unlimited duration, and there is a law that a contract of unlimited duration can be terminated on reasonable notice,” said Rodriguez. “So that's what we've done: We have provided reasonable notice that we are terminating our contract with respect to those live-service games."
SAG-AFTRA is pulling every ripcord it can because its leaders believe that AI represents a potentially existential threat to performers’ careers. The previous video game performer strike in 2016 and 2017 set the stage, but Rodriguez sees this one as the main event.
"This is an even more dangerous threat to performers [than what we struck over in 2016 and 2017],” he said. “Not achieving AI protections risks [performers] putting themselves out of work, maybe permanently. It is a career-derailing development if your unique qualities as a performer – what you do, your skill set – can in effect be expropriated from you by a computer, and employers then have the right to generate what would have been your performance without your consent, without paying you, in perpetuity. ... That is potentially a very dim career prospect."
