AI, Actors, and Autonomy: Thomas Hoon on Personality Rights in the Digital Age

In a recent LinkedIn post, Thomas Hoon explores the complex intersection of artificial intelligence, actor rights, and personal identity, using a compelling real-world example to highlight emerging ethical dilemmas. Hoon discusses the case of actor Lawrence Ng, who licensed his younger digital likeness for an AI-generated film, prompting a deeper reflection on who controls our digital selves.

Hoon introduces the scenario with a striking anecdote:

“The actor never showed up, but the paycheck did. Lawrence Ng, 62, licensed his 20-year-old face to an AI studio. He stayed home. The movie made money.”

This narrative serves as a springboard for Hoon’s analysis of how different legal and societal frameworks are grappling with the implications of AI on personal rights, particularly concerning one’s image and likeness.

The Shifting Ground of Digital Identity

Thomas Hoon points out a fundamental legal distinction between China and Hollywood regarding the ownership of one’s image. He explains that China’s Civil Code views a person’s face as a “personality right,” which cannot be permanently sold but only temporarily licensed. This legal framework, as described by Hoon, ensures that individuals retain ultimate ownership over their likeness.

“China’s Civil Code treats your face as a ‘personality right.’ It says you can never sell your face forever. You can only rent it out, like a library book. One movie. One year. One country. After that, the rights go back to you. You always own yourself.”

Hoon contrasts this with the situation in Hollywood, referencing the 2023 actors’ strike. According to Hoon, the strike was largely a response to studios seeking the ability to scan actors’ likenesses and use them indefinitely, a demand that actors collectively resisted and ultimately won through their organized action.

Collective Action vs. Codification: Who Gets to Say No?

The core of Hoon’s argument centers on the differing mechanisms of protection and control in the face of advancing AI technology. He notes that while China relies on legal codification and Hollywood on collective bargaining and action, both systems may inadvertently overlook vulnerable parties.

The Vulnerability of Newcomers

Hoon highlights a critical gap in both approaches: the protection of individuals who are new to an industry or lack union representation. These individuals, as Hoon suggests, might be more susceptible to signing unfavorable contracts without fully understanding the long-term implications of licensing their digital likeness.

“One system relies on codification. The other relies on collective action. But both miss the same person: the newcomer. The one who signs without reading clause 47.2. The one who isn’t in the union yet.”

This observation leads Hoon to pose a crucial question about the future development of AI regulation. He prompts readers to consider whether the systems being built are designed primarily to safeguard individuals or to control access and opportunities within these new technological frontiers.

Pondering the Future of AI Regulation

As Thomas Hoon concludes, the essential question moving forward is not merely about AI’s capabilities but about agency and consent. He prompts reflection on the balance of power and the mechanisms in place—or absent—that determine who has the ultimate authority to agree to or refuse the use of their digital identity.

Hoon’s post serves as a vital commentary, urging a broader conversation about ethical AI regulation and the fundamental rights of individuals in an increasingly digitized world. He emphasizes the need for robust frameworks that protect everyone, especially those who are most vulnerable in the evolving landscape of digital media and artificial intelligence.