Private equity has been investing heavily in film and TV for years. The so-called content boom, streaming wars, and race for IP all made entertainment a smart bet for investors. And in many ways it still is, but something has shifted.The change is not just technological; it affects how investors assess the value and risk of film and TV rights.
Generative AI has quietly rewritten the rules around how content gets made, how it can be reused, and, critically, who owns the rights to do any of it. The legal frameworks underpinning most content libraries were not built with AI in mind, and that gap is starting to cost.
Name, image, and likeness rights — and why AI changed everything
Name, image, and likeness (or NIL) refers to a performer’s right to control how their identity is used commercially. In practice, it refers to any recognisable aspects of their persona (e.g. face, voice, gestures)It has existed for decades, but AI has made it far easier to exploit those rights without permission, and far harder to detect when that happens.
A voice can be cloned from a few minutes of audio. A face can be mapped onto a digital body. A performer’s likeness in old footage can be repurposed synthetically. None of this requires a soundstage or, arguably, the performer’s consent — unless a contract or the law says otherwise.
The 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike forced AI replication rights into collective bargaining (which sets the standard for most US talent contracts) for the first time. As a result, new agreements for relevant productions now include baseline protections against unauthorised digital doubles.
A patchy legislative response — and why jurisdiction matters
Legislators have been moving, but not in unison. New York passed two statutes in late 2025: one requiring disclosure when “synthetic performers” appear in advertising, the other extending publicity rights to digital replicas of deceased performers. California has broadened its protections. Tennessee’s ELVIS Act extended voice rights to cover AI-generated simulations.
The US picture remains fragmented. Over half of states recognise some right of publicity, but what a claimant must prove and what they can recover differs significantly by state. Federal proposals like the NO FAKES Act remain unenacted.
The UK’s position is starker, as there is no standalone personality right. Performers must instead rely on a patchwork of doctrines such as passing off, copyright, data protection, and performers’ rights – none designed with AI in mind. That makes claims more complex and outcomes harder to predict. The Government has acknowledged the gap and consulted on it, but no legislation has been tabled yet.
This divergence matters differently depending on who you are. For AI developers, the same tool carries different risk profiles in different markets: building a product that trains on performer data is a very different proposition in California, where statutory minimum damages apply, than in the UK, where a claim is expensive and slow.
For rights holders such as production companies, the UK position could merely be viewed as placeholder and the legislation, when it comes, may be retrospective.
For investors, the question is simpler: does the valuation reflect where the exposure actually sits?
What investors and buyers need to ask
The risks crystallise around three potential issues.
The first is silent contracts. If a production company wants to use AI to de-age an actor, clone a voice, or resurrect a deceased performer digitally, and the original agreement says nothing about any of that, fresh consent may be required. Obtaining it can be expensive, and sometimes it is simply not possible.
The second is mispriced libraries. A content catalogue valued on projected revenue from AI-enhanced formats may be worth considerably less if the underlying agreements do not permit those uses. Standard diligence processes often miss this, because rights clearance has historically been treated as a one-time checkbox rather than an ongoing exposure.
The third is litigation risk. In jurisdictions with meaningful personality rights, enforcement is increasingly well-resourced. Performers and estates now have access to specialist counsel, litigation funding, and statutory damages that make claims commercially viable.
Navigating these challenges productively means treating AI-related rights as a substantive question from the outset. That means reviewing all material talent agreements for AI-related gaps before exclusivity, stress-testing the rights stack across key territories, and ensuring that warranties specifically address what AI can and cannot do with the content being acquired.
The legal architecture underpinning entertainment assets is changing faster than most deal processes can track. The investors and developers who take that seriously now will be in a stronger position, whether they are buying, building, or eventually selling. Practically, that means acknowledging that AI risk is no longer hypothetical or peripheral, but a core part of how to assess the value of film and TV rights.
