Law and Ethics of Artificial Intelligence

By Arianna Rotondo '28

Guest Writer, University of Central Florida

---

Alan Turing became famous for breaking Nazi Germany’s cipher system, known as the Enigma Code, during World War II. (1) After the war, he proposed a different kind of enigma: could a machine mimic a human being? This became one of the most important questions for modern technology. While his initial tests were controversial, they led to the artificial intelligence known today. (2) As AI technology evolved, so did its realism; it can now be nearly impossible to distinguish AI from reality. There must be parameters in place to protect privacy and individual rights to determine at what point AI use becomes unethical. If a company is using an individual’s likeness, it must provide proper notice, obtain consent, and establish compensation for it to be deemed ethical use through written consent. 

Recently, there was a major contention in the 2023 Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists strike regarding studio decisions to create “Digital Replicas” of performers. (3) By using these replicas, actors would not be paid for their work, as AI would replace them. Both known and background actors were affected by studio decisions to use AI to engineer their likeness or voice without their explicit consent.

In an industry already at risk of being taken over by AI, the unions had to advocate for fair standards. The 2023 Tentative Successor Agreement (formal protections and new entertainment contract) states that there must be “clear and conspicuous” consent, “48-hour advance notice”, and “minimum” compensation for a replica to be used. (4) These protections must be written into each contract before an actor’s voice or likeness can be used ethically. One’s likeness is defined as qualities that are “similar especially in appearance.” (5) It also encompasses attributes like signature, voice, or other identifying signifiers. Putting protections in place ensures those victimized by illegal AI use the right to their voices and identities.

Despite the protections of the 2023 agreement, video game companies including Electronic Arts, Activision Productions Inc., Llama Productions, and Disney Character Voices sparked a second SAG-AFTRA strike in 2025. (6) These companies were accused of violating publicity laws after the developers of Fortnite used actor James Earl Jones’s voice posthumously. (7) The difference between this case and the 2023 strike is that James Earl Jones’s family permitted the developers to use his voice for the game. In the case of death, “a representative,” such as a family member, may grant access to the deceased’s likeness. (8) Since explicit permission was granted, the use of Jones’s voice was completely ethical and legal. 

Similarly, the case of Lehrman v. Lovo, Inc. demonstrates misuse of voice actors Paul Lehrman and Linnea Sage’s voices. (9) A Lovo employee reached out to Lehrman for voice recordings that were intended for “research purposes” only. (10) The company also contacted Sage and assured her that her voice would not be used outside of the organization, which did not require rights. (11) Going against the legal way to obtain use of Sage’s personal brand, in this case, her voice, Lovo violated Sage’s personal publicity rights. Legally, an organization must notify the actor of use and provide a written contract detailing the use of their voice or face, including pay and consent. Colleagues had to notify Lehrman and Sage about a voice that sounded “virtually identical” to Lehrman’s, and colleagues had heard the AI voice and mistaken it for Lehrman’s. (12) If it was so similar that the public thought it was the actor’s, the company clearly used his voice in a non-disclosed way. 

The court ultimately granted Lovo’s motion to dismiss, but acknowledged that the claims had merit under New York Civil Rights Law. (13) This implies that those injured have the right to sue if the performer did not give explicit written consent for the use of their likeness. Lovo set the principle that companies must have written consent from all parties any time that AI is used to engineer an individual into a photo, video, or anywhere it may circulate for it to be considered legal. 

The entertainment industry has been heavily affected by the recent surge of AI. Thus, it is imperative to have proper protections for performers so they do not lose control of their identities or get taken advantage of. Artificial Intelligence has not just impacted film and theatrical spaces; it bleeds into podcasts, social media, and even military defense. In Greene v. Google LLC, Google used former NPR Morning Edition host David Greene’s voice for a new AI Google podcast without his knowledge. (14) Greene did not receive any royalties and did not consent to the content within the podcast, raising an issue of opinion. If Greene’s voice was used in the podcast, it implies that he agrees with the content within the episode, which could potentially spark controversy and damage his reputation. Under Cal. Civ. Code § 3344 and Fla. Stat. § 540.08, the injured party has the right to sue for any accrued damages as a result of a legally obtained and created sound, image, or video. (15) Greene’s right to his public image is clearly violated when examined through these statutes.

The same concern for reputation applies to social media. There was a recent trend of internet personalities appearing in a series of fake Ring camera videos made with AI. A more famous instance was American actor and producer Nicholas Cage’s appearance in “movies in which he did not originally appear.” (16) As with the aforementioned cases, without Cage’s knowledge or any compensation, this practice is highly illegal. The technique used to manipulate the movie is known as a deepfake, defined as a realistic photo, audio, video, and other forgeries generated with artificial intelligence. (17) This is more common online, but has been used in government affairs, which poses a threat to national security. To combat this, the NO FAKES Act was introduced to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2026 to protect against this illegal use of AI. (18) Clearly, as AI develops stronger, more measures have to be created to negate the improper use of the software. 

As the unions adapt to the increasing use of AI, so too does the legal sector. There is no explicit enumeration of privacy within the United States Constitution. Still, the Ninth Amendment establishes that “certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (19) Thus, personal liberties are not limited to those in the Bill of Rights. Additionally, the precedent set by the Ninth Amendment allows the law to adapt to the changes of the modern world. With the growth of emerging technology, the law must extend farther than it may have been originally intended for. Thus, each case essentially reiterated one legal principle—the right of publicity. Each individual has the legal right to control their image. As AI is still a new and developing field, there is no exact legal precedent for AI use. Rather, states must create statutes and civil codes to legally protect against unethical use and rely on existing publicity laws to address new issues that arise. One thing is clear, however: stealing any attribute of an individual’s public image is entirely unethical. To obtain the right to use any attribute, there must be notice, pay, and permission from the affected individual. 

Endnotes

1. David Leavitt, “Alan Turing: Father of the Modern Computer,” Prologue Magazine 29, no. 3 (Fall 1997) (Washington, DC: National Archives and Records Administration), https://www.archives.gov/files/publications/prologue/1997/fall/turing.pdf

2. Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, "What Is the Turing Test?" https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-definitions/what-is-the-turing-test.

3. Center for Democracy & Technology, “The SAG-AFTRA Strike Is Over, but the AI Fight in Hollywood Is Just Beginning,” November 15, 2023, https://cdt.org/insights/the-sag-aftra-strike-is-over-but-the-ai-fight-in-hollywood-is-just-beginning/.

4. SAG-AFTRA, Summary of 2023 Tentative Successor Agreement to the 2020 Producer-SAG-AFTRA Codified Basic Agreement and 2020 SAG-AFTRA Television Agreement, November 2023, https://www.sagaftra.org/sites/default/files/sa_documents/TV-Theatrical_23_Summary_Agreement_Final.pdf, 4-5.

5. Merriam-Webster, “Likeness,” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, accessed August 4, 2026, https://www.merriam-webster.com/simple/likeness

6. SAG-AFTRA, “SAG-AFTRA Strikes Video Games Over A.I.,” August 16, 2024, https://www.sagaftra.org/sag-aftra-strikes-video-games-over-ai. 

7. Ibid. 

8. Ibid.

9. Lehrman v. Lovo, Inc., 790 F. Supp. 3d 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2025), https://advance-lexis-com.eu1.proxy.openathens.net/document/?pdmfid=1519360&crid=1ef3d261-6e17-4ab4-ab9f-20ce9394dd5a&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A6G7J-JDB3-RRRK-X2P9-000

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid. 

13. N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 51 (McKinney), Lexis+, https://advance-lexis-com.eu1.proxy.openathens.net/document/documentlink/?pdmfid=1519360&crid=291c6543-70cd-406c-82bf-406ae21294eb&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fstatutes-legislation%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A6BYV-VYR3-RXJK-R3GJ-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=9101&pddoctitle=51+of+the+New+York+Civil+Rights+Law&pdproductcontenttypeid=urn%3Apct%3A83&pdiskwicview=false&ecomp=g2x8k&prid=cc54d072-9541-4dec-8759-0865e5537b6b.

14. Greene v. Google LLC, No. 3:26-cv-01773-CRB, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164082, 2026 WL 2126440 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2026), https://advance-lexis-com.eu1.proxy.openathens.net/document/?pdmfid=1519360&crid=9a3cb2cd-967e-49ae-813c-d46ed002c535&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A6K46-KSM3-RRT8-4285-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=6419&pdshepid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A6K4F-SD43-RRMK-S3RP-00000-00&pdteaserkey=sr0&pditab=allpods&ecomp=hc-yk&earg=sr0&prid=05463746-b063-4574-9284-38f3a02fb534.

15. Cal. Civ. Code § 3344, “Unauthorized Commercial Use of Name, Voice, Signature, Photograph or Likeness” (current through chs. 56, 62, 63, 66, 89, 92, 93, 94, 100, and 101 of the 2025–2026 Reg. Sess., effective July 16, 2026), LexisNexis, https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:6GYW-7DM3-RS8X-9000-00000-00&context=1519360&identityprofileid=4VDQGQ54811; Fla. Stat. § 540.08, "Unauthorized Publication of Name or Likeness," current through the 2026 Regular Session, https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn%3acontentItem%3a65NJ-MYP3-GXF6-82WM-00000-00&context=1519360&identityprofileid=4VDQGQ54811

16. Laurie A. Harris, Deep Fakes and National Security, IF11333 (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, updated June 3, 2022), https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11333.

17. Ibid.

18. U.S. Congress, Senate, Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act of 2026 (NO FAKES Act of 2026), S. 4591, 119th Cong., 2nd sess., introduced May 20, 2026, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/4591

19. U.S. Congress, Constitution of the United States: Ninth Amendment, Constitution Annotated, Library of Congress, accessed July 30, 2026, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-9/.