Performers' Guild Pilots a Consent Registry for Digital Likeness

Illustrative / Launch edition: the guild, its registry and all people named are fictional.

For years, performers have been asked to sign away uses of their face and voice in contracts that read like fine print written for a technology that did not yet exist. The fictional Performers & Voice Artists Guild (PVAG) is piloting a different approach: a consent registry where members record, in advance and in plain terms, what they will and will not allow. Studios and developers would check the registry before building a digital replica. It is a pilot, and its designers are candid that it is an experiment.

What a registry entry contains

Each performer's entry is built from a handful of fields. There is an identity section, verified by the guild, so that an entry cannot be filed by an impostor. There is a scope section covering which attributes are in play: face, voice, movement, or any combination. There is a purpose section listing categories of use, such as film, games, advertising or education. And there are conditions: territories, time limits, and requirements for approval or credit.

Consent tiers

The most talked-about design choice is the use of tiers. Rather than a binary yes or no, a performer picks a level for each category of use.

• Not permitted: no replica may be made for this purpose, whatever the offer.
• Ask first: each project needs a fresh request and a specific agreement.
• Permitted with conditions: pre-approved uses within stated limits, such as a set period and a named type of project.
• Open licence: broad permission, intended for performers who want to participate widely.

The fictional voice actor Lucia Brandt filed an entry that says no to advertising, ask first for games, and conditions-only for audiobook narration. She says the exercise itself was clarifying. "I had never sat down and decided where my own lines were," she said.

Revocation and royalties

Consent that cannot be withdrawn is a trap, so the registry includes a revocation mechanism. A performer can update an entry at any time, and the change applies to new projects from that point. Existing finished work is handled by the terms of the original agreement, which is why the guild urges members to read the contract that sits behind any registry entry. Revocation cannot unmake a film, but it can stop a performer's likeness being reused again and again without a fresh conversation.

The registry also floats a royalties concept. Instead of a one-time fee for a replica that might work for years, performers could attach a payment model to each use: a fee per project, a share tied to reuse, or a combination. The pilot does not process payments. It simply records the preferred model so negotiations start from the performer's position and not the studio's.

Verification and how studios would use it

For the registry to matter, studios must check it. The pilot imagines a simple lookup: before building a replica, a production confirms that the performer has an entry, reads the relevant tier, and files a request where needed. Each lookup leaves a record, creating an audit trail that can show who asked, when and for what. A guild-verified signature on an agreement helps confirm that the performer, not a third party, actually agreed.

Verification also works in the other direction. If a questionable replica appears, the registry offers a quick way to see whether the performer ever consented. That does not settle disputes by itself, but it provides a factual starting point.

The critics' case

Not everyone is convinced. Critics raise three main concerns. First, the burden falls on performers. Asking every actor to maintain a digital record of their boundaries feels like homework imposed by a technology they did not choose. Second, privacy: a registry listing performers' faces, voices and preferences is itself a sensitive database, and a breach could be damaging. Third, reach: a registry only works if companies agree to consult it, and a voluntary system leaves gaps.

A registry is a good tool in the hands of people who intend to use it. It cannot make anyone intend. — Rosalind Achterberg, fictional talent agent and pilot adviser

The guild's answer is that the pilot is deliberately small, that data security is a design priority, and that the aim is to produce evidence about what works before asking anyone to rely on it. That is a modest claim, but an honest one.

What to watch

Watch whether studios sign up to check it, whether the tiers prove usable in practice, and whether performers find the process empowering or exhausting. The registry will not solve every problem of digital likeness. It does shift the starting point of the conversation, from "what can we get you to sign" to "what have you already told us". For performers who have spent years on the back foot, that is a worthwhile change of direction.