The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has taken a key step by establishing, for the first time and explicitly, What role can artificial intelligence play in the Oscars?Starting with the 99th edition, scheduled for March 2027, the organizing body Hollywood awards It makes clear that AI can be used as a tool, but it will not be recognized as an author or interpreter in the most sensitive categories.
This regulatory shift seeks to bring order at a time when generative models for text, images, and video have raised concerns within the industry. The Academy wants to protect human authorship and the integrity of the awards, without closing the door to new technologies, and even reserves the right to request detailed information from the teams of each film to clarify how AI has been used.
AI will not be able to win Oscars for acting or screenwriting.
The most significant change affects the categories of interpretation and writing. From now on, The acting awards can only be given for works demonstrably performed by individualswith their express consent and with their presence in the official film credits. In other words, a face or voice generated by algorithms, without human involvement, is not allowed.
In practice, this precludes a complete digital recreation, built solely with generative AI, from being considered a legitimate interpretation. The Academy insists that An image or a synthetic model is not equivalent to an actorhowever realistic the result on screen may seem.
Meanwhile, the Oscar rules emphasize that The scripts must be of human authorship to enter the competitionA screenplay written entirely by a language model is ineligible for nominations for best original or adapted screenplay. Software or AI tools may be used during the process, but only if it is clear that the creative core, final decisions, and authorial responsibility remain with people.
To guarantee this, the Academy reserves the right to request additional documentation from the producers and screenwritersIf there are indications that AI has played a significant role, the agency may request clarification on who made the creative decisions and how the machine-generated results were integrated into the final text.
Human performance at the center: from synthetic actors to hybrid cases
One of the most delicate debates revolves around the so-called “synthetic interpretations” and posthumous recreationsIn recent months, there has been a proliferation of examples of faces and voices created from scratch using AI, as well as projects that aim to bring back deceased performers using models trained with their image.
The new rules directly address this phenomenon: any award-nominated paper must to be supported by a physical performance carried out by a human beingwho is listed in the film's legal credits and has given their consent. This excludes characters generated entirely by algorithms, however sophisticated the technology behind them.
The Academy, however, does not rule out hybrid cases, in which Technology serves to transform or amplify a real interpretationThe classic example is that of characters created using motion capture, such as the famous creature Gollum, where an actor's work is combined with intensive digital processing. In these cases, it will be assessed whether the core of the work remains human.
Oscar organizers have made it clear that these situations will be reviewed. case by caseIf the performance originates from a live performer and AI is used as an enhancement or stylization tool, it is more likely to be considered eligible. Conversely, if the substantial part of the performance comes from an automated system without human input, it will be excluded from nominations.
This approach also seeks to address the concerns of professional unions, very active in the United States and with an impact in Europe, which have long been warning of risks of mass replacement of actors and actresses by digital models trained with their gestures and voices without clear control.
AI doesn't disqualify a film, but it doesn't give it an advantage either.
Beyond interpretation and script, the Academy wanted to clarify its general stance: A film will not be automatically disqualified for using artificial intelligenceBoth in public statements and in declarations to international agencies, it is emphasized that AI tools "neither help nor harm" the chances of achieving a nomination.
In practice, this means that the use of AI in visual effects, post-production, sound design, or internal filming processes can be perfectly compatible with the Oscars, provided that creative authorship continues to rest with identifiable individualsThe focus of the new rules is on who makes the artistic decisions, not on the type of software used.
The Academy reserves the right to ask each team questions. What role has AI played in the development of the work: whether it has been just another tool within the workflow or whether it has taken on tasks typical of a creator, such as writing complete dialogues, designing performances from scratch, or making key narrative decisions.
This approach aims to find a balance between innovation and tradition: to allow that the industry experiments with emerging technologiesBut the award shouldn't end up recognizing an algorithmic model instead of a real, flesh-and-blood professional. In a context where generative AI is advancing very rapidly, the Academy makes it clear that it will review these criteria frequently.
Context: fear, regulation, and an industry in full transformation
The Oscar decisions come at a particularly tense time for Hollywood and, by extension, for the European audiovisual sector. The rise of the Generic AI for video, images, and text has sparked fears directors, screenwriters, actors and technicians are concerned about the possibility that studios will opt to cut costs by replacing human talent with automated solutions.
Over the past few months, professional unions have warned that, without clear limits, cases of [unclear] could multiply. non-consensual recreations, permanent digital actors, and scripts generated by algorithms without remunerating or crediting the original authors whose work serves as the basis for the models. This debate has been evident both in the negotiation of agreements in the United States and in the monitoring carried out by European academies.
With this set of rules, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is trying to send a signal to the rest of the industry: AI can be expanded as a tool, but The awards will continue to be linked to human workIn an environment where even virtual influencers created entirely by AI have become popular, the message is that these "synthetic actors" will not be candidates for an award.
At the same time, it is not an absolute technological ban. The institution acknowledges that cinema has always incorporated advances—from sound to color, including computer-generated effects—and that AI will be another piece of that change processThe aim is to draw a clear line between the use of technical tools and the direct replacement of creators by automated systems.
In Europe, where many productions depend on international co-productions and public funding, these decisions are followed with interest. European producers and filmmakers aspiring to compete at the Oscars will have to Keep these criteria in mind when integrating AI into your projectsespecially in relation to scriptwriting and the work of the performers.
Ultimately, the Academy's move creates a framework in which films can continue to experiment with algorithms, but The award-winning artistic decisions will continue to bear a name and surname.AI is entering the Oscar landscape as an element to be closely watched, not as the absolute protagonist, and it forces filmmakers around the world, including in Spain and the rest of Europe, to rethink how to work with this technology if they want to stay in the running for the statuette without calling into question the human authorship of their works.
