The second strike for video game voice actors and motion capture performers under the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), started this morning.
This decision comes after nearly two years of negotiations with gaming giants like Activision, Warner Bros., and Walt Disney over a new interactive media agreement.
SAG-AFTRA negotiators say they have made progress on wages and job safety in the video game contract, but the studios refuse to agree on regulating generative AI.
The union said that without proper rules, game companies could train AI to mimic an actor’s voice or create a digital replica of their likeness without consent or fair payment.
The union’s president Fran Drescher stated that members would not accept a contract allowing companies to “abuse AI.”
She said, “Enough is enough. When these companies get serious about offering an agreement our members can live – and work – with, we will be here, ready to negotiate.”
The last interactive contract, which expired in November 2022, did not include AI protections but did secure a bonus payment structure for voice actors and performance capture artists after an 11-month strike that began in October 2016.
That strike was the first significant labour action from SAG-AFTRA following the merger of Hollywood’s two most prominent actors’ unions in 2012.
The video game agreement covers more than 2,500 “off-camera (voiceover) performers, on-camera (motion capture, stunt) performers, stunt coordinators, singers, dancers, puppeteers, and background performers,” according to the union.
During the tense negotiations, SAG-AFTRA created a separate contract for indie and lower-budget video game projects in February. This tiered-budget independent interactive media agreement includes some AI protections that the major video game companies have rejected.
Chair of the Interactive Media Agreement Negotiating Committee Sarah Elmaleh said: “Eighteen months of negotiations have shown us that our employers are not interested in fair, reasonable AI protections, but rather flagrant exploitation.”