Oscars Embrace AI: New Rules Allow AI-Assisted Films to Compete for Awards

The Oscars officially don't care if films use AI

Wes Davis is a weekend editor who covers the latest in tech and entertainment. He has written news, reviews, and more as a tech journalist since 2020. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences acknowledged the existence of generative AI yesterday in new rule changes for its annual Oscars awards ceremony. Rather than dictate its use or require disclosures, the Academy simply says using AI doesn't, on its own, hurt a movie's chances -- but that how it's used could. Here's what the Academy says in a passage added to its film eligibility guidelines: With regard to Generative Artificial Intelligence and other digital tools used in the making of the film, the tools neither help nor harm the chances of achieving a nomination. The Academy and each branch will judge the achievement, taking into account the degree to which a human was at the heart of the creative authorship when choosing which movie to award. As The New York Times notes, the organization almost went further by requiring filmmakers to disclose whether they used AI in creating a movie. The mention of AI is a first for the Academy's rules, as the Times writes, and a significant one given lengthy actor and writer Hollywood strikes that started in 2023 and were, in part, prompted by the rise of the technology and its perceived threat to creative workers in the industry. The Academy didn't just address AI with the new rule changes. Another new rule states that members are only eligible to participate in the final round of voting if they've watched all of the films being considered for a given category. But as the Times notes, it's an honor-system requirement, as voters self-certify that they did so, and don't have to prove it beyond that.

Movies Made Using Generative AI Can Now Win Oscars

Music made with AI can win Grammys, so why not movies? The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences this week said that going forward, films made using generative AI will be eligible for Oscar nominations. "With regard to Generative Artificial Intelligence and other digital tools used in the making of the film, the tools neither help nor harm the chances of achieving a nomination," the Academy says. However, it warns that awards will be handed out only after considering the human effort that went into the filmmaking. "The Academy and each branch will judge the achievement, taking into account the degree to which a human was at the heart of the creative authorship when choosing which movie to award," the announcement adds. The Academy's rule change comes after veteran director James Cameron promoted the use of generative AI in graphics-heavy films. To continue making films like Dune, Cameron said it's important to cut the cost of filmmaking in half -- without laying off half the staff. Generative AI can double filmmakers' "speed to completion on a given shot, so your cadence is faster, and your throughput cycle is faster, and artists get to move on and do other cool things and then other cool things," Cameron said. (However, his next film may include a title card that says no gen AI was used in making it.) Another notable rule change announced by the Academy is about voting eligibility. To vote, Academy members "must now watch all nominated films in each category." (Were they no doing that before?) Additionally, all nominees will be allowed to vote in the final round. The Grammys have similar rules to the Oscars. In 2023, Grammys CEO and President Harvey Mason Jr. said that while an AI-written song can't win without some human elements present, "AI, or music that contains AI-created elements is absolutely eligible for entry and for consideration for Grammy nomination. Period." Music labels aren't as enthusiastic about the tech; the RIAA sued two music generators for using copyrighted music without permission.

The Oscars have rolled out the red carpet for generative AI. And surprisingly, viewers don't seem to mind

The Oscars have entered the age of artificial intelligence (AI). Last week the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences explicitly said, for the first time, films using generative AI tools will not be disqualified from the awards. It's a timely decision. As generative AI becomes more integrated into filmmaking, debates over creativity and authorship are intensifying. Writers' strikes and fears of artistic displacement have dominated recent industry discussions. But how do audiences feel about the use of AI in films? Our research suggests they may be more open to it than the industry might expect. What the new rules say The updated Oscars guidelines make it clear the use of generative AI will neither help, nor hinder, a film's chances of nomination. What matters is the degree to which people remain at the centre of the creative process. While AI tools can be part of the workflow, the judges will scrutinise the standard of human creative authorship in a given work. This reflects broader shifts taking place in the film industry. AI tools are now embedded in many stages of production, including for high-profile and award-nominated films. At this year's Oscars, Adrien Brody won best actor for his performance in The Brutalist, which used generative AI to enhance the actor's Hungarian dialogue. Emilia Pérez - the most nominated film, with 13 nods - also used AI-powered voice cloning in post-production. The Oscars update isn't introducing AI to Hollywood. It's simply acknowledging the extent to which it is already in use. Do audiences mind? To understand how audiences respond to AI's creative role in film, we conducted an experiment testing people's reactions to AI-generated film ideas. For our study, published in the Journal of Cultural Economics, we asked 500 US-based participants to rate AI-generated film "pitches" in terms of their anticipated enjoyment and likelihood of watching the film across different formats (such as cinema, online rental, or streaming). Half of the participants were explicitly told the ideas were generated by AI, while the other half were not. Each AI-generated pitch included a synopsis, director, top-billed cast, genre, rating and runtime. The results were clear. There was no systematic bias against AI-generated pitches. Ratings of anticipated enjoyment and likelihood of watching the films were broadly similar, regardless of whether the participants knew AI was involved. AI-assisted versus AI-produced It's important to note our research focused on audience reactions to ideas - the initial pitch for a film - and not the final product. This distinction matters. AI's role was limited in our experiment. Human directors and cast members were implicitly part of each pitch, and there was no suggestion AI had written the full screenplay or contributed in other ways to the production of the final film. As we note in our paper, AI's limited involvement likely shaped participants' responses. There was an implicit understanding that human creativity would remain central to the final product. This aligns with broader evidence from other creative sectors. In the case of music and visual art, audiences tend to respond less favourably when they believe a work has been fully AI-generated. Together, these findings suggest the middle ground may be the best approach. While audiences may be accepting of AI's contribution to creative tasks such as idea generation, editing, and visual and audio effects, they still value human authorship and authenticity in the final product. That is also the balance the Academy Awards seems to be aiming for. The new rules do not disqualify films for using AI. However, they emphasise that awards will go to works where humans remain at the heart of the creative process. For now, audiences appear to be comfortable with that approach, too. What it means for the industry Generative tools are becoming part of the mainstream production toolkit. And this raises important questions about creative labour, credit and compensation. While our research suggests audiences may be open to AI-generated content, this doesn't mean the industry can move forward without careful deliberation. The question is no longer whether AI will shape the future of film, but how - and who gets to decide the terms. If AI is to complement, rather than diminish, the filmmaking process, it will be important to maintain clear standards and ethical guidelines around AI use, as well as a clear role for human authorship. This includes transparency around how AI tools are used, and appropriate recognition for creative contributions - including for those whose work has been used to train generative AI systems. The real test will be whether the industry can embrace AI without losing sight of the creative values that define it.

Using generative AI will 'neither help nor harm the chances of achieving' Oscar nominations

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has decide that its official stance towards AI-use in films is to take no stance at all, according to a statement the organization shared outlining changes to voting for the 98th Oscars. The issue of award-nominated films using AI was first raised in 2024 when the productions behind Best Picture nominees The Brutalist and Emilia Pérez admitted to using the tech to alter performances. "With regard to Generative Artificial Intelligence and other digital tools used in the making of the film, the tools neither help nor harm the chances of achieving a nomination, " AMPAS writes. "The Academy and each branch will judge the achievement, taking into account the degree to which a human was at the heart of the creative authorship when choosing which movie to award." While the organization at least reaffirms that human involvement is their primary concern, they also don't seem to believe that using AI -- potentially trained on the ill-gotten work of their membership -- is an existential problem. Hollywood labor unions have historically felt differently: One of several issues raised during the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes in 2023 was that AI could be used to replace the work of real people. The Brutalist and Emilia Pérez used it to modify vocal performances, but you don't have to connect too many dots to see generative AI playing an even more substantial role in the future. The Academy is more flexible than it's been in years, expanding membership, adding new award categories and alongside this AI statement, improving awards voting for the better. But it still seems like most industries are waiting for a decisive legal victory against an AI company to set a new standard before they change their tune towards the tech.

Oscars: Academy says films made with AI can win top awards

But AI use remains controversial, and artists and actors have voiced concerns over the material used to train such tools and its impact upon their livelihoods. Actors and screenwriters previously highlighted fears about losing work to AI during the 2023 strikes in Hollywood. "If you can take my face, my body and my voice and make me say or do something that I had no choice about, that's not a good thing," actress Susan Sarandon told the BBC from a picket line. And screenwriters are concerned studios would seek to cut costs and save time by using tools like OpenAI's ChatGPT for tasks such as researching, treatment and script writing, instead of humans. Safeguards around the use of AI were established as part of the agreements reached between unions and studios that marked the end of the strikes. But while some actors have seemingly embraced the technology, others, such as Scarlett Johansson, have issued warnings about its potential to allow abuse of their image or likeness. Animators told the BBC in 2024 generative AI tools were not yet good enough to be able to replicate the quality of their work - certainly not to an award-winning standard. "It's like having a bad writer help you," said Jonathan Kendrick, co-founder and chairman of global streaming service Rokit Flix. "Sure it will get an outline done, but if you need something with emotional weight, an AI isn't going to get you an Oscar."

Oscars 2026 rules confirm AI-assisted films can win top awards

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has officially set the 98th Academy Awards for Sunday, March 15, 2026, in Beverly Hills, Hollywood. Alongside the announcement, the Academy introduced major rule changes that reflect the film industry's evolving landscape, especially with the growing role of artificial intelligence (AI) in filmmaking. From revised voting procedures to updated eligibility criteria for AI-assisted films, the Academy is reshaping how the Oscars operate, both to uphold artistic integrity and acknowledge technological advancement.

Oscars set new AI rules -- here's what it means for the future of movies

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences just unveiled updated guidelines that directly address the use of AI in filmmaking, indicating Hollywood's careful but forward-looking stance on AI. Films using AI-generated content can now officially compete for Oscars -- but there's an important catch: Human creativity has to remain front and center. This announcement comes amid intense debate over AI's increasingly influential role in movies. Recent films have already showcased what's possible, including "The Brutalist," which used AI to fine-tune actor Adrien Brody's Hungarian accent, and "Emilia Pérez," which employed AI-powered voice cloning for its singing sequences. These examples highlight the thin line between human artistry and technology. But now, the Academy has officially drawn that line -- not by not rejecting AI outright, but by emphasizing that Oscar-worthy films must still reflect human ingenuity. Under the new guidelines, using AI won't automatically damage (or boost) film's chances of Oscar glory. Instead, it comes down to how integral human creativity is to the finished film. Projects leaning too heavily on AI-driven scripts, CGI visuals or automated performances might find it tougher to compete with those showcasing genuine human imagination. This reflects Hollywood's ongoing struggle to balance innovation with tradition. AI can streamline production and even enhance creativity by generating special effects and backgrounds to fine-tuning editing, but there are major concerns around job displacement and diminishing authenticity. The Writers Guild and actors' union SAG-AFTRA have already pushed back against AI encroaching on human roles, and the Oscars' new rules reinforce that stance, celebrating human achievement above all. Alongside addressing AI, the Academy introduced additional important updates, including mandatory viewing for voters. Now, Oscar voters must watch all nominated films within a category before casting their final vote. This responds to longstanding criticism that some members relied solely on buzz or reputation rather than actually viewing all the films. In addition, films created by refugees or asylum seekers are now eligible for the Best International Feature category, opening the doors wider for diverse representation. The Academy's move isn't about restricting AI, but rather clarifying its role as a helpful creative tool, not a replacement for human talent. As filmmakers continue exploring new technological horizons, they'll need to carefully balance cutting-edge innovation with authentic storytelling. For audiences, the takeaway is reassuring: The Oscars will keep rewarding films made by people, for people -- even when AI gives a helping hand along the way. What's your take on AI in movies? Should Oscar rules tighten up even further, or is this the right balance? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

The Oscars' new AI rule provides a tentative green light for generative tech in movies

Generative AI will "neither help nor harm the chances of achieving a nomination" Ahead of the 98th Oscars ceremony, scheduled for March 2026, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has made its first official rule regarding the use of generative AI in films. This follows a controversial 2024 season that saw Best Picture finalist The Brutalist (and, to a lesser extent, co-nominee Emilia Perez) come under fire for its use of AI to alter actor performances and create architectural drawings. As recommended by the Academy's Science and Technology Council, this new rule states: "With regard to Generative Artificial Intelligence and other digital tools used in the making of the film, the tools neither help nor harm the chances of achieving a nomination. The Academy and each branch will judge the achievement, taking into account the degree to which a human was at the heart of the creative authorship when choosing which movie to award." The new guidelines come alongside three other notable rule changes and additions: Faced with the choice to take a stand against generative AI or allow its controlled use, the Academy has landed on a rule that is decidedly neutral and does little to change the current status quo. While the Academy taking the safe route is hardly surprising, it arguably ignores Hollywood's history of always being at the forefront of embracing new technology - and at a time when the use of AI in filmmaking is becoming increasingly common. It's not the first instance of film critics and commentators coming out swinging against AI. 2023's Late Night with the Devil was condemned by some for its use of AI to generate a handful of still images that only appeared onscreen for a few seconds, but while it was one of the year's best horror films it was perhaps no huge surprise that it didn't receive any Oscar nominations - horror films rarely do. Conversely, a more serious historical drama based on a true story, such as The Brutalist, was sure to receive attention from the Academy, putting extra eyes on its use of AI. While it received 10 Oscar nominations, it's hard not to feel that the film's chances at winning Best Picture (which it ultimately lost to Anora) were unfairly tarnished due to its use of AI - although the fact that Adrien Brody went on to win Best Actor for his role in the film does somewhat undermine that notion. That's because Brody's AI-enhanced performance is at the centre of the backlash this film has received. Unlike French, English or Australian accents, which have all been poorly performed too many times to count, Hungarian vowel sounds are reportedly notoriously difficult - even for Brody, whose mother is Hungarian. So, while Brody and co-star Felicity Jones tried their best to offer an authentic accent during filming, with the actors' permission editor Dávid Jancsó ultimately opted for an AI tool to achieve perfection. Whether Brody's win hinged on that enhancement is impossible to say, but it's clear Academy voters were happy with this particular trade-off. AI isn't going away anytime soon, and in certain ways - like the voice enhancement in The Brutalist and Emilia Perez - it offers a subtle enhancement to the authenticity of an actor's performance. That doesn't necessarily make its use right, though. One could argue that an actor shouldn't be cast if their singing isn't up to par for a musical. If authentic Hungarian is a must, maybe hire a Hungarian actor - or, if you need the starpower of an Adrien Brody, perhaps audiences would favor the earnestness of an actor's performance versus technical accuracy. Hollywood workers have made no secret of their worries surrounding AI and its potential impact on jobs. The use of AI in the writing process was one of the biggest issues raised during the 2023 Writers Strike. It undoubtedly would have sent a powerful message if the Academy barred the use of AI in films outright, but that's honestly an unrealistic expectation in 2025. But, while it's pleasing to see the Academy taking into account "the degree to which a human was at the heart of the creative authorship", it's hardly a clear, measurable rule for how AI can and can't be used - and leaves the door open to future controversies. AI won't be going away anytime soon - but as much as you can expect it to pop up more, we'll undoubtedly see more films carrying disclaimers that proudly state no AI was used in their production, as found in the end-credits of Hugh Grant's horror outing Heretic. The Academy may have pushed the problem under the carpet, but with AI's growing influence it's unlikely we've seen the last rule change.

Movies That Use Generative AI Tools Can Still Win an Oscar, Says Academy

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has for the first time acknowledged generative AI is a tool used by Hollywood and declared it will "neither help nor harm the chances" of achieving an Oscar nomination. The New York Times reports that the Academy had been considering forcing filmmakers to disclose the use of artificial intelligence (AI) but in the end decided not to. This is what the Academy published in its updated film eligibility guidelines. "With regard to Generative Artificial Intelligence and other digital tools used in the making of the film, the tools neither help nor harm the chances of achieving a nomination. The Academy and each branch will judge the achievement, taking into account the degree to which a human was at the heart of the creative authorship when choosing which movie to award. The update to the rules comes after a controversy over the use of AI in The Brutalist -- which Adrien Brody won the Oscar for best actor for but at one point was tipped to win best picture with the row scuppering the movie's chances. It did, however, win the Oscar for best cinematography. The Brutalist's editor used an AI voice cloning software to perfect Brody's Hungarian so even a native wouldn't be able to tell that Brody, who has a Hungarian background, wasn't speaking the complex language perfectly. But the three-hour epic wasn't the only Oscar-nominated movie that used AI, Emilia Pérez and Dune: Part Two also employed AI tools for enhancements. And these are the ones that we know about. The Times notes that "simply acknowledging AI's creep into moviemaking is a big deal" for the Academy. AI was at the heart of recent contract negotiations between studios and creatives; it remains a contentious issue with many fundamentally opposed to the technology. However, movie producers are increasingly using AI. In September, legendary filmmaker James Cameron joined the board of directors of Stability AI. Cameron's role in the company will reportedly center around how AI technology can be used in special effects and CGI in filmmaking. Also in the updated rules from the Academy is a direction that Academy members must watch the films to be eligible to vote in the final round. Plenty are shocked that this rule wasn't already in place but as The Times notes, there is no way of proving a member has actually watched all the nominees.

The Oscars announces new rules for using AI. Sort of.

The Oscars has landed squarely on the fence about the use of AI in potentially nominated films. Following a widely publicised controversy around the use of artificial intelligence in Best Picture nominees The Brutalist and Emilia Pérez, the Academy has made its position of impartiality clear. In the latest update to the Oscars rules, released on April 21 to apply to the upcoming 98th Academy Awards set for March 2026, there's an addition to the "Eligibility" section: "With regard to Generative Artificial Intelligence and other digital tools used in the making of the film, the tools neither help nor harm the chances of achieving a nomination. The Academy and each branch will judge the achievement, taking into account the degree to which a human was at the heart of the creative authorship when choosing which movie to award." Essentially, AI won't help films get nominated for an Oscar, nor hinder their chances. Then, it will be up to the Academy's voters to decide whether the movie deserves the award. Brady Corbert's Best Picture nominee The Brutalist found itself amid public debate in January when editor Dávid Jancsó revealed in an interview he had used AI software by Respeecher to refine the Hungarian pronunciation of actors Adrien Brody and Felicity Jones (the former of whom won Best Actor). Jancsó also said that AI was used to create architectural sketches by Brody's protagonist Laszlo Toth. But The Brutalist wasn't alone, with Best Picture nominee Emilia Pérez also confirmed as having used AI to fine-tune lead Karla Sofia Gascón's singing voice. It's a neutral decision from the Academy during a time where the use of generative AI has sat firmly at the top of the list of concerns for Hollywood. During the 2023 Writers Guild of America (WGA) and Screen Actors Guild - American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) strikes, it was (and remains) a core issue. There's a few more rules added to the new Oscars rules, too. In probably the most "uhhh what?" update of the Oscar rules, the Academy specifies that "members must now watch all nominated films in each category to be eligible to vote in the final round for the Oscars." Actually watching all the nominees in the category you're voting on? Groundbreaking. As The Hollywood Reporter explains, the Academy will actually track what members are watching on the Academy Screening Room streaming platform to make sure they haven't skipped a movie. There's a small update for the Oscars' new category for best casting. Defined as "the process by which a casting director collaborates with a film's director and producers on the creative consideration, and selection of actors who comprise the acting ensemble of a film," the award will allow "a maximum of ten films" on the nominee shortlist. Plus, the best international film category also got an update, with filmmakers with refugee or asylum status now allowed to be represented by a country outside of their home when submitting. The Academy specified in the rules, "The submitting country must confirm that creative control of the film was largely in the hands of citizens, residents, or individuals with refugee or asylum status in the submitting country."

Movies made with AI 'neither help nor harm the chances' of winning an Oscar, the Academy says in new rules - but that's not the most shocking change

The 98th Oscars will be the first Academy Awards to have rules surrounding generative AI, and it means films can openly use the technology without hindering their chances of taking home a win. Following the controversy involving The Brutalist and Emilia Perez's 2025 Oscar campaigns, which were impacted by the use of AI to improve speech and dialect, you'd think the new rule change would be the most controversial addition to the upcoming year's overhaul. You'd be wrong. Instead, there's an even bigger issue that should be grabbing all the headlines and highlighting everything wrong with award ceremonies. While allowing AI to be used in any movie eligible for an Oscar win might sound controversial, the more controversial rule change highlights an issue that's plagued the Academy Awards for years. The statement on the Academy Awards website reads: "In a procedural change, Academy members must now watch all nominated films in each category to be eligible to vote in the final round for the Oscars." At first, I had to take a second glance, and then my jaw dropped to the floor. Yes, now Academy members need to watch all new movies in a category before voting, which means that we've had 97 Oscar ceremonies so far where that was not a criterion. How can anyone validate any Oscar win when, for almost a century, those who vote haven't even been required to watch the movies they are selecting from? Now, I'm not naive, so I always knew Oscars campaigns and marketing budgets played a significant part in propelling films towards a gold statue. However, I, and I suspect most of the wider population, thought that movies still had to stand out versus the field to win. Turns out, the Academy Awards are more of a popularity contest than I had ever realized, and up until this year, a good marketing campaign and getting your movie seen are probably enough to win. As someone who watches the Oscars every year, hoping for my favorite movie to pick up a top prize, I'm not sure how I feel about the news that Academy members haven't needed to bother watching the nominations until now. You see, I think it absolutely hinders the credibility of the Academy Awards in terms of how it's perceived by the general public. The regular people of the world, who tune in on TV every year, and have no ties to Hollywood, do not even know that there was no criteria in the first place. That said, does this now give the 98th Academy Awards and all the subsequent award ceremonies increased credibility? Like, at some point, someone from the Academy would've known that this rule needed to be implemented. But it would always end up in backlash, so have they just been putting off the rule change, in the hope that when they do make the adjustment, it goes unnoticed? I'm no insider, no Academy member, just a mere fan of cinema, and while now I'll look back at the last century of Oscar wins with a newfound skepticism, it does make me think that moving forward, the movies that deserve recognition are more likely to receive it. The new AI rule might be grabbing all the headlines, but for us "normies," I think we should be focusing on the fact that the biggest awards in cinema haven't required those who make the selection to watch what they're voting for. It's absolutely baffling.

The Academy Awards have new film rules. AI is now okay for the Oscars

Table of Contents Table of Contents AI is already mainstream in filmmaking Generate with AI, fight for the Oscars? How far is too far for the Oscars? In 2024, Hollywood was roiled by protests led by the SAG-AFTRA union, fighting for fair rights over their physical and voice identities in the age of AI. A deal was inked late last year to ensure that artists are fairly compensated, but the underlying current was obvious. AI in films is here to stay. Recommended Videos If there was any lingering doubt about the future of AI in Hollywood, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has just confirmed it. The body behind the prestigious Oscars honors says it is okay with the usage of generative AI in films. "With regard to Generative Artificial Intelligence and other digital tools used in the making of the film, the tools neither help nor harm the chances of achieving a nomination," the body said. In a nutshell, the final product is what matters. AI is already mainstream in filmmaking Now, focus on the word "generative AI," and not the colloquial term AI. Hollywood has been using AI tools for a while now. Filmmakers are using tools such as Axle AI for tasks like face recognition, scene detection, and transcription. Magisto relies on Emotion Sense technology for video editing. Then we have AI software such as Strada AI, which assists with file organization and remote editing. DJI's AI-powered autofocus system has also been used for tighter focus locking in projects such as Alex Garland's Civil War. Twelve Labs offers a powerful tool for scene identification, while Luma AI helps with scene rendering in 3D space. These are just software tools that deploy AI for technical tasks. More importantly, these tools are not necessarily generating the fundamental content that defines a film, such as visual scenery and voices. Generate with AI, fight for the Oscars? Generative AI is a subset of AI tools that creates content. Think of a chatbot like Gemini or ChatGPT writing a whole script for you. Google's Imagen or Midjourney making images from a text prompt. Or next-gen tools such as OpenAI's Sora or Google's Veo creating photorealistic or cinematic clips. That's where the problems begin. AI-generated videos mean a human artist, or two, lose their job. The same applies to voice generation and dubbing, both of which can now be experienced and generated in an eerily human likeness. There is already plenty of precedent for that. Marvel got some sweet backlash for using AI visuals in the opening credits of its Secret Invasion TV show. The Runaway AI engine was deployed in the blockbuster that was Everything Everywhere All at Once. But just how far can the input of generative AI go before it is flagged or disqualified from the Oscars race? Well, there is no hard rule on it, and the language used by the Academy is also pretty vague. How far is too far for the Oscars? "The Academy and each branch will judge the achievement, taking into account the degree to which a human was at the heart of the creative authorship when choosing which movie to award," says the institution. In a nutshell, it's up to the human voters to decide the artistic merit of a film. That would also mean personal biases about the role of generative AI content in a film will also seep into their voting process. But hey, multiple Academy Award winner James Cameron now serves on the board of directors of artificial intelligence (AI) firm, StabilityAI. One of the biggest names in the generative AI race, the company is also at the center of blockbuster copyright lawsuits against Getty and human artists. But the AI juggernaut in the entertainment industry is not stopping. The use of generative AI tools has also increased in the games industry after the landmark union protests last year, and the likes of Microsoft are even making tools to put AI assets into games. Would you want to play an AI-created game? That's up for debate. Should the Academy keep the art of film-making pristine from a tool that is notorious for unfair and unethical usage of human content for training? That fate has been sealed, it seems.

AI Use No Longer a Barrier to Win Oscar, Says Academy | AIM Media House

"The tools neither help nor harm the chances of achieving a nomination" The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has introduced official guidelines on the use of AI in filmmaking for the 98th Academy Awards. The new rules aim to strike a balance between technological advancements and preserve the core of human creativity in cinema. According to the updated eligibility rules, the use of generative AI and other digital tools "neither helps nor harms" a film's chances of receiving a nomination. Instead, the Academy and its branches will evaluate submissions based on the extent to which a human was at the heart of the creative authorship. The Academy's Science and Technology Council reflects increasing industry concerns about the role of AI in artistic production. It conveys a clear message: while AI may support the filmmaking process, it is the human touch that will ultimately be recognised and rewarded. The use of AI in filmmaking was much talked about after Adrien Brody won the Best Actor Oscar in 2025 for his performance in 'The Brutalist'. The film utilised generative AI to refine Brody's Hungarian accent. Furthermore, in an exclusive interview with AIM, filmmaker MG Srinivas from Karnataka discussed the challenges faced by low-budget productions in a tech-driven industry. "Technology has never truly benefited low-budget films, to be honest," he said. "The reality is that technology comes at a cost, and when a film is low-budget, it often means working with almost no budget at all. Meanwhile, a Bangalore-based filmmaker, S Narasimha Murthy, has announced a fully AI-generated feature film, claiming to be the first of its kind. The film "Love You", a 95-minute-long Kannada movie, was reportedly made on a budget of $12,000.

Oscars 'ok' the use of AI, with caveats

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has updated Oscar rules to state that generative AI and digital tools "neither help nor harm" a film's nomination chances, but achievements will be judged on human creative input. Members must now watch all nominated films before voting. Mandatory AI use disclosure is being considered for future awards.The Oscar gods embraced artificial intelligence on Monday. Sort of. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences said in a statement that it had updated its plethora of rules for voting and campaigning. Going forward, for instance, members must now watch all nominated films in each category before they can vote in the final round. (How will that be policed? It won't. Voters will need to confirm on ballots that they have watched each film, but they could still lie.) But one update stood out: For the first time, the academy addressed the use of generative artificial intelligence, a technology sweeping into the film capital yet hugely divisive in the industry's creative ranks. AI and other digital tools "neither help nor harm the chances of achieving a nomination," the Oscar rules now state. The academy added, however, that the more a human played a role in a film's creation, the better. ("The academy and each branch will judge the achievement, taking into account the degree to which a human was at the heart of the creative authorship when choosing which movie to award.") The academy had been considering whether to change its submission process to make it mandatory that AI use be disclosed. But it decided not to go that far. Simply acknowledging AI's creep into moviemaking is a big deal for the academy. Unions for writers and actors made protections against the technology a prominent part of recent contract negotiations. AI was hotly debated in Hollywood and among fans in the lead-up to the Oscars in February, after it became known that "The Brutalist," an immigrant epic nominated for 10 statuettes, used the technology to enhance Hungarian accents. Some people defended the filmmakers, while others decried the use of AI as unethical. In the end, Adrien Brody won the Oscar for best actor for his performance in "The Brutalist." The film also won Oscars for cinematography and score. Other nominated films, including "Emilia Pérez" and "Dune: Part Two," also used AI tools for enhancements. Some influential filmmakers have started to embrace the technology -- most notably James Cameron, who in the fall joined the board of startup Stability AI. But the debate rages on: Last week, Demi Moore, a recent Oscar nominee for "The Substance," apologized for using an AI app to transform her dog into a human in a photograph. After receiving blowback for the image, which she posted to Instagram, Moore deleted it. "I did not realize by sharing this image," she wrote in a replacement post, "it would be in such disrespect to the artists and creators of our world." The academy Monday also strengthened its "public communications" policy, which includes social media, ordering that any person or company associated with an eligible film "may not disparage the techniques used in or subject matter of any motion picture." The next Oscars ceremony, to be hosted again by Conan O'Brien, will be held March 15.

The Oscars new AI statement feels like the final nail in the coffin

AI has been a consistent concern in many creative spheres, but no sector has been quite so actively critical as the film industry. Despite recent SAG-AFTRA strikes and petitions calling for the regulation of AI technology, the Academy has confirmed that AI will not affect future Oscar nominees. Essentially, AI filmmaking is here to stay. While AI tools for filmmaking can have a positive effect on workflow speed and productivity, job cuts and a perceived decline in human creativity continue to concern those in the filmmaking industry. While the Academy attests that man-made work will continue to be celebrated, could this acceptance of AI technology lead us down a slippery slope where human creativity is outshone by AI? And do we have no choice but to accept it? In a new rule change for its annual Oscars awards ceremony, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences addressed its policy on artificial intelligence in a surprising and controversial move. Its new film eligibility guidelines read: "With regard to Generative Artificial Intelligence and other digital tools used in the making of the film, the tools neither help nor harm the chances of achieving a nomination. The Academy and each branch will judge the achievement, taking into account the degree to which a human was at the heart of the creative authorship when choosing which movie to award." While the rules state that filmmakers must disclose the use of AI in production, this detail didn't ease the strongly divided response from film fans. On the r/news subreddit, one fan responded, "Decisions like this one destroy art rather than make anything better," while another added, "Hollywood is salivating to replace VFX with AI." However, some took a more nihilistic approach, with one user writing, "The genie is out of the bottle. Hollywood is dying and the industry is evolving. It's a new tool to use, quality and originality will still be judged." In some ways, it shouldn't come as a surprise, as we've already seen big Oscar-winning films like The Brutalist succeed despite AI controversy. While the future of AI in filmmaking remains unclear, the Academy's latest stance stands to normalise the technology, redefining the industry as we know it, for better or for worse.

Will Artificial Intelligence Bag an Oscar?

Academy Declares AI-Enhanced Films Eligible for Oscars, Creating New Era in Award Competitions AI has silently transformed Hollywood while audiences remain largely unaware of its growing influence in award-winning films. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences recently declared neutrality on AI in filmmaking. Their statement confirms that generative technology "neither helps nor harms" Oscar nomination chances. This surprising position emerged after Best Picture nominees 'The Brutalist' and 'Emilia Pérez' admitted using AI to alter performances in 2024.

The Academy presents the first rule for the use of AI in movies ahead of the 2026 Oscars - Softonic

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences presents its first official guideline on generative artificial intelligence in film, amid growing concerns in the industry The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has established its first official rule regarding the use of generative artificial intelligence in films, shortly before the 98th Academy Awards ceremony scheduled for March 2026. This decision comes after a dispute in the 2024 season, where the film The Brutalist was criticized for its use of AI to alter actors' performances and create architectural drawings. The new rule, recommended by the Science and Technology Council of the Academy, states that the use of AI tools "does not affect the chances of nomination, as long as a human is at the heart of the creative authorship." Despite the Academy taking a neutral stance, this has generated criticism regarding its lack of technological leadership at a time when AI is becoming increasingly prominent in the industry. Although it could be understood as an attempt to embrace technology, this decision has also left an important sector of Hollywood concerned; during the 2023 writers' strike, the threat of AI to employment was one of the central issues. On the other hand, the use of AI in The Brutalist has raised controversies about authenticity and ethics in performances, especially in the case of actor Adrien Brody, whose accent skills were digitally enhanced. This has led to questions about the legitimacy of performances that could be considered lacking in authenticity. While the Academy could have chosen to outright ban AI, experts believe that such a prohibition would be unrealistic in 2025. As films begin to incorporate AI, we are likely to see more productions opting to distance themselves from this use, with credits indicating that AI was not used, as recently happened in the film Heretic by Hugh Grant.