likeness

When Brian Grazer has an idea for a movie, he now starts with a chatbot. The co-founder of Imagine Entertainment — the company behind “A Beautiful Mind,” “Apollo 13” and “Liar Liar” — said he sits down with Anthropic’s AI assistant, Claude, to rough out a story before handing it to a writer.

“You can build the whole thing into an outline. You still need a screenwriter. I always believe you need a screenwriter,” Grazer said during a keynote at UCLA’s Entertainment Symposium on Thursday. What once could have taken up to a year, he said, now takes him about a week — but the human writer stays.

That balance — AI as an accelerant rather than a replacement — captures where much of Hollywood has landed in practice. Amazon MGM, Lionsgate, Netflix and Disney have all made major investments in the technology. The sharper question at the symposium, which drew many of the industry’s top lawyers and dealmakers to the Westwood campus, was not whether to use AI but how: who authorizes it, how far it goes and who gets paid.

For the companies building the tools, the answer increasingly comes from the client. Studios, production companies and distributors regularly approach Promise, a generative AI company, to bring AI into their productions, and each arrives with its own usage guidelines, said the company’s president, Jamie Byrne. Those rules govern which AI models Promise may use and what protections apply — effectively letting each client decide how heavily AI figures into the work.

“It comes down to a risk appetite,” Byrne said during a panel on AI. “We know that there’s talent that are staunchly against it. We know that there are many who are okay with it.”

He framed adoption as a competitive necessity: “Every time there’s a technology change, certain studios or production companies rise. Others fall, and it’s usually the ones that are not leaning into the new tool.”

Ron Howard, also of Imagine Entertainment, argued the limits will ultimately be set elsewhere — by viewers. “Sure, it’s about efficiencies and budgets, but more than anything, audiences are going to tell us where those restrictions are,” he said. He expects AI-generated content to settle into its own subgenre over time, with audiences signaling what they will accept.

The most contested ground is labor, where consent has become the dividing line. The emergence of synthetic performers such as Tilly Norwood has made AI a central issue in SAG-AFTRA’s contract. The union’s most recent agreement draws a clear line between authorized digital replicas, which use a performer’s likeness with their consent, and fully synthetic creations.

Talent agencies are organizing around the same principle. In recent years, Creative Artists Agency began digitally scanning clients into what it calls the CAA Vault, building a replica of a client’s image, likeness and voice while leaving the talent in complete control of how it is used.

That control is beginning to carry real value, said Tammy Brandt, CAA’s deputy general counsel, who said she is seeing more deals that involve digital likeness. Hollywood has been slow to work out how to monetize these replicas, she said, but once it does, audiences will start to encounter them more often.

“You have to lean into the technology and understand what it can do, and honestly, how you can make money, work with talent and with creative assets in a way that the user is interested in,” Brandt said. “There’s a little bit of trial and error as you go with that.”

Shai Gilgeous-Alexander apparently isn’t amused by a new board game that pokes fun at the Oklahoma City Thunder star’s reputation for garnering foul calls at the hint of contact by an opposing player.

Last week, a lawyer representing the two-time reigning NBA MVP sent a cease-and-desist letter to sports prediction market and fantasy sports company Underdog that includes a demand for the destruction of all copies of the cheeky and extremely limited-edition game Unethical Hoops.

Done in the style of the children’s classic Operation, Unethical Hoops requires players to use tweezers to pull objects from tiny holes, with the slightest touch of a metal border setting off a buzzer indicating failure.

Instead of pretending to be doctors attempting to remove body parts from a patient, however, Unethical Hoops players act as members of an opposing basketball team trying to take the ball from a cartoon character who very much resembles Gilgeous-Alexander.

In this game, the buzzer represents the whistle of a foul-calling referee.

“Shai has made hoops all about foul baiting and now you’re stuck guarding him in Underdog’s new board game,” a description reads on the game’s website. “Don’t get baited. Steal the ball without getting whistled.”

In a letter dated May 22, attorney Eric Fishman of ArentFox Schiff LLP demanded that Underdog “immediately and permanently cease and desist from any and all use of Mr. Gilgeous-Alexander’s NIL in any and all media, including but not limited to your website (including the Unethical Hoops Website)… and any physical goods including but not limited to the board game advertised on the Unethical Hoops Website.”

The notice also calls for Underdog to “immediately destroy all physical goods or advertisements that use Mr. Gilgeous-Alexander’s NIL, including but not limited to the board game advertised on the Unethical Hoops Website,” as well as a promise never to use the star player’s name, image or likeness without his permission.

Fishman did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Times.

According to the Unethical Hoops website, which remains active more than a week after the date on the cease-and-desist order, only 100 copies of the game were made, to be given away to Underdog users. The giveaway ended as scheduled on Friday.

Underdog declined to comment on the matter other than to point out that the company has pulled comical stunts at the expense of members of the sports world.

“We’ve poked fun at Knicks and Lakers fans, the Red Sox owners, the Mets and more,” a spokesperson said via email. “We like to have some fun with whatever is in the sports fan zeitgeist.”

Gilgeous-Alexander is a four-time All-Star who led the league in scoring last season (2,484 points) and was second in scoring this season (2,117). He led the Thunder to their first NBA title last year and has them back in the Western Conference finals this year (the decisive Game 7 against the San Antonio Spurs is Saturday in Oklahoma City).

While one of the NBA’s biggest stars, Gilgeous-Alexander is often criticized for the number of favorable foul calls he receives — he has ranked second or third in the league for number of free throw attempts per game in each of the last four seasons and is currently second among all players in the 2026 playoffs with 9.8 a game — and the lengths he appears to go to in order to receive them.

After Game 2 against the Spurs, one NBA fan account on X wrote, “Shai flopped on every single shot attempt” and posted a video that showed seven such examples (Gilgeous-Alexander actually attempted 24 shots that night). The post has been viewed 22.7 million times.

Earlier this week, prior to Game 6 of the conference finals, another fan account on X posted a video “ranking all 44 times SGA fell on the floor while shooting during the 2026 playoffs from least to most egregious.” That post has been viewed 1.3 million times.

As the cartoon likeness of Gilgeous-Alexander states in the Unethical Hoops ad, “so much as breathe on me, I’m getting the call.”

The real-life SGA was asked during a TV interview after Game 3 in San Antonio about the “flopper!” chants that rained down on him at Frost Bank Center.

“It’s part of the game,” he said. “It’s nothing. I’ve been dealing with it for a long time. I don’t really hear it. I’m focused on what’s going on on the court.”

“Yellowstone” and “The New World” actor Q’orianka Kilcher has taken legal action against filmmaker James Cameron, Disney and others she says used her likeness in the wildly lucrative “Avatar” film franchise without her knowledge.

Kilcher, 36, filed her complaint Tuesday in California Central District Court and is suing on numerous counts including misappropriation of likeness, invasion of privacy and interfering with possible financial gain. She is seeking an unspecified amount in damages and a jury trial. The parties involved in the making of the “Avatar” film series “commercially exploited [Kilcher’s] likeness in developing and continuing the Avatar franchise” and “systematically avoided alerting or crediting her,” the lawsuit states.

Disney and a legal representative for Cameron did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday. Cameron’s production company Lightstorm Entertainment, a California-based laser scanning studio and a New Zealand-based VFX firm are also among the co-defendants.

The claim at the core of Kilcher’s lawsuit is that Cameron in 2005 “extracted, replicated and commercially deployed her facial likeness” from a photo of a 14-year-old Kilcher as Pocahontas in the Terrence Malick film “The New World” and used it to inform the facial characteristics of Neytiri, a key character in the “Avatar” franchise played by Zoe Saldaña. Cameron spoke of Kilcher’s influence on the character in an interview with French YouTube channel Konbini. In the video, published in 2024 and noted in the lawsuit, James references the original sketch work for Neytiri. “The source for this was a photograph that was in the L.A. Times as part of the promotion for ‘The New World,’” he said. “It’s a young actress named Q’orianka Kilcher, who played Pocahontas in ‘The New World.’”

He adds in the video: “This is actually her lower face. She had a very interesting face. And I wound up meeting her years later and I gave her a signed print of this [sketch].”

The lawsuit alleges that the final look of Neytiri featured in the “Avatar” films “was not a fleeting inspiration or vague homage; it was a literal transplant of a real teenager’s facial structure into a blockbuster movie character.” In the 2024 interview, Cameron said the model of Neytiri had come to resemble Saldaña after she was cast. The first “Avatar” film was released in 2009 and grossed more than $2.9 billion.

The complaint also claims that the design process for Cameron’s Na’vi character moved on without Kilcher’s consent and that she was not compensated for influencing Neytiri’s design, further alleging that the film team’s actions “violated child performer laws and privacy laws designed to protect minors.” According to the lawsuit, the team behind “Avatar” did not “even attempt to have Plaintiff audition for the role of Neytiri” and refused the actor after her agent attempted to book a reading for the sci-fi epic.

Kilcher accuses Cameron of “creating a misleading narrative that she was simply unavailable” to appear in the original “Avatar” film and of leading her on with the idea of potentially appearing in later “Avatar” movies. Cameron released “Avatar: The Way of Water” in 2022 and “Avatar: Fire and Ash” in 2025.

The lawsuit said Cameron and Kilcher crossed paths at a Hollywood environmental charity event in 2010 and he instructed her to later pick up a “surprise gift” at his production offices. According to the lawsuit, Cameron gifted Kilcher a framed and signed print of the original Neytiri sketch with the note: “Your beauty was my early inspiration for Neytiri. Too bad you were shooting another movie. Next time.” Kilcher said she found the note confusing at the time. She had also contacted Cameron over the years, but “nothing concrete materialized,” according to the lawsuit.

The 99-page complaint describes Kilcher as an Indigenous actor-activist, noting she is of Quechua-Huachipaeri heritage. The lawsuit also alleged Cameron’s actions were hypocritical of his films’ messaging and detailed public backlash Cameron and the films faced for its depictions of Native groups.

“The result was a highly lucrative film franchise that presented itself as sympathetic to Indigenous struggles,” the lawsuit said, “all while silently exploiting a real Indigenous youth behind the scenes.”

According to her complaint, Kilcher “learned of the betrayal Cameron had kept from her” in August 2025, after video of the filmmaker discussing Neytiri’s design came across her social media feed. She “was shocked, heartbroken, and felt utterly betrayed,” and was motivated to reexamine and scrutinize archival “Avatar” materials. That included behind-the-scenes footage featured in a recent Blu-ray DVD release and an “Avatar” production art book, which, according to the lawsuit, did not credit the actor. The suit includes several side-by-side photos of Kilcher in “The New World” and various Na’vi characters from “Avatar” material.

In addition to damages and a jury trial, Kilcher seeks a public statement acknowledging her contributions and correcting “any false or misleading statement about her,” and payment of profits attributable to the “unauthorized” use of the actor’s likeness and identity.

Taylor Swift is entering her trademark era.

The global pop star’s company, TAS Rights Management, filed three new trademark applications last week, per the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. Two of the applications relate to soundbites of her voice, saying the phrases “Hey, it’s Taylor Swift” and “Hey, it’s Taylor.” The other is a well-known image of Swift, often representative of her recent Eras tour, featuring the 36-year-old onstage, holding her pink guitar and dressed in a shimmering bodysuit.

The push to lock down her public image comes at a time when many high-profile celebrities have called for regulations against unauthorized AI-generated content. Matthew McConaughey was one of the first Hollywood A-listers to leverage trademark law as an extra layer of protection.

In January, the “Interstellar” actor secured eight trademarks for his likeness, including images of him smiling and the iconic recording of him saying, “Alright, alright, alright,” from the 1993 movie “Dazed and Confused.”

“My team and I want to know that when my voice or likeness is ever used, it’s because I approved and signed off on it,” the actor told the Wall Street Journal in January. “We want to create a clear perimeter around ownership with consent and attribution the norm in an AI world.”

Registering a trademark for a celebrity’s speaking voice to defend against the prospect of AI-voice generation is a novel legal approach that has not yet been tested in court. Representatives for Swift did not respond to a request for comment on the intent of the recently filed trademarks. But Josh Gerben, one of the first attorneys to report Swift’s latest legal moves, said this is one of the growing gaps in intellectual property protection that AI can exploit.

Before AI infiltrated the internet, musicians, like Swift, would typically rely on copyright law to help prevent the unauthorized use and distribution of their music, while right to publicity laws would protect them from unlawful commercial use of their likeness. But with AI, users can manipulate people’s voices and images to sing or say practically anything.

So if McConaughey has a trademark on his voice saying a phrase, then theoretically any AI-generated voice that sounds similar to it could be considered a violation of that trademark, according to Gerben.

“If they have this trademark protection in place, then the [AI] platforms can’t use that same voice to create new content,” Gerben said. “Every celebrity would essentially have to go and do the same thing, but it’s trying to cut this off at the source as much as possible.”

Variety first reported news of Swift’s trademark filing.

As one of the most popular musicians, Swift has dealt with her share of unauthorized AI-generated content. She was previously one of the many female celebrities whose likeness was among several of Meta’s AI chatbot virtual celebrities. The illicit chatbots allegedly produced pornographic images. Before the 2024 presidential election, Donald Trump also shared AI-generated images of Swift falsely suggesting that she had endorsed him, including one of her dressed as Uncle Sam with the words, “Taylor wants you to vote for Donald Trump.”

Because Swift is such a recognizable public figure, Luke Arrigoni, the chief executive of Loti AI, a tech company that focuses on likeness protection, said trademark filings like these aren’t merely defensive but rather a setup for a long-term protective infrastructure.

“By locking down these trademarks now, she’s ensuring that if a brand wants to use a ‘Swift-like’ AI voice in 2027, they’ll have to go through her authorized gates or face federal trademark infringement,” Arrigoni said in a statement. “She’s essentially putting a price tag on her digital self, and that’s exactly where the entire talent industry needs to go to survive.”