AI avatars are creating a new income stream for performers, but the trade-off can be severe. Several actors who sold rights to their face and voice now say they did not fully understand where their digital likenesses could appear, or how difficult it could be to distance themselves from videos they dislike.
The issue is not only whether an actor is paid. It is whether a performer keeps meaningful control after signing away rights to a face, voice, and identity that can be reused in online video at scale.
Quick Money, Lasting Visibility
For actors under financial pressure, licensing an AI likeness can look simple. The work may involve appearing in front of a green screen, making different facial expressions, and receiving a check.
Adam Coy, a 29-year-old New York-based actor, licensed rights to his face and voice to MCM for one year for $1,000. He later told the AFP that he had not stopped to ask himself, “am I crossing a line by doing this?”
The consequences became personal when his partner’s mother found videos in which he appeared as a doomsayer predicting disasters. Coy described it as “surreal” to be shown as a con artist selling a dystopian future, though he also said the payment was “decent money for little work.”
South Korean actor Simon Lee had a similar shock. He told the AFP he was “stunned” to discover his AI likeness promoting “questionable health cures on TikTok and Instagram.” He said he felt ashamed that his face had become connected to obvious scams.
The Contract Is the Real Product
The central risk is not just the technology. It is the contract that defines what a company can do with an actor’s likeness after the recording session ends.
Alyssa Malchiodi, a lawyer who has advocated for actors, told the AFP that “the clients I’ve worked with didn’t fully understand what they were agreeing to at the time.” She said some contracts included “clauses considered abusive,” and could grant “worldwide, unlimited, irrevocable exploitation, with no right of withdrawal.”
That kind of language matters because an AI avatar is not a single finished performance. It can be used repeatedly, across contexts the performer may not have imagined when signing.
Malchiodi identified one warning sign clearly: “One major red flag is the use of broad, perpetual and irrevocable language that gives the company full ownership or unrestricted rights to use a creator’s voice, image, and likeness across any medium.”
For a performer, that means the practical question is broader than the size of the upfront payment. The larger issue is whether the deal leaves any route to object, withdraw, or limit future uses.
Synthesia Shows the Scale of the Market
The market for AI video avatars is growing around enterprise demand. UK-based Synthesia doubled its valuation to $2.1 billion in January, according to CNBC, and The Guardian reported that the company struck a $2 billion deal with Shutterstock to make its AI avatars more human-like.
Synthesia has also launched an equity fund for actors. The company said actors behind the most popular AI avatars or featured in its marketing campaigns can receive options in “a pool of our company shares” worth $1 million.
According to Synthesia, “These actors will be part of the program for up to four years, during which their equity awards will vest monthly.”
Since 2023, Synthesia has sold its avatars to about half of Fortune 500 companies, Bloomberg reported. Alexandru Voica, Synthesia’s head of corporate affairs, told Ars that figure has risen to 70 percent.
Voica also told Ars that “the typical Synthesia user is an employee from a Fortune 500 company,” which he contrasted with less-policed AI apps that “tend to generate marketing content that very quickly turns into AI slop, misinformation or fraud.”
Moderation Can Still Miss Harmful Uses
Even when a company says it is building AI avatars ethically, moderation can fail. British actor Connor Yeates told the AFP that his video was “used to promote Ibrahim Traore, the president of Burkina Faso who took power in a coup in 2022.” The article says that use violated Synthesia’s terms.
Voica said the problem came from an earlier moderation gap. “Three years ago, a few videos slipped our content moderation partly because there was a gap in our enforcement for factually accurate but polarizing type content or videos with exaggerated claims or propaganda, for example,” he said.
Yeates was paid about $5,000 for a three-year contract with Synthesia. He said he signed because he does not “have rich parents and needed the money.” The case illustrates how a deal that solves an immediate financial need can later attach an actor’s face to material the actor did not expect.
Opt-Outs Help, But They Do Not Erase the Past
Synthesia says it is creating a talent program intended to give actors a voice in AI avatar decisions. Its blog said, “By involving actors in decision-making processes, we aim to create a culture of mutual respect and continuous improvement.”
The company also says it has security features, works to reduce abuse, and protects actors from harmful content. One important restriction is that its AI avatars are limited in paid advertisements on social media or broadcast media.
Synthesia also offers actors opt-out controls they can use “at any point, if they no longer wish for their corresponding stock avatar to be used in new videos.” That gives performers some future control, but it does not remove videos that already exist.
The lesson for actors is clear: an AI avatar deal is not merely a short recording job. It is a rights agreement over identity, reputation, and future visibility. As the technology becomes more useful to companies, performers will need to understand not only what they are paid, but what they are giving up.