Equity has today joined with other TUC unions to publish an AI manifesto for creative workers. The manifesto calls for new rights for workers to ensure that copyright law is respected and to stop the “theft of work” for performers and artists.
Unions are calling for a new era of tech-participation with an AI taskforce to bring together creative workers, unions and technologists. The negative impact that AI is already having on Equity members demonstrates the urgency of the situation and the need for the government to protect creative workers and safeguard the future of the creative sector.
Equity members are currently losing jobs if they refuse to agree to AI contract clauses; in other instances, members have found their voices being used by AI voice platforms without their knowledge, permission, or any offer of remuneration.
The TUC AI manifesto calls for:
- Transparency of AI training data to ensure workers know whether their data or image are being used.
- Citing sources and labelling content to maintain differentiation of AI generated work from human-created content.
- An opt in system to protect creative work from commercial data mining unless workers give their permission and consent.
- Ensure creative workers are paid fairly for their work when their creative work is used to train AI models, including both past and future appropriation.
- New likeness rights to protect creative workers from ‘deep fakes’ using their image and voice without permission.
- Stronger rights for creative industries workers to be attributed as authors or performers of their work.
- An independent regulator to oversee and regulate the integration of Artificial Intelligence into society and work, including the creative sector.
- A new creative industry AI taskforce that would bring together creative workers, unions and technologists to herald a new era of tech participation and engagement.
Commenting Paul W Fleming, Equity General Secretary, said: “The industrial scale theft of performers’ and artists’ work by big tech must stop.
“Equity’s groundbreaking TV & film negotiations show that empowering workers can help deal with the challenges of AI. The government’s proposals undermine an entire industry - bosses and workers alike - and threaten the efficacy of bargained solutions through unquestioning support of big tech.
“The government should embrace this AI Manifesto in place of their misguided proposals and recognise that it is people who make our creative industries successful.”
TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak said: “AI has huge transformative potential – and if regulated properly, workers could benefit from the productivity gains created by this technology.
“But UK law is simply failing to keep pace with the rapid speed of technological change and proliferation of AI at work.
“That’s why we are launching this new manifesto for AI and creative workers. Writers, actors, performers, teachers, journalists and other creatives must have a say over how their work and image is used, and they must be paid fairly.
“A new taskforce should be established bringing together creative workers, unions, technologists and government to manage the risks and maximise the opportunities of AI.
"The government should change direction on current proposals and go further to protect creative workers and safeguard the future of the creative industries. The sector is a jewel in the crown of our economy and vital for growth.
“The clock is ticking. Without proper guardrails put in place, rapacious tech bosses will continue to cash in on creatives’ work without their consent.”
Read the TUC AI manifesto for creative workersEquity is dealing with numerous examples of AI having a negative impact on the livelihoods of our members. Below our two case studies which demonstrate the negative effects of AI and the need for urgent government intervention to protect creative workers.
David’s story
David Holt is an actor and voice/audio artist with over 35 years’ experience working in the audio, voice and performance industry. In 2023, David discovered his voice was being used by a US AI voice platform called Uberduck, a commercial platform providing text to speech services. David’s voice was taken without his knowledge, permission, or any offer of remuneration.
David successfully challenged Uberduck, threatening them with action from Equity, and ultimately secured the removal of his voice from the platform.
David said: “I was so shocked to find my voice available on a commercial platform for use by anyone willing to pay a nominal fee without any permission or even notice of it. This is my voice and my living. What happened was frankly piracy, theft. To add insult to injury, the product was awful and made my voice sound terrible – not something any professional audio artist wants!
“I was lucky that the platform took my voice down, but I know other artists have not been so lucky and I still live in fear that my voice has been stolen and is being used elsewhere against my will. The law and industry practice simply has to change to protect creatives and end the illegal use of performers’ work.”
Leonor’s story
Leonor Lemee is an actor with 14 years’ experience in voice over and audio performance work.
In December 2023, Leonor lost out on a job because she refused to agree the AI contract clauses which would have signed away her rights forever, leaving her thousands of pounds out of pocket.
Leonor is an experienced, bi-lingual voice artist and was approached by a UK vendor for a job for a major US company. The work was to voice up to six characters in French and English and Leonor was told that around ten actors were being used in total.
Having negotiated a usage fee that she was pleased with, Leonor was concerned when a contract then came through which stipulated full AI rights – including both voice and likeness – for all uses in perpetuity.
The sweeping clause was alarming, and Leonor asked for it to be amended. She was first told that it was a standard contract and it couldn’t be changed. When she replied saying she had been advised by Equity not to sign it as it could mean signing away rights with no financial compensation, she was then offered an additional £1,000 to sign the unamended contract.
Leonor had found a colleague who was also in the process of being signed up for the same job – one of the ten artists involved in the project. Together, they stood their ground and didn’t sign the contract. Unfortunately, they both lost the job. Leonor made it clear she wanted the engager to delete any audition recordings and that she did not give permission for any use beyond that of the audition.
Leonor said: “This was a one-off experience, but it’s made me feel wary and cautious about any new jobs. Signing away AI rights became a condition of contract and I felt deeply uneasy about that. We should be reading our contracts anyway, but it makes me feel like it’s not a level playing field – I either accept the conditions or suffer financial loss. It’s ‘take it or leave it’. I’m pretty powerless other than being able to say no.
“We weren’t able to collectivise and push back as a bigger group of actors as it was difficult to identify who else was involved in the work. Since that bad experience I have managed to get a protective AI clause – the one provided by Equity – included in contracts, for example with audiobooks and smaller companies. There are engagers who do play fairly and include protective contract clauses – I believe it’s in their interests too. These engagers see the value in sustaining human creative collaboration and they also need protection from the exploitative practices of the big corporate actors.”
Over a year after this experience, Leonor hasn’t been contacted by the engager for other work. She’s noticed a reduction in her income and a lot of jobs not coming through as they used to, in particular genres like corporate, marketing and ‘lower end’ B2B style work, with a suspicion that it’s increasingly being fulfilled by AI. There’s a belief that ‘premium’ content will still require actors, but it’s unclear what proportion that is and how many jobs it will realistically sustain.
