SAG-AFTRA Weighs ‘Tilly Tax’ on Studios Using Synthetic Actors

Studios that use fully synthetic actors instead of human performers may one day have to pay a royalty into a union fund — an idea some in Hollywood are calling the “Tilly tax.”

The proposal is being discussed as SAG-AFTRA prepares to begin contract talks with studios on Feb. 9, months ahead of the current agreement’s June 30 expiration.

Artificial intelligence was a central issue in the actors’ 2023 strike, and union officials say the concern has only intensified since then. AI-generated images and videos are now widespread online, and studios are increasingly experimenting with digital performers. One such creation, Tilly Norwood — a fully synthetic actor unveiled last fall — became a flashpoint for performers worried about losing jobs to AI.

While SAG-AFTRA secured some AI protections in its last contract, those safeguards do not prevent studios from creating entirely digital actors that do not rely on any single performer’s likeness. Union leaders say a royalty system could be one way to address that gap.

“Is it a perfect solution? No,” said Brendan Bradley, a member of the union’s AI task force. “But it’s under the category of the best bad idea we’ve got in 2026.”

For now, the threat of another strike appears low. SAG-AFTRA and the studios have agreed to start bargaining unusually early, and there has been optimistic talk on both sides about reaching a deal as soon as March.

The studios’ negotiating arm, the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, has a new lead negotiator in Greg Hessinger, a former SAG official. Some union members believe his background could lead to a more flexible approach than that of longtime chief negotiator Carol Lombardini.

An AMPTP spokesperson said the studios are committed to reaching a “fair deal” that supports actors and the industry’s long-term stability.

AI is a major issue in the talks, but it is not the only one. Residual pay from streaming remains a top concern for many performers.

“The No. 1 thing is still residuals,” said Kate Bond, a 2023 strike captain and member of SAG-AFTRA’s Los Angeles board. “Is there a way to make it so when a show goes up on a streaming platform, we get the equivalent of a network residual?”

During the last strike, the union initially sought 1% of streaming companies’ total revenue, a figure estimated at about $500 million annually. The final deal instead created a “success bonus” tied to streaming performance, projected at $40 million per year — though actual payouts have been significantly lower.

Some actors say the shift from residuals to bonuses represents a major loss. Under broadcast and cable television, performers were paid for every rerun, allowing actors on popular shows to earn steady income for years. Streaming platforms do not operate on reruns, and residual payments are far smaller.

“I think we’ve lost our way when we’re negotiating bonuses instead of residuals,” said actor Jeffrey Reeves, who has been critical of union leadership.

Actors are also expected to push back against long gaps between streaming seasons and exclusivity clauses that can prevent them from taking other jobs during hiatuses. Self-taped auditions, which became common during the COVID-19 pandemic and often require actors to build home studios at their own expense, remain another point of frustration.

Still, many performers see AI as the most serious long-term threat. Since the 2023 strike, SAG-AFTRA has staged a yearlong strike against video game companies over AI protections and has secured royalty payments in some contracts for fully synthetic performances. In union commercials, if an actor is replaced by an AI performer, equivalent pay must go into the union’s pension and health funds.

Some union members say a similar approach could apply to synthetic actors in film and television.

“No actor wants that,” said Erik Passoja, a former co-chair of SAG-AFTRA’s Los Angeles New Technology Committee, referring to being replaced by AI. He called a “Tilly tax” a last resort.

“I say no, no and triple no,” he said. “But if it has to be, it should go into pension and health.”