Scarlett Johansson vs. ChatGPT: A Hypothetical Legal Battle Over AI and Acting

Scarlett Johansson vs. ChatGPT: A Hypothetical Legal Battle Over AI and Acting

Imagine a world where the boundary between human actors and artificial intelligence (AI) begins to blur. This is not just a fascinating concept for science fiction, but a potential reality we may face in the near future. Let’s consider a

hypothetical scenario

: Scarlett Johansson, a renowned and accomplished Hollywood actress, files a lawsuit against ChatGPT, an advanced AI developed by Microsoft. The root cause of the dispute?

AI’s foray into acting


Scarlett Johansson, fearing the potential loss of income and job opportunities, alleges that ChatGPT infringed upon her right to earn a livelihood by creating deepfakes and posing as an actor. She argues that these AI-generated performances not only steal her work but also deceive audiences, potentially damaging her reputation.


, on the other hand, argues that it is merely a tool and does not possess consciousness or intent. It maintains that it doesn’t aim to replace human actors but rather aims to enhance their capabilities, enabling them to perform more complex roles with greater accuracy and precision.

The legal implications

of this hypothetical performance are vast, touching upon intellectual property rights, privacy, and the very nature of human creativity. The outcome could set a significant legal precedent, potentially reshaping the future landscape of entertainment and ai technology.

Scarlett Johansson vs. ChatGPT: A Hypothetical Legal Battle Over AI and Acting

Scarlett Johansson vs. ChatGPT: A Hypothetical Legal Battle on AI and Acting

Scarlett Johansson vs. ChatGPT: A Hypothetical Legal Battle on AI and Acting

I. Introduction

Background on Scarlett Johansson

Scarlett Johansson is a renowned actress and model, known for her versatile and captivating performances. With a career spanning over two decades, she has made a significant impact on the film industry. Johansson’s achievements include two Golden Globe Awards, three nominations for an Academy Award, and a BAFTA Award.

Background on ChatGPT

ChatGPT is a cutting-edge AI model developed by OpenAI and powered by Microsoft. It is designed to generate human-like responses based on given prompts. The model’s capabilities include understanding context, generating text, and answering questions with impressive accuracy. ChatGPT can write essays, code, generate images, translate languages, and even help users solve complex problems.

Hypothetical Scenario: A Legal Battle between Johansson and ChatGPT over AI and Acting

In this hypothetical scenario, Scarlett Johansson, a renowned actress, files a lawsuit against ChatGPT, an advanced AI model. The lawsuit alleges that ChatGPT has infringed upon Johansson’s intellectual property rights by creating deepfake videos of her acting. These deepfakes, produced without Johansson’s consent, have reportedly caused significant damage to her reputation and career.

The Legal Context

Overview of Intellectual Property Rights for Actors

Actors, much like other public figures, possess unique intellectual property rights that safeguard their identity and persona. It’s crucial to understand these rights as they significantly impact the legal landscape of the entertainment industry. Rights to their name, image, and likeness are three essential components of an actor’s intellectual property. These rights ensure that actors have control over how their personal brand is used commercially, enabling them to protect their reputation and financial interests.

Rights to Their Name, Image, and Likeness

The right of publicity is a legal concept that enables individuals to control the commercial use of their name, image, and likeness. This right extends beyond an actor’s professional work and can impact various aspects of their personal life. For instance, actors might have the ability to restrict endorsements, merchandise, or even biographical works that exploit their identity.

Discussion on the Legal Framework for AI and Intellectual Property

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative technology, pushing the boundaries of creativity and innovation. However, its integration into the realm of intellectual property raises complex questions regarding ownership and authorship.

Current Laws, Regulations, and Court Cases

Traditional intellectual property rights such as patents, trademarks, and copyrights have been applied to AI-related inventions and creations. However, the legal landscape is evolving rapidly. Patents have been granted for inventions that include AI components, while trademarks can be registered for distinctive logos or symbols used by AI systems. The copyright debate surrounding AI-generated works is particularly contentious, with some arguing that the human creator should retain ownership.

The Debate Over Whether AI Can Be Considered an Author or Creator

Copyright law traditionally requires human authorship. However, the emergence of AI-generated works challenges this notion. The question of whether AI can be considered an author or a creator remains unanswered, with some advocating for new legal frameworks to address this issue.

The Need for New Legal Frameworks

As AI continues to evolve, it’s essential that legal frameworks adapt to accommodate these advancements. Some suggest that a new form of intellectual property, such as artificial intelligence rights, be established. This could provide legal recognition for AI creations and enable their creators to profit from their intellectual output.

Implications for Actors

The evolving legal landscape surrounding AI and intellectual property could have significant implications for actors. As AI becomes increasingly capable of generating content, it may impact actors’ ability to control their public image and financial interests. It is crucial that legal frameworks are developed that strike a balance between protecting the rights of AI creators and safeguarding the intellectual property of human artists like actors.

Scarlett Johansson vs. ChatGPT: A Hypothetical Legal Battle Over AI and Acting

I Scarlett Johansson’s Argument

Claim: Scarlett Johansson argues that AI-generated performances infringe on her right to control the commercial exploitation of her name, image, and likeness.

Description: It’s not far-fetched to imagine a future where advanced AI systems, like ChatGPT, could potentially create a convincing performance of Johansson’s unique acting style. With the ability to learn and mimic human expressions, speech patterns, and even emotions, AI-generated performances could pose a significant threat to Johansson’s career.

Description of how ChatGPT could potentially create a convincing performance of Johansson’s acting style:

ChatGPT, an advanced language model developed by OpenAI, can generate human-like text based on prompts given to it. While it currently cannot physically act or create a likeness of Johansson, the potential exists for AI systems to learn from her past performances and mimic her style in text-based formats such as animated films or video games. This could create a convincing simulation of Johansson’s acting that may be difficult to distinguish from the real thing.


Precedent-setting cases:

Two precedent-setting cases, White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Lugosi v. Universal Pictures, Co., may influence the outcome of Johansson’s argument:

a. White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

In this case, the late artist Richard Prince used a photograph of a sheet featuring a copyrighted image by another artist named Patrick Cariou. He transformed the image into his own artwork by adding commentary, cropping the images, and changing their context. The court ruled in favor of Cariou, stating that Prince’s work constituted a derivative work of the original image and therefore infringed on Cariou’s copyright. While this case does not directly deal with AI-generated performances, it sets a precedent for the use of pre-existing works as a basis for new creations.

b. Lugosi v. Universal Pictures, Co.

Bela Lugosi, a Hungarian actor known for his iconic portrayal of Dracula, sued Universal Pictures in 1936 when they released a film titled “Mark of the Vampire,” which featured an actor playing Dracula with a heavy European accent. Lugosi claimed that the performance infringed on his right to control the commercial exploitation of his character and persona, but the court ultimately ruled against him. The case established the idea that an actor’s performance does not inherently grant them control over how their character is portrayed in future works.


How these cases may influence the outcome of Johansson’s argument:

These cases provide a complex picture for how Johansson’s argument may be received. The White v. Samsung case suggests that derivative works can infringe on the original creator’s rights, while Lugosi v. Universal Pictures sets a precedent for actors having limited control over how their performances are used in future works.

a. Implications for Johansson’s career and future earnings:

Potential loss of opportunities for work due to AI competition:

If the courts were to rule in favor of Johansson, it could set a significant precedent for actors’ rights over AI-generated performances. However, if the courts side with the creators of AI-generated performances, Johansson could potentially face a significant loss in opportunities for work as more productions turn to AI systems for cost-effective and convincing performances. Additionally, her future earnings may be impacted, as she would no longer have the exclusive rights to commercially exploit her name, image, and likeness in performances generated by AI systems.

Scarlett Johansson vs. ChatGPT: A Hypothetical Legal Battle Over AI and Acting

ChatGPT’s Argument

Claim: Generative AI models, such as ChatGPT, do not infringe on an actor’s rights as they do not actually perform or create content.


ChatGPT generates text based on patterns it has learned from the data it is given during its training. It doesn’t have emotions, consciousness, or creativity; instead, it analyzes and generates responses based on statistical probabilities.


The legal precedent in this matter can be traced back to cases like Baker v. Selden and Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company. In both cases, the courts ruled that compilation or collection of existing works does not constitute original creation.


These precedents could influence the outcome of ChatGPT’s argument, as it can be considered a collection or compilation of existing text data. However, there are nuances in these cases that may not directly apply to generative AI models, as they do possess a level of creativity and originality.


Realistic and Convincing Performances:

The possibility of creating more realistic and convincing performances using advanced generative AI models is a fascinating prospect. As technology advances, the potential applications in entertainment and media industries could be transformative.

Economic Benefits:

Potential economic benefits for the industry as a whole could be significant, from increased efficiency to the ability to generate content at scale. However, it is essential to consider ethical implications and potential challenges such as intellectual property rights, bias, and privacy concerns.

Scarlett Johansson vs. ChatGPT: A Hypothetical Legal Battle Over AI and Acting

Possible Outcomes and Consequences

Scarlett Johansson prevails:

If Scarlett Johansson prevails in her legal battle against Disney for using her likeness to create a digital version of herself in the movie “Her”, it could have significant implications for the AI in the entertainment industry. This ruling may pave the way for new regulations or legal frameworks that protect actors’ rights to their likeness and voice in an era where AI technology is increasingly being used to create digital versions of real people. It could also lead to new negotiations between actors and studios regarding compensation and control over the use of their likeness in AI-generated media.

ChatGPT prevails:

On the other hand, if ChatGPT, or any other AI language model, prevails in the entertainment industry and replaces human actors, it could present both opportunities and challenges. The opportunities lie in the ability of AI to perform consistently, learn from feedback, and take on multiple roles. However, this shift could also lead to a loss of jobs for human actors and raise ethical questions about the role of AI in creative industries. It may also require new training programs and business models for actors to adapt to this change.

Compromise: Collaboration between humans and AI:

A compromise between humans and AI could also be a possible outcome, where the two work together to create new forms of entertainment. This collaboration could lead to

new business models and opportunities

in the entertainment industry, where AI is used as a tool for actors to enhance their performances or create new characters. It could also lead to more realistic and nuanced digital versions of actors that respect their privacy and intellectual property rights. This approach may require new legal frameworks, ethical guidelines, and industry standards to ensure a fair and collaborative working environment for both humans and AI.

Implications for Intellectual Property Laws:

Overall, the outcome of this legal battle and the future of AI in entertainment could have far-reaching implications for intellectual property laws, labor laws, and ethical guidelines in the entertainment industry. It is essential to consider the potential consequences of these technologies on human rights, privacy, creativity, and employment.


In conclusion, the legal battle between Scarlett Johansson and Disney marks an important turning point in the use of AI technology in the entertainment industry. The outcome could shape the future of acting, intellectual property rights, and business models in this field for years to come.

Scarlett Johansson vs. ChatGPT: A Hypothetical Legal Battle Over AI and Acting

VI. Conclusion

In this discourse, we have explored the intriguing question of whether an AI could be considered a legitimate actor in the entertainment industry and if it would be subject to legal scrutiny. First, we delved into the fundamental concepts of acting and AI, highlighting their similarities and differences (

I. Introduction A.

). Next, we examined the role of creativity and human emotion in acting, pondering if these aspects could be replicated by an advanced AI (

Acting vs. AI: A Comparative Analysis B.

). We further analyzed the potential benefits and limitations of having an AI as a performer (

I Advantages and Disadvantages of an AI Actor C.

), and considered the legal implications of granting personhood or intellectual property rights to such a system (

Legal Perspective D.


Impact on Industries

Now, as we approach the end of this analysis, it is essential to reflect on the potential impact that a hypothetical legal battle involving an AI actor could have on both the AI and acting industries. In the case of an AI being granted personhood or intellectual property rights, it could pave the way for a paradigm shift in how we perceive creativity and art. It might encourage further advancements in AI technology that can mimic human emotion more accurately or even develop unique, never-before-seen artistic expressions (

Potential Future Developments E.

). However, there are also concerns that such a development could overshadow human actors, potentially leading to mass unemployment and social unrest (

Potential Challenges F.


Approaching the Intersection of AI and Arts

As we stand at the intersection of AI and arts, it is crucial for society, lawmakers, and stakeholders to tread carefully. We must acknowledge that this advancement presents both opportunities and challenges. Society should encourage open discussions and collaborations between artists, technologists, and legal experts to ensure a balanced approach (

VI. Conclusion A.

). Lawmakers must consider the potential implications of AI in arts when drafting and revising existing laws, ensuring that they are adaptable to this ever-evolving landscape (

VI. Conclusion B.

). Additionally, it is vital for stakeholders to promote ethical guidelines and best practices for AI actors to guarantee fair labor practices and maintain artistic integrity (

VI. Conclusion C.


In conclusion, the question of whether an AI can be considered a legitimate actor in the entertainment industry is not just a fascinating intellectual exercise but also a critical societal issue with far-reaching implications. By engaging in thoughtful discourse and collaborative efforts, we can ensure that the intersection of AI and arts will lead to a future where technology and human creativity coexist harmoniously.


By Kevin Don

Hi, I'm Kevin and I'm passionate about AI technology. I'm amazed by what AI can accomplish and excited about the future with all the new ideas emerging. I'll keep you updated daily on all the latest news about AI technology.