Everyone in the creative industry has their eye on artificial intelligence, but those in commercial production may be watching even more intently than most.

Within advertising’s chain of creation, execution—where production companies tend to work—is seen as more immediately vulnerable to AI than ideation, which is more the purview of agencies. Indeed, the world of still-image production—e.g., illustration, concept art, etc.—has already been rocked by AI, and it’s only a matter of time before it encroaches on moving pictures as well.

At the same time, with their technical chops, production companies may be well positioned to harness and experiment with AI in interesting ways—to explore engaging new realms of creativity for clients and consumers.

This is the familiar promise of AI: It’s both an opportunity and a threat.

It presents other dilemmas, too. In terms of the threat, many in production want guardrails put in place to protect their work-for-hire creators before it’s too late—even though, paradoxically, it’s too early to know where AI is headed. In terms of the opportunity, it’s hard to know how to experiment with AI in ethical ways that protect those human creators—in a business where clients often put economic interests over moral ones.

More news: Brands add AI restrictions to agency contracts

There are few answers to these questions yet. For this story, Ad Age reached out to top executives and creators in production for their thoughts on navigating these issues as the industry hurtles headlong into an exciting yet daunting future.

A push from Under Armour

The AI debate, simmering for months, boiled over with Under Armour’s “Forever Is Made Now” commercial, released March 5. Directed by Wes Walker at Tool, the spot used a mix of AI, CG and previously shot live-action footage to create fresh imagery of boxer Anthony Joshua without having to shoot anything new.

The ad immediately struck a nerve.

Some criticized it for empowering AI over human creators. This wasn’t exactly true, since almost two dozen people worked on it, but it did hint at AI replacing more live shoots down the line. (The creators also didn’t do themselves any favors by failing to initially credit the prior live-action directors—a misstep that set off alarms, given the worries generally around AI stealing creators’ work.)

Others, though, found the UA spot intriguing, even reassuring, in the way it showed the current state of AI’s abilities—or perhaps more to the point, its limitations.

“I actually feel less afraid when I see stuff like this,” said Rhea Scott, founder and president of Little Minx. “It shows me that although we could cut corners with AI, those ‘corners’ are actually what gives great work its spark. No matter how technically proficient AI gets, people can always tell when something is lacking that spark.”

James McPherson, chief production officer at Townhouse, said Walker and his team deserve “applause for tackling the assignment, experimenting, ultimately helping to determine what’s currently possible [with AI],” but agreed the ad lacked emotional heft.

“I found myself more engrossed in the how rather than the wow,” he said. “Great Under Armour spots like ‘Rule Yourself—Michael Phelps’ make you feel the wow, the rush of excitement followed by goosebumps—the passion, hard work, sweat and tears that go into executing a great idea. This is not to judge those involved, but I think the lack of wow [in the new ad] speaks to the limitations of AI.”

Gustav Johansson of Newland, one of two directors who shot the prior UA footage that appeared in the Tool ad, said what emotion does exist in the spot derives mostly from that older footage, not what was AI generated.

“It is interesting to watch the spot and feel which shots actually ‘move you,’” he said. “I think it’s clear we’re not threatened [by AI] yet.”

Trine Pillay, managing director at Newland, agreed. “This debate has reassured me ... we’re still a way off from being able to truly create new films using [AI], she said. “Or at least, ones that have the same emotional resonance or sense of originality.”

AI’s growing capabilities

AI will continue to improve, however—indeed, it has the potential to improve indefinitely at rapid speed. As it evolves, it is difficult to know whether and how it will enhance or replace certain types of human filmmaking. Some believe it will become another tool in the arsenal, albeit a powerful one, while others predict full disruption across the industry.

“It does seem that in the not-too-distant future, physical shooting will be limited to documentary and current affairs—areas AI will struggle to take over,” said Simon Frost, co-founder of Witness, a production company that launched in the U.K. this month. “But production as a whole will certainly be powered by AI and the few people it requires to bend it to the client’s will.” 

Ari Kuschnir, co-founder of m ss ng p eces, predicted it will be a tool that complements and enhances traditional filmmaking techniques.

“The emergence of AI is a significant event, but will it disrupt the industry to the same extent as the advent of sound in cinema? While the transition from silent films to talkies fundamentally transformed the medium and left many stars and filmmakers struggling to adapt, AI will not render live-action filmmaking obsolete,” he said. “It may even give rise to entirely new forms of cinematic expression. I want to stir it in the direction of enhancing our storytelling capabilities while emphasizing the elements that make us uniquely human.”

Another optimistic view suggests AI, by streamlining rote tasks, will free up creators to be more human—to spend more time honing their craft, and expressing their humanity, which AI could struggle to emulate.

“I think most of us would agree time—or lack of time—is our main barrier these days. If agencies can leverage AI to reduce the time we spend on high-volume, low-touch creative asks, this is where I see it being most beneficial,” McPherson said. “The question shifts from ‘Will this replace me?’ to ‘How can this help me and the work I create?’ It’s about innovation empowering human potential. The essence of storytelling lies in human emotion, and from what I can see, AI doesn’t seem to replicate this.”

Angus Kneale, chief creative at Preymaker, said he likewise believes AI isn’t close to displacing high-end performance-driven film content. But he said it’s critical to plan for a future with AI, and experiment with it today.

“It’s really about knowing when AI is an effective tool and when there is a better way to do it,” he said. “I think there are enormous upsides, but equally it could potentially displace a lot of people. … These technological advancements are going to accelerate across the board.”

A call for creator protections

Amid this uncertainty, many in the production community are advocating for one concrete step they could take: to build in more creator protections in their agreements with clients, moving on from “work-for-hire” arrangements and actually owning the content they make.

“A way to protect the films we so meticulously create from being reduced, reused and recycled at a whim would be to lobby for a change in the contracts,” said Kamila Prokop, managing director of division7. “The production community would need to band together for that to come to fruition. A massive undertaking—and one that would need to be adopted internationally to work.” 

Also: Agencies use ‘AI interns’ to humanize generative technology

“As an industry, we do need to be proactive about protections,” said Shawn Lacy, co-founder and managing director of Biscuit Filmworks. “Clients own the work we create—and that is where this will get complicated and needs conversations.”

Creators aren’t the only ones looking to revise contracts. Clients themselves, worried about liability around AI content whose provenance is murky, have been reworking contracts with agencies, in many cases forbidding AI use without authorization. Some believe these client concerns could be good news for creators, at least in the short term, as clients look to experiment in the space—but limit their legal exposure.

“Most brands we speak with are concerned about using footage generated by AI for which they cannot clearly identify the source, which leads to litigation concerns,” said Matt Bonin, head of production at agency Alto. “As AI advances, I imagine a near future where it sparks a content race to film even more creative work, creating bespoke AI libraries that will need to continue to grow.”

“We’ve had more AI projects die in legal/moral reviews on the client or agency side than ones that have made it to launch,” said Mike Woods, head of immersive content at m ss ng p eces. “This is the big elephant in the room because if these models are trained on nontransparent data, then it’s going to be really hard to get legal approval from Fortune 500 companies or holding companies to take the risk. Thankfully, there’s a maturing multitude of new and inventive ways to guarantee transparency and develop our own trained data tools.”

In moving beyond work-for-hire arrangements, production companies could look at existing rights models in other creative endeavors.

“I think we should look at how photographers and musicians get royalties,” said Johansson of Newland. “Also, if the material is to live indefinitely in an AI world, we need to discuss what this looks like financially, and it needs to be outlined in all contracts going forward. I also think it’s very important that we directors, producers and production companies stick together and agree on a common goal and strategy to produce the work we actually care about and love doing.” 

It goes beyond financials, as well. Many believe industry-wide education and communication are critical to addressing the arrival of AI.

Along with fair compensation and attribution for creators whose work is fed into AI’s training datasets, “educational initiatives should be put in place to equip directors and creators with the skills to use AI tools effectively,” said Deb Archambault, head of production at PXP. “And we should establish forums for open dialogue between technology developers, creatives and legal experts to help navigate the ethical considerations of AI in production.” 

Others are less sure such protections would work.

“We could certainly be more demanding with how work is credited, but as AI improves there is very little we can do to protect commercial directors or creators in general because it will become impossible to know whose work AI is using to train itself,” said Ben Hanson, the other co-founder of Witness. “Many directors and production companies are passionate about filming and the magic of being on set. If they can pour that passion into AI prompting and video generation, then this can only be seen as a huge and boundless creative opportunity.”

Art in the age of machines

The topic of AI challenging human creativity is a highly emotional one—it can feel bleakly existential. But many in the industry are hopeful, even excited, for the future. Experimenting with AI can be exciting and energizing, they say, and figuring out how it works may in the end be the best protection against its oversteps.

“The introduction of AI represents a paradigm shift at light speed, something I’ve not experienced in our industry at such speed or scale,” said McPherson. “As with any innovation, I encourage my teams to approach AI with curiosity and an open mind. Providing a safe space for them to experiment and learn internally about AI’s potential—can it be inspirational, can it accelerate human thinking, provide new jumping-off points? That could help with speed to market, and more importantly provide greater novelty and engagement within the ideas themselves.”

“I believe the artistry and creativity of our film and advertising community will find incredible ways to leverage AI,” said Bonin. “Advancements will create new jobs and needs, but I foresee the disruption will be fast and uneven. It’s somewhat comforting to look at an unknown future and realize that 60% of the jobs we do today didn’t exist in 1940.” 

Others are confident, even defiant, that machines will never credibly mimic humanity—and that people will remain central to filmmaking, whatever else AI may bring.

“If the sea of change is inevitable, so be it. We’ll make our own island,” said Scott of Little Minx. “Sure, there are directors out there who might be OK with becoming ‘prompt engineers’ and replacing actors with algorithms. Those are not my directors. My directors care deeply about bringing their own humanity to their work, and the clients who come to them care about the same things. This humanity requires the intangible magic of film and filmmaking. It’s simply indispensable to the work.”