Arnold Peter on The SERMAPod
Date: September 29, 2026
Watch the full interview on YouTube.
Artificial intelligence is changing how entertainment companies create digital characters—and raising important questions about consent, compensation, and control over a person’s identity.
In a recent podcast interview, Peter Law Group founder Arnold Peter discussed these issues through the lens of his client’s lawsuit involving the Avatar franchise. The complaint alleges that the client’s facial features were used to develop a digital character without her consent or compensation. The interview explores those allegations and their broader implications for performers, producers, and entertainment companies.
Documenting the Rights Behind a Digital Character
One of Peter’s central recommendations is a “human identity chain of title”: a documented record of the permissions underlying a digital character.
Just as producers track rights to scripts, music, and performances, Peter suggests tracking the photographs, videos, scans, and other human source material used in digital character development. That process should address what permissions were obtained, what uses were authorized, and whether the resulting asset may be reused or licensed to others.
Updating Contracts for AI and Digital Replicas
The discussion also examines why traditional “name and likeness” provisions deserve closer attention as technology evolves.
Digital replication can extend beyond facial appearance to voice, movements, gestures, and mannerisms. Peter identifies compensation, license duration, AI training, modification, and future reuse as important subjects for contract negotiations.
He also highlights the particular challenges facing newer performers, whose limited bargaining power may make it harder to negotiate meaningful protections.
Reviewing Production Practices and Insurance
Peter identifies several statements that should prompt a closer rights review, including assurances that an image was found online, used only as a reference, changed by AI, or cleared by a vendor.
His broader point is that production teams should investigate the source material and permissions behind a digital asset rather than rely solely on how the finished character looks.
The conversation closes with the potential implications for errors and omissions insurance, including coverage, exclusions, vendor responsibilities, and underwriting practices.
As digital production tools advance, the interview offers a practical message: entertainment contracts, clearance procedures, and insurance reviews need to account for how human identity is captured, transformed, and reused.
