AI Might be a Threat that Computer-Generated Graphics Have Not Been

Netflix has guidelines for use of generative AI based on five main points:

• The outputs do not replicate or substantially recreate identifiable characteristics of unowned or copyrighted material, or infringe any copyright-protected works (respect for copyright)

• The generative tools used do not store, reuse or train on production data inputs or outputs (data security)

• Where possible, generative tools are used in an enterprise-secured environment to safeguard inputs 

• Generated material is temporary and not part of the final deliverables

• GenAI is not used to replace or generate new talent performances or union-covered work without consent.

The guidelines also caution against creating content that could be mistaken for real events, people, or statements. 

Of course, as a practical matter, all that will have to be monitored and verified. Perhaps the areas of greatest concern are final character designs and key visuals; talent replication and use of unowned training data. 

Proposed Use Case	Action	Rationale
Using GenAI for ideation only (moodboards, reference images)	✅	Low risk, non-final, likely not needing escalation if guiding principles are followed.
Using GenAI to generate background elements (e.g., signage, posters) that appear on camera		Use judgment: Incidental elements may be low risk, but if story-relevant, please escalate.
Using GenAI to create final character designs or key visuals		Requires escalation as it could impact legal rights, audience perception, or union roles.
Using GenAI for talent replication (re-ageing, or synthetic voices)		Requires escalation for consent and legal review.
Using unowned  training data (e.g., celebrity faces, copyrighted art)		Needs escalation due to copyright and other rights risk.
Using Netflix's proprietary material		Needs escalation for review if outside secure enterprise tools.

Some observers might liken the use of generative AI to the use of computer-generated graphics. It might be argued that CGI did not broadly automate creative work, as AI might threaten to do, in some cases. 

While CGI technology does automate certain repetitive or technical tasks, the work typically requires direct human input, creative intent, and iterative collaboration, some would argue. And while CGI shifted some jobs from traditional effects (such as practical props) to digital, it did not broadly automate creative work. 

AI, on the other hand, arguably can drastically reduce the need for human artists, writers, and designers, especially for routine or template-based tasks. A reasonable view held by creatives is that generative AI creates extensive automation threats to creative jobs, challenging the role, compensation, and rights of human creators in ways CGI never did. 

Issue	CGI	Generative AI
Labor Replacement	Redistributes labor, limited direct job loss	Automates substantial creative tasks, risks widespread job loss
Human Creativity	Essential for most tasks	Can fully automate or diminish creative input
New Job Creation	Created new specialist roles	Some new roles, but net job losses expected
Worker Rights/Ethics	Tied to work conditions, overtime	Issues of data exploitation, loss of control, IP and consent
Value Perception	Value linked to expertise and collaboration	Value eroded by commoditization, especially for freelancers
Legal Uncertainty	Relatively mature standards	Significant legal and ethical ambiguity