The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has announced several significant rule changes for the 99th Oscars, including AI protections for actors and writers as well as expanded eligibility for international films.
In a statement to NPR, the Academy on Saturday said the changes are in response to listening to the global filmmaking community and addressing barriers to entry in its eligibility process.
The Academy added that its rules and eligibility standards have always evolved alongside technologies such as sound, color, and CGI, and that AI is no different. Awards rules and guidelines are reviewed and refined each year.
A blow for Tilly Norwood
Among the most noteworthy changes, the Academy now explicitly states that only roles, "demonstrably performed by humans with their consent" are eligible for Acting awards. In other words, AI creations like the much-hyped Tilly Norwood cannot hope to win a Best Actress Oscar anytime soon.
Particle6, the production company behind Norwood, did not immediately respond to NPR's request for comment on Saturday about its creations' ban from consideration. In March, Norwood commented, "Can't wait to go to the Oscars!" in an Instagram post announcing its newly released music video.
The Academy also requires screenplays to be "human-authored" and said it reserved the right to investigate the use of generative AI in any submission.
Meanwhile, qualifying flesh-and-blood human actors can now be nominated for multiple performances in the same category if those performances get enough votes to land in the top five. So, someone like Anne Hathaway, who has five major movies scheduled for release in 2026, could now theoretically sweep the nominations – though that outcome seems extremely unlikely.
"If an actor has an extremely prolific year, might we even see someone swallow up three of the five nominations?," wrote Deadline's awards columnist and chief film critic Pete Hammond about the changes. "Probably won't happen, but it's now possible."
Under previous rules, an actor could only receive one nomination per category. If they had two high-ranking performances in Best Actor, for example, only the one with the most votes would move forward.
International films prioritizes filmmakers over countries
While international films can still be the official selection of their countries, now they can qualify by winning the top prize at a major international festival such as the Palme d'Or at Cannes, the Golden Lion at Venice, or the World Cinema Grand Jury Prize at Sundance.
Historically, countries "owned" the nomination, and only one film per country was allowed. The new rules allow multiple films from the same country to compete if they are critically acclaimed, and it shifts the honor from a geopolitical entity to the filmmakers themselves.
Largely positive response
The changes have prompted a largely positive reaction from the film community on social media, such as on the popular The Shade Room entertainment and celebrity-focused Instagram feed, where commenters widely praised the "human-only" move to protect creative jobs.
The Academy's Awards Committee oversees the rules in tandem with branch executive committees, the International Feature Film Executive Committee and the Scientific and Technical Awards Executive Committee.
The rules are scheduled to go into effect next year, covering films released in 2026.
Facts Only
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced rule changes for the 99th Oscars.
The changes include protections against AI-generated performances and screenplays.
Acting awards will only recognize roles "demonstrably performed by humans with their consent."
AI creations like Tilly Norwood are ineligible for acting awards.
Screenplays must be "human-authored" to qualify for awards.
The Academy reserves the right to investigate generative AI use in submissions.
Actors can now receive multiple nominations in the same category if their performances rank in the top five.
International films can qualify for Oscars by winning top prizes at major festivals like Cannes, Venice, or Sundance.
Multiple films from the same country can now compete in the international category.
The changes are scheduled to take effect for films released in 2026.
The film community has largely responded positively to the changes.
The Academy stated that its rules evolve alongside technological advancements.
Executive Summary
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has announced significant rule changes for the 99th Oscars, set to take effect in 2026. Key updates include explicit protections against AI-generated performances and screenplays, ensuring only human-created work qualifies for acting and writing awards. The rules now require that acting roles be "demonstrably performed by humans with their consent," effectively barring AI creations like Tilly Norwood from Oscar consideration. Screenplays must also be "human-authored," though the Academy reserves the right to investigate generative AI use in submissions. Additionally, actors can now receive multiple nominations in the same category if their performances rank in the top five, a shift from previous rules limiting them to one nomination per category.
For international films, eligibility has expanded beyond country submissions. Films can now qualify by winning top prizes at major festivals like Cannes, Venice, or Sundance, allowing multiple films from the same country to compete. This change prioritizes filmmakers over geopolitical representation. The film community has responded positively, particularly praising the "human-only" protections for creative roles. The Academy framed these changes as part of its ongoing evolution alongside technological advancements, from sound and color to CGI and now AI.
Full Take
The Academy’s rule changes reflect a broader cultural tension between technological innovation and the preservation of human creative labor. The explicit exclusion of AI-generated performances and screenplays signals a defensive stance against the encroachment of automation into artistic domains traditionally reserved for human expression. This move aligns with growing concerns in Hollywood about AI’s role in displacing jobs, as seen in recent strikes by writers and actors. The Academy’s framing of these changes as part of a historical evolution—comparing AI to past technological shifts like sound and color—attempts to normalize the decision while acknowledging its disruptive potential.
The shift in international film eligibility is equally significant, decentralizing power from national selection committees to filmmakers and festival juries. This could democratize access to the Oscars, particularly for countries with competitive internal selection processes. However, it also risks favoring films that align with the tastes of major festival juries, which may not always reflect global diversity. The allowance for multiple nominations per actor in the same category is a rare departure from tradition, though its practical impact remains speculative. It raises questions about whether this change is a genuine response to artistic merit or a bid to generate buzz around prolific actors.
Patterns detected: none
Root cause: The narrative is driven by a paradigm of institutional self-preservation, where the Academy seeks to maintain its relevance and authority amid technological and cultural shifts. The unstated assumption is that human creativity must be protected from AI, even as the industry increasingly integrates automation. This echoes historical moments when guilds and institutions resisted mechanization to safeguard labor.
Implications: For human agency, the rules affirm the value of human creativity in an era of AI proliferation. However, they also risk stifling experimentation with hybrid human-AI collaborations, which could become a significant artistic medium. The costs may fall on independent filmmakers who lack resources to compete with festival darlings, while the benefits accrue to established actors and studios.
Bridge questions: How might these rules evolve if AI tools become indistinguishable from human-created work? Could the Academy’s stance inadvertently limit artistic innovation? What alternative models could balance human creativity with technological progress?
Counterstrike scan: If this were part of a coordinated influence campaign, the playbook might involve framing AI as an existential threat to human artistry to rally support for restrictive policies. However, the content does not exhibit structural alignment with such a pattern. The Academy’s rationale is transparent, and the changes appear to be a genuine response to industry concerns rather than a manipulative strategy.
Sentinel — Human
The text exhibits the nuanced style and varied focus typical of human journalism, successfully synthesizing institutional rules with personal reactions.