
Tilly Tax
Proposed per-use AI royalty on synthetic performers; rejected by AMPTP in the May 2026 SAG-AFTRA deal.
Last refreshed: 15 May 2026 · Appears in 1 active topic
Can a royalty on AI actors save 160,000 performers' jobs, or will studios simply move production offshore?
Timeline for Tilly Tax
Proposed per-use AI royalty for synthetic performers (AI-generated characters); rejected by studios in SAG-AFTRA deal
AI: Jobs, Power & Money: SAG-AFTRA wins consent rights, loses the Tilly taxMentioned in: SAG-AFTRA opens the AI royalty fight
AI: Jobs, Power & MoneyMentioned in: Hollywood unions push royalty to beat AI
AI: Jobs, Power & Money- What is the Tilly Tax?
- A proposed royalty on AI-generated performers being negotiated by SAG-AFTRA in its 2026 AMPTP contract talks. It would make synthetic actors cost the same or more than real ones, with revenue funding union healthcare and pension.Source: SAG-AFTRA
- Why is it called the Tilly Tax?
- Named after the pioneering visual effects in the 1988 film Who Framed Roger Rabbit, which blended live action with animation. The name references the earliest commercial attempt to create synthetic performers alongside real actors.
- What is the difference between the Tilly Tax and the robot tax?
- The Tilly Tax is a sector-specific royalty pricing AI performers at parity with humans in entertainment. The robot tax is a proposed federal per-position levy across all industries. Both aim to remove AI's cost advantage but operate at different scales.Source: event
- Would the Tilly Tax apply outside Hollywood?
- Not directly. It is a contractual mechanism within SAG-AFTRA's AMPTP negotiations, limited to unionised film, television, and streaming. However, tech companies fear it could set a precedent for royalty frameworks in advertising, gaming, and corporate media.Source: event
- What is the Tilly Tax and did SAG-AFTRA win it?
- The Tilly Tax was a proposed per-use royalty on AI-generated synthetic performers that SAG-AFTRA negotiated in its 2026 AMPTP contract talks. Studios rejected it. The May 2026 deal gave SAG-AFTRA consent rights for a performer's digital replica but no royalty mechanism for synthetic characters.Source: Lowdown
- What did SAG-AFTRA actually win on AI in the 2026 contract?
- SAG-AFTRA secured consent rights for every use of a performer's digital replica. It did not secure the Tilly Tax (per-use AI royalty on synthetic performers). Final language restricts synthetic use to productions where synthetics bring 'significant additional value' but with no monetary penalty.Source: Lowdown
- Why did studios reject the Tilly Tax?
- Studios argued that pricing AI-generated performers at parity with real actors eliminated the economic case for using synthetic performers at all. The AMPTP's position was that a royalty mechanism would effectively ban a technology they view as a core cost-reduction tool in the post-streaming-bubble era.Source: Lowdown
- What does the SAG-AFTRA AI deal mean for other unions like DGA and IATSE?
- The May 2026 SAG-AFTRA deal sets the negotiating precedent: consent protections for real performers' digital replicas are achievable; per-use royalties on synthetic characters are not, at least in a single contract cycle. DGA and IATSE face the same AMPTP counterparty with the Tilly Tax already off the table.Source: Lowdown
Background
Named after the visual effects breakthrough in the 1988 film Who Framed Roger Rabbit, the Tilly Tax was a proposed royalty on AI-generated performers (synthetic characters not based on real actors) that would have made synthetic actors cost the same or more than real ones. The mechanism was structurally distinct from the federal robot tax proposed by Bernie Sanders: a point-of-substitution cost penalty rather than a post-displacement industry levy. SAG-AFTRA entered its 2026 AMPTP contract talks with the Tilly Tax as its central AI demand, with revenue earmarked for the union's strained healthcare and pension funds.
On approximately 2 May 2026, SAG-AFTRA and the AMPTP reached a tentative four-year agreement approved by the National Board. The union secured consent rights for every use of a performer's digital replica — a meaningful protection for working actors. The Tilly Tax was rejected by the studios. Final contract language restricts synthetic performer use to productions where synthetics bring 'significant additional value', but with no monetary mechanism, no royalty rate, and no fund contribution.
The outcome sets a precedent for every guild negotiating AI terms: consent protections are achievable; per-use royalties are not — at least not in a single contract cycle. The studios argued parity pricing eliminated the economic case for synthetic actors. The precedent now shapes what DGA and IATSE can realistically demand in their own AI bargaining. Tech companies lobbying against royalty frameworks migrating into advertising, gaming, and corporate media are the immediate beneficiaries.