The U.S. Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced on the 1st a rule overhaul considered the biggest change in the 100-year history of the Academy Awards.

Through this rule overhaul, which will be applied starting from the 99th Awards to be held in 2027, multiple nominations in acting categories will be allowed. Since Barry Fitzgerald was simultaneously nominated for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor for 'Going My Way' in 1945, the Academy added a clause stating that an actor could only be nominated in one category, either leading or supporting, for a single performance. In addition, the previous restriction that only the highest-voting performance within a category would qualify for nomination, thereby limiting an actor to simultaneous nominations in multiple works, has been abolished with this reorganization. The regulations for the International Feature Film Award have also been revised. Previously, the only method was for an official selection committee from each country to nominate and submit a single film; however, winners of major film festivals are now allowed to submit directly, separate from the nominated entries. The six major festivals are Berlin, Cannes, Venice, Busan, Sundance, and Toronto. For the Busan International Film Festival, which is grouped with the three major European festivals, the Busan Award Grand Prize can now be submitted via this method. The aforementioned two regulatory changes symbolize the expansion of the scope of nomination eligibility, which had long been kept narrow. On the other hand, a new boundary has been drawn regarding the changes sweeping through the film industry today: the establishment of new regulations related to AI. Starting with the next awards ceremony, the Academy will only accept nominations for acting roles that are clearly confirmed to have been performed by a human being with their direct consent, and are legally credited. Screenplays are also defined as "screenplays written by humans," and the Academy is granted the right to request information regarding the nature of generative AI usage and whether the work was authored by humans. The Academy's regulations are not merely about blocking AI. In an era where AI is rampant, they amount to providing an official answer to the question of who the author of a film is. It prevents AI actors from being nominated, and performances created by restoring the appearance or voice of deceased actors with only formal consent cannot be nominated for awards. It also restricts screenplays produced through generative AI, and furthermore, performances where human actors are not listed in the credits. The Brutalist won three Oscars despite it being revealed that AI was used to correct Hungarian pronunciation. The new regulations suggest that such auxiliary use is still permissible. It can also be interpreted that possibilities have opened up regarding other digital tools used in film production. On the other hand, it could be seen that the outcome of the 2023 SAG-AFTRA (Screening Actors Guild and American Television and Radio Broadcasters) union strike and agreement, which involved conflict over AI use cases, has been aligned with the Academy Awards regulations. This is because it effectively reaffirmed the codified definition of AI digital copies and prior consent—which were at the core of the union strike—through direct human execution, consent, and credit inclusion. And this controversy could continue directly into games. In fact, the use of Darth Vader's voice in 'Fortnite' during the SAG-AFTRA gaming sector strike that began in 2024 was one of the most contentious instances of conflict. In 2025, while the strike was in full swing, voice dialogue with Darth Vader was added to Fortnite. The Darth Vader voice used in the game utilized AI dialogue generation and speech synthesis functions. The source voice data used at the time was archived voice recordings transferred to Lucasfilm in 2022 by James Earl Jones, who had voiced Darth Vader in the films, prior to his death. After Jones passed away in September 2024, the company held separate consultations with the bereaved family and obtained their consent. Disney, Lucasfilm, and Epic Games all emphasized that the project was conducted in consultation with the family. However, an incident occurred on the very first day of its release where the AI ​​Darth Vader used profanity, and the SAG-AFTRA union also filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission against Epic's subsidiary, Lamma Productions, for using AI without collective bargaining or replacing it with union members. While the way players interact with movies and games may differ, they share the commonality of being content that moves consumers' emotions through the investment of vast amounts of labor. In this sense, the Academy took the initiative to state that it is time to collectively consider clear standards regarding the extent to which the use of AI capable of replacing humans should be recognized. In fact, 'Claire Obscur: 33 Expedition,' which generated the most buzz in 2025, set a record at The Game Awards with the most nominations in history and nine wins. However, the awards received at the Indie Game Awards held a week later were subsequently revoked. This was due to a rule set by the Indie Game Awards that excludes games developed using generative AI from nominations. Although the developer signed a confirmation that no AI was used, there were suspicions that AI-generated content was included. The development team explained that there was no AI-generated content among the in-game assets, clarifying that assets used restrictively as temporary placeholders during development remained. In response, the Indie Game Awards stated that the assets in question had been removed and that while the game remains excellent, the violation of regulations is a separate issue. Although the superficial reasons for the revocation were the use of AI and false reporting, the essence lies in the uncompromising application of a zero-tolerance policy that prohibits the use of AI itself. Claire Obscur: 33 Expeditions was named Game of the Year at numerous awards ceremonies, including The Game Awards, DICE Awards, and Golden Joystick Awards, but was stripped of its Indie Game Awards award. This reveals that standards regarding AI vary from awards ceremony to awards ceremony. Previously, a GDC survey found that 52% and an internal Google Cloud survey indicated that over 90% use AI tools in their work. This implies that while generative AI may not be used in content that game companies directly see and experience through gameplay for gamers, it is entirely possible that AI is being utilized within repetitive tasks or workflows. In fact, those opposing the Indie Game Awards' strict stance point out that if factors unaffecting the final game are considered grounds for disqualification, there will be almost no eligible games left in the future. There are also concerns that creators will remain silent about the use of AI altogether. Those in favor argue that such measures are essential to protect creators, who are the core value of indie games. There are also arguments regarding the precautionary effect that strict regulations will induce a cautious approach to the use of AI. While both sides have valid points, the reason this debate remains at a standstill is that the fundamental question preceding it is missing. Before considering how far AI should be allowed, whose achievements and to what extent does this awards ceremony exist to be recognized? The Academy has provided an answer. On the surface, revising the AI ​​regulations alongside those for acting and international feature films appears to be a separate matter. However, essentially, it is also a question of who is eligible to be nominated. Allowing actors to be nominated in multiple categories is an answer indicating a full evaluation of a single actor's multi-layered performance, and direct submission to the festival is an answer indicating that a work can be nominated based on its achievement itself, without going through national selection committees. And the AI ​​regulations are an answer stating that eligibility for nomination lies in direct human performance, consent, and credit inclusion. Furthermore, it also serves as a reaffirmation, at the awards ceremony level, of the definition of AI and prior consent agreed upon during the SAG-AFTRA strike. Game awards ceremonies have not yet answered this question. The principles of the Indie Game Awards stem from a different value: the protection of the identity of indie creators. If the use of AI has provided developers with the opportunity to showcase better games, there could be an awards ceremony that celebrates that technological advancement, or one that uses the value experienced by players as its standard. If the subjects of protection differ, the regulations regarding AI also differ. It is not a matter of right or wrong, but rather means that standards appropriate to each can only emerge if the purpose for which each exists is clearly defined. We live in an era where the use of AI is no longer a special occurrence. Therefore, what awards ceremonies must answer is not a stance on the use of AI itself. It is to recognize whose efforts, and for what purpose, this trophy exists. That answer is needed. That was ultimately the question that led to the Academy's rule overhaul, one of the largest in a century.