The Academy just released a new set of guidelines regarding the Oscars, which strongly supports international cinema and reflects bluntly the prickly state of affairs between the AI industry and Hollywood.

By Noémie Schwander | May 14 2026

On Friday May 1st, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (commonly referred to as “The Academy”, known for overseeing the night of the Oscars) released a press communiqué of the “Awards Rules And Campaign Promotional Regulations Approved For 99th Oscars®”, an updated guideline regarding the conditions applied to the reception of the coveted golden statuette during the upcoming session in 2027. 

Among very technical aspects of eligibility for some “minor” categories, the revised terms and conditions shook the industry with some new terms granting victory in the International Feature, Best Picture and all the acting (Best Actor/Actress, Best Supporting Role, etc.) categories. Some of these changes held more political weight than expected from the institution.

International movies and the end of the foreign exceptionalism 

One such change saw that movies produced outside of the United States do not have to be presented by a national committee anymore. 

While that long-standing practice is still a viable way to nominate, it was often forcing international committees to disregard many excellent and award-winning productions in favor of just one, as only one film per country was previously allowed to be nominated by the country itself.

With this new guideline, international films do not have to rely on their country’s support, provided that they have been awarded the top prize at one of six major film festivals prior to the end of the Oscars campaign. 

In the past, filmmakers would sometimes suffer from a strict government agenda influencing their national committee to deny support to their projects. Such was the case for The Figs of the Sacred Tree (2023),  a movie by Mohammad Rasoulof portraying civil unrest in the streets of Teheran, which made the director a convicted enemy of the State that had to flee to Germany (the country later embraced his piece and submitted it to the Oscars under its own committee, after it had won multiple Palmes d’Or at the Cannes Festival that year). These new settings allow for a better shot at world recognition for genuine or opinionated artistry, however disruptive it may be to those in power. 

Human stories in the creative excellence field: an attempted settlement of a decade-defining debate 

In a similar vein, the biggest shock of the revised guidelines is a surprise crackdown on artificial intelligence (AI) by the Academy. Since the actors’ guild strike in 2023 - the biggest in 50 years - AI and Hollywood seemed to be often pitted up against each other. The strike was mainly caused by Hollywood studios executives’ attempts at using more generative AI instead of screenwriters, animators, voice actors and other qualified human creatives, whose work the programs were trained upon. This pattern has been growing in recent years despite a settlement of the strike promising change away from these initiatives. 

Taking an unprecedented stance on the matter, the Academy announced at the top of the awards rule changes that “in the Acting category, only roles credited in the film’s legal billing and demonstrably performed by humans with their consent will be considered eligible”, and later added that “In the Writing categories, the rules codify that screenplays must be human-authored to be eligible.” 

This comes at a time when a growing number of A-list movie stars, such as Sandra Bullock and Reese Witherspoon, are somehow advocating for a bigger part for AI within the industry. This agenda is coincidentally aligned with that of several rising billionaire tech moguls and their AI-based empires, while a majority of the public, especially younger generations, are firmly opposed to the idea. Most recently, an AI “resurrection” of late Val Kilmer for an upcoming movie (As Deep As the Grave), restarted the debate over boundaries with generative AI’s use in film. 

Creeping onto the screens: how AI content is making its way onto big and small screens alike 

While debates over AI-generated actors and scripts rage on, another notable friction between the fields of technology and entertainment is the need of the former for the latter’s intellectual property (IP) in order to develop. In fact, most AI programs are trained on countless works of filmography in order to generate content, a process receiving immense backlash from studios, publishers and artists alike for its exploitation of IP without any proper acknowledgment or financial compensation. 

Open AI and Google, both leaders in the sector of AI, have cited collaboration and clemency regarding AI training as a need in a so-called “race” for technological superiority with the People’s Republic of China (PRC), whose advanced program DeepSeek has sent shivers down the spine of the Western technological industry. 

Their hope appears to be that by using an “America-first” angle in their assessment of the situation, they will receive special treatment concerning copyright laws and IP exploitation from the current presidential administration, which called in early March for an “AI Action Plan”.

“The AI Action Plan should ensure that American-led AI prevails over CCP-led AI, securing both American leadership on AI and a brighter future for all Americans,” Open AI stated in a submission to the government. “The federal government can both secure Americans’ freedom to learn from AI, and avoid forfeiting our AI lead to the PRC by preserving American AI models’ ability to learn from copyrighted material.” 

Such ominous language urged no less than 443 of entertainment industry’s finest to address an open letter to the government, urging it to not cede ground on the matter, and uphold copyright rules vigorously when discussing matters of AI: 

“Make no mistake: this issue goes well beyond the entertainment industry, as the right to train AI on all copyright-protected content impacts all of America’s knowledge industries. When tech and AI companies demand unfettered access to all data and information, they’re not just threatening movies, books, and music, but the work of all writers, publishers, photographers, scientists, architects, engineers, designers, doctors, software developers, and all other professionals who work with computers and generate intellectual property. [...] We recommend that the American AI Action Plan uphold existing copyright frameworks to maintain the strength of America’s creative and knowledge industries, as well as American cultural influence abroad.” 

Such a powerful statement seems to have had some effect on the current US administration, as a “National Legislative Framework” was unveiled on March 20, containing an admittedly vague clause titled “Respecting Intellectual Property Rights and Supporting Creators”. The initiative was nevertheless applauded by the SAG-AFTRA entertainment-related union, and although it is still early to fully assess the uphold of such a promise, especially as more and more IP is being accumulated by single private entities with strong ties to politicians and tech giants alike, there is still perhaps hope that human thought and creativity will remain at the forefront of future, award-winning classics.