[simonw]

"Generated material is temporary and not part of the final deliverables" sounds like they are not looking to generative AI for content that they will air to the public.

Later on they do have a note suggesting that the following might be OK if you use judgement and get their approval: "Using GenAI to generate background elements (e.g., signage, posters) that appear on camera"

[yorwba]

"If you can confidently say "yes" to all the above, socializing the intended use with your Netflix contact may be sufficient. If you answer “no” or “unsure” to any of these principles, escalate to your Netflix contact for more guidance before proceeding, as written approval may be required."

They do want to save money by cheaply generating content, but it's only cheap if no expensive lawsuits result. Hence the need for clear boundaries and legal review of uses that may be risky from a copyright perspective.

[simonw]

Yeah, that's a fair assessment. The specific mention of "union-covered work" plays to that interpretation as well:

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

[eszed]

Yeah, I read the "Talent" section and it's very balanced. I can't see much, if anything, to complain about, so thank goodness for SAG-AFTRA. The strike a couple of years ago was well judged.

[captainkrtek]

They also mention reputation / image in there. If I can’t tell something is generated by AI (some background image in a small part of a scene), it’s just CGI. But if its the uncanny valley view of a person/animal/thing that is clearly AI generated, that shows laziness.