There is a difference between deepfakes that are openly marketed as such, and deepfakes which are maliciously promoted as being real videos. The movie industry

There is a difference between deepfakes that are openly marketed as such, and deepfakes which are maliciously promoted as being real videos. The movie industry in general stands to benefit the most from deepfakes. Imagine making a movie without paying any cast? Or bringing dead actors back for new roles? There are plenty of legitimate use cases for deepfakes. At first glance it seems that actors would be the first victims here, and so you wouldn't expect CAA (an agency representing actors) to invest money into a technology that could replace them. But I think it's more complicated than that. Deepfakes won't "replace" actors - certainly not any time soon - but will complement them and serve as a multiplier for their image. Angelina Jolie can license her likeness, and directors can make a movie with a deepfake Jolie. She gets paid for doing no work. The A-listers will be fine. The first victims will be the talent that's cast as extras and minor supporting roles. There wont be much of a market for deepfake clones of them, and eventually some A-lister or entirely synthetic deepfakes will crowd them out of their jobs.