Actors Say Hollywood Studios Want Their AI Replicas -- For Free, Forever (theverge.com) 203
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: During today's press conference in which Hollywood actors confirmed that they were going on strike, Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, SAG-AFTRA's chief negotiator, revealed a proposal from Hollywood studios that sounds ripped right out of a Black Mirror episode. In a statement about the strike, the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) said that its proposal included "a groundbreaking AI proposal that protects actors' digital likenesses for SAG-AFTRA members."
When asked about the proposal during the press conference, Crabtree-Ireland said that "This 'groundbreaking' AI proposal that they gave us yesterday, they proposed that our background performers should be able to be scanned, get one day's pay, and their companies should own that scan, their image, their likeness and should be able to use it for the rest of eternity on any project they want, with no consent and no compensation. So if you think that's a groundbreaking proposal, I suggest you think again."
The use of generative AI has been one of the major sticking points in negotiations between the two sides (it's also a major issue behind the writers strike), and in her opening statement of the press conference, SAG-AFTRA president Fran Drescher said that "If we don't stand tall right now, we are all going to be in trouble, we are all going to be in jeopardy of being replaced by machines." The SAG-AFTRA strike will officially commence at midnight tonight.
When asked about the proposal during the press conference, Crabtree-Ireland said that "This 'groundbreaking' AI proposal that they gave us yesterday, they proposed that our background performers should be able to be scanned, get one day's pay, and their companies should own that scan, their image, their likeness and should be able to use it for the rest of eternity on any project they want, with no consent and no compensation. So if you think that's a groundbreaking proposal, I suggest you think again."
The use of generative AI has been one of the major sticking points in negotiations between the two sides (it's also a major issue behind the writers strike), and in her opening statement of the press conference, SAG-AFTRA president Fran Drescher said that "If we don't stand tall right now, we are all going to be in trouble, we are all going to be in jeopardy of being replaced by machines." The SAG-AFTRA strike will officially commence at midnight tonight.
Last change to get paid for looks (Score:2, Interesting)
For any actor who isn't a capital-B Big Name, who will pull in audiences by virtue of their existing fanbase alone, they will shortly be replaced by generated actors who never complain, never go on strike, always do their jobs perfectly on
Re:Last change to get paid for looks (Score:5, Insightful)
Acting is much more than looks alone. It often helps, but if it's helping too much then you're not really acting.
The perception trick that makes seeing an actor a valuable experience is very, very subtle: the slopes of uncanny valley are indeed steep, as the first Final Fantasy movie demo'ed to everyone.
Re:Last change to get paid for looks (Score:5, Informative)
Read the summary, this is about "background performers", those don't do much acting. As for the FF: The Spirits Within, the uncanny valley was huge because they were using a different technology, 3D rendering. It doesn't compare with "AI" deep fakes from today, which use parts of real people images.
Re:Last change to get paid for looks (Score:5, Informative)
This is what will end up killing acting as a viable career. If only the big names with existing huge fanbases can still get paid, there's no ladder to climb to get to be a big name actor, unless you already made your fanbase outside of cinema.
mod the parent up, (Score:2)
someone. thx
Re: (Score:2)
Actors and Actresses are not like normal people (just like top level gymnasts are not like normal people). Successful actors and actresses have a unique quality about them in person that is "magnetic" to others. There is something about their mannerism/actions/methods of speaking that just makes people want to be near them, listen to them, and even be them. AI can not capture that (yet!).
The cream of the crop will ALWAYS be in demand. We can not even think of replacing those people with AI until we develop
Alternative (Score:5, Insightful)
The alternative is Hollywood studios generate their own cast of virtual faces from scratch, which they will own the IP and can use for free, forever.
Guess which one is worse for actors?
When studios can generate a movie completely using CG, without any participation from actors, acting as a career is dead anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
When studios can generate a movie completely using CG, without any participation from actors, acting as a career is dead anyway.
You'd be surprised how much customer sentiment will affect business models. Cashiers could be economically replaced with vending machines. That's what the automat was. Yet for some reason, fast food chains like McDonalds never bothered to go full automat.
Re:Alternative (Score:5, Insightful)
Cashiers could be economically replaced with vending machines. That's what the automat was. Yet for some reason, fast food chains like McDonalds never bothered to go full automat.
You would be surprised if you look around the world. Many fast-food chains now have web-based/app-based ordering system, and people would order on their phone (even remotely), pay on the phone or pay at kiosks, and then just wait to pick up the food when done. No cashiers at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I recently had to go to a mcdonalds to buy gluten free burger for my child as there was no gluten free alternative around (and we were travelling). I was surprised there were no cashiers, only touch sensitive kiosks. The only people I could see working there were a lady handing out ready meals, the cooks and the forced-smile-lady helping customers figure out the kiosks. It was very dystopian.
Re: (Score:2)
But if I go into a fast food joint, I'd want to talk to a person. Most humans are social creatures. Many will refuse out of principle to order on a machine and will boycott the place, most likely because they have a stake, like a couple of kids who are going to need part-time jobs and they want to send a message to the corporation.
Sure, some people also prefer waiters who would actually wait at the table throughout the whole dining experience, and they are willing to pay for it, but they also just won't go to a fast-food chain expecting that. If you insist on having a cashier to serve you, maybe fast-food chains is going to lose your business soon.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want to talk to a person, a kiosk is much better: I am with my family, we can take our time and browse, compare, put items in the cart, change our minds and remove, start over again, comment about price and such and no judgemental tired cashier will look at us while doing that.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet the self-checkout lines at the grocery store are often the longest. I suppose because people would rather just do things themselves because they think they can do it better, but also because the human cashiers are getting to be fewer and fewer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cashiers could be economically replaced with vending machines. That's what the automat was. Yet for some reason, fast food chains like McDonalds never bothered to go full automat.
You would be surprised if you look around the world. Many fast-food chains now have web-based/app-based ordering system, and people would order on their phone (even remotely), pay on the phone or pay at kiosks, and then just wait to pick up the food when done. No cashiers at all.
The problem with going full auto is what happens when the automation fails. It happens a lot more than you think, network issues, bugs, Problem between door and touchscreen.
Don't get me wrong, I tend to favour the automated systems these days (self service checkout/order machines) but shit goes wrong. When that shit goes wrong you need a human to repair or fall back on manual processes.
A KLM B738 holds 180 pax. I once had a flight on one of these on the same day London Heathrow had a major communications ou
Re: (Score:2)
Cashiers still survive because automation has usability downsides. But that's being solved little by little, and eventually things may even reverse with humans in the loop becoming a rarity.
I just ordered food online, on a webpage. This means there's no cashier, just an order that got sent to a kitchen. Eventually we'll have food delivered by drone and cooked by a robot too.
And to be honest, I really prefer it that way in many cases. I don't want to hold up a line, pondering which cheese and sauce I want. O
Re:Alternative (Score:4, Interesting)
When studios can generate a movie completely using CG, without any participation from actors, acting as a career is dead anyway.
If that was the case you would expect animated movies to not bother with big name stars. Often those big names are particularly good at voice acting anyway, but they still use them despite there being better and cheaper people available.
It's a Hollywood thing. Take the Super Mario Bros movie. Big names in the English version, but the Japanese dub used career voice actors. The acting in the Japanese version is much, much better, but then again voice actors get more recognition over there too.
Re: (Score:2)
When studios can generate a movie completely using CG, without any participation from actors, acting as a career is dead anyway.
If that was the case you would expect animated movies to not bother with big name stars. Often those big names are particularly good at voice acting anyway, but they still use them despite there being better and cheaper people available.
It's a Hollywood thing. Take the Super Mario Bros movie. Big names in the English version, but the Japanese dub used career voice actors. The acting in the Japanese version is much, much better, but then again voice actors get more recognition over there too.
Yes, voice acting is something computer cannot come up with as good as humans YET.
I still remember the Final Fantasy movie over 20 years ago that was 100% CG, and it was obviously not as good as human actors. I think computer generated voice right now is not even at the level of CG visuals of FF, so perhaps the current generation of voice actors can still have a career until they retire. But what about 20 years from now? It is only a matter of time before AI generated voice sounds as good as the best voi
Re: (Score:2)
*not particularly good at voice acting
I know, preview button, like I'm going to bother.
Re: (Score:2)
Now if a studio doesn't have the money for a big star, there are other options, like hire less known actors or people that aren't professional actors.
Re:Alternative (Score:4, Interesting)
Movies generated completely using CG are called cartoons.
Only Americans are so hung-up on the distinction of "cartoons" vs so-called "real movies". Even LOTR 20 years ago had so much CG portions that it is over 50% "cartoon" already.
Just take a look at modern FPS games like COD and Battlefield. Or RPG like Horizon or Final Fantasy. The cut-scenes are 100% computer generated but is so life-like that it is difficult to tell them apart from any scifi movies. It is entirely technically feasible to make a 100% CG version of Fast and Furious where only experts could tell it was CG and not filmed.
It is only a matter of time before some studio in Hollywood made a CG movie using completely made-up "actors" and learn that they can pocket all the money paid to big name actors for the floodgate to open.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you can see evidence of this in the Netflix anthology series "Love, Death and Robots". Specifically, the episode "Jibaro" in season 3; I honestly cannot tell that it is CGI.
Re: (Score:2)
The alternative is Hollywood studios generate their own cast of virtual faces from scratch, which they will own the IP and can use for free, forever.
Guess which one is worse for actors?
When studios can generate a movie completely using CG, without any participation from actors, acting as a career is dead anyway.
There is one interesting thing about the idea that soon all acting will be AI avatars.
One of the consistent trends for about forever is that people form attachments to particular individuals. And it can work in reverse as well, as present day LucasFilms is finding out.
People talk about them, people like or dislike them. They go on television talk shows and in the news. Fandom is a force.
I'm finding it a little difficult to imagine that many people are going to become all that interested in the indu
Re: (Score:2)
The alternative is Hollywood studios generate their own cast of virtual faces from scratch, which they will own the IP and can use for free, forever.
Guess which one is worse for actors?
Paid once for eternity or not at all? Big fucking difference.
Idoru (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah sure, it was ripped our of Black Mirror, not Idoru or anything.
Re: (Score:2)
They're too young to remember those. We are so old that we read them from paper, not on a screen.
Re: (Score:2)
Black Mirror episode link for those interested:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2... [imdb.com]
Idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the only explanation for hearing the word "AI" and substituting in "magic". "Magic" will make actors give up ever having a career and their hopes and dreams. "Magic" is button that can replace writers entirely. "Magic"is a button that produces shows and movies for free forever! Sure, these execs have no idea how "magic" works, have never tried it for themselves, and have never talked to anyone that's so much as used this "magic". But who needs to do that, it's magic!
Re:Idiots (Score:5, Funny)
How is Hollywood run by such incompetent idiots? Cocaine, I bet it's cocain cocaine. It's the only explanation for hearing the word "AI" and substituting in "magic". "Magic" will make actors give up ever having a career and their hopes and dreams. "Magic" is button that can replace writers entirely. "Magic"is a button that produces shows and movies for free forever! Sure, these execs have no idea how "magic" works, have never tried it for themselves, and have never talked to anyone that's so much as used this "magic". But who needs to do that, it's magic!
They're not incompetent idiots, they are capitalists, winners of the great meritocracy due to their greater ability, natural genetic superiority and massive intellect. The two can sometimes be hard to tell apart.
Re: (Score:2)
Greed makes people really, really, stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Real actors (Score:2)
You guys don't even put real cheese on your burgers, and you're eating those. Virtual cast in 3, 2, 1...
Why does Hollywood need that? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You stopped a step short - you actually replace the background characters (and interactive props) entirely. Only people and things the main actors interact with need be real.
And then when you get to the editing stage, you don't have to worry about whether the background actors are moving around in a consistent way with whatever order you stitch bits of takes together... you add them in post, perfect every time.
Michael Crichton was way ahead of his time. (Score:5, Interesting)
Michael Crichton was way ahead of his time. Take a look at Looker (1981).
Scan models after they get plastic surgery to become perfect.
Have the models license their images so you can make movies and TV shows and commercials with their likenesses.
In the movie they killled the models so they couldn't compete with the licensed versions.
--
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
Re: (Score:3)
And he came up with this only 10 years after Lem? Impressive.
There was a movie about such dystopia (Score:4, Informative)
"The Congress", 2013/2014, by Ari Folman. It explores the life of an actress who has signed a contract with Hollywood to create and use a digital copy of herself.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1... [imdb.com]
But we did not see it becoming a reality so fast.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank for that. Just watched trailer. Looks interesting, but only 6.4 on IMDB.
Was it any good?
Re: (Score:3)
Was it good - not really, to be honest.
Just that the setting seemed like a distant dystopian future at the time of the release.
And now we are here, in less than 10 years.
It is not the idea that is astonishing here, but the speed of reaching it.
AI is Dystopia on Steroids (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead of freeing us, it's enslaving and drowning all of humanity. When applied to anything that should be REAL human communication (outside of the very routine), creativity, art etc. it's just incredibly corrosive and destructive to the very fabric of society and meaning. It does NOT belong there AT ALL.
If people are honest and not just self-interested, they'd realize that it's a fundamentally broken world if you scale that. Everything fake... no sincerity, no competence, no meaning to what should be the highest value - even the people who do it the right way will be hurt because it will be hard to know for sure what came from a human and what was just empty words.
People want to use AI for a competitive advantage, but they fail to see or simply do not wish to, that it makes all of humanity's toils pointless when set to ravage who we are. That's not a tool. That's a monster that doesn't need you given a decade at the most. AI is great in the right places - like helping synthesize new medicines. It's awful the way it is so often used today. It's a disaster in the end and it may lead to atrophy in thinking as well.
The biggest chuckle I get is people comparing humans to AI and acting like the rules should be the same. The absolute inaneness of that thinking is disqualifying.
Re:AI will end Capitalist Dystopia (Score:2)
Give it to the end of the decade and AI should replace capitalism itself https://www.genolve.com/design... [genolve.com]
Nanny (Score:3)
SAG-AFTRA president Fran Drescher
In case you read this and suddenly wanted to hear the audio:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
though I walk through the valley of uncanniness (Score:2)
Judging by the recent products of AI (including those of the much vaunted OpenAI), "AI" in most instances leaves the impression of "not quite human". Cool when it is supposed to be non-human (e.g. cartoonish) but when they try to replace a human's efforts, the uncanny valley [wikipedia.org] effect kicks in sooner or later.
Heck, real actors have trouble being believable the whole film long (sometimes the script's fault, I'm sure), every now and then I get this "yeah right - this is so going to work IRL" urge.
But, the soon
Re: (Score:2)
> "AI" in most instances leaves the impression of "not quite human".
We long passed this. Just check out some of the stuff coming out of Midjourney.
Americans to discover there are other cultures? (Score:2)
Is there a chance that this will encourage the networks to show non-US shows and discover that Peoria is capable of appreciating such things? Netflix is beginning to demonstrate this...
Re: (Score:2)
Why the fuck would I be interested in watching non-US shows?
I'm wanting escapism...I don't want to have to listen hard to figure out what some heavily accented actor is saying (or have CC on), nor do I want to "learn" about culture differences....
One of the reasons I kicked Netflix to the curb was...they started pushing sh
actors? what's that? (Score:2)
And how long before all characters are total CG, bearing no likeness to any actual human? Did these disgruntled actors stop to consider that their jobs may not even exist at all in a few more years?
Who needs those likenesses? (Score:2)
counter proposal (Score:2)
Millionaires fighting billionaires (Score:2)
This is literally a fight between millionaires and billionaires, both very far removed from reality of every day existence. Every single last one of them has more than generations of offspring could spend.
Re: (Score:2)
Just delaying the inevitable (Score:2)
Actors really don't have to worry. (Score:2)
For any actor who isn't a capital-B Big Name, who will pull in audiences by virtue of their existing fanbase alone, they will shortly be replaced by generated actors who never complain, never go on strike, always do their jobs perfectly on the first try, and come in packs of hundreds at the cost of a few VFX guys to twiddle the buttons.
For background actors and extras, yes, absolutely. For actors who need to speak lines and display emotions and body language, we're not nearly there yet. Programming a virtual actor correctly would take more time and money that hiring a person, and you still would be in the "uncanny valley". Just look at the NPCs even in the best video games.
However, I do think it is time for legislation (not just union contracts - actual legislation) to take on the topic of "likeness": a person's right to their recogniza
Re: (Score:2)
Just look at the NPCs even in the best video games.
I think we may not be far off. In fact, the link below showcases video game developers who create a cast of NPC that are indistinguishable from real life. The attention to detail is so phenomenal that every single pixel is totally lifelike.
https://www.youtube.com/playli... [youtube.com]
Based on current research results (Score:2)
I'm going to say it'll be another 40 years before computers can simulate an actor 100% - brain and everything. That's not a huge amount of time, but it should be time enough for actors to work on lawmakers and the public to get enough mindshare to influence HOW such technology is used (legally, anyway).
I'm not sure that going on strike will be conducive in this, but I'm not in their shoes and I've not done the Psychohistory calculations necessary to predict how to get the best possible outcome. (Oh, yeah, s
Re: (Score:2)
Based on experience, estimates by experts of how soon before AI can do something are off by a factor of at least 500. Consider for example, Minsky's estimate that computer vision could be accomplished over the summer on a 1960s computer.
no sympathy for the devil (Score:2)
No sympathy for Hollywood from me. There are many alternatives which produce better quality content for less money. Many of Netflix's hits were not produced in Hollywood.
I have little sympathy for the workers involved in producing schlock, and much less for the billionaire mental midget actors who lecture me on politics.
Hollywood routinely gets billions of dollars in various subsidies from states and local governments. More reason to withhold sympathy. Unfortunate that good people are on the bottom of t
hahahaha (Score:3)
Why do they even need the actors? (Score:3)
Re:Over-entitled SOBs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Over-entitled SOBs (Score:5, Interesting)
There's an interesting example of this already: Hatsune Miku.
Miku is a voice synthesizer. Yamaha developed the technology for backing vocals and harmonies, figuring that it wasn't really good enough for the lead. But another company sampled an actress' voice and created the character of Hatsune Miku, and people started using it to produce entire pop songs.
Lots of amateur songs started appearing on video streaming sites (similar to YouTube). The developer started releasing compilation albums, and even doing live shows with a real band and projected CGI Miku.
The actress who provided her voice got paid once for the initial sampling session. Anyone with a computer can now make Hatsune Miku say or sing anything, with no royalties paid.
Re: (Score:2)
That is sad. I'd have thought that laws covering likenesses would have given the actress some residuals, but maybe not. Maybe likeness rules need to be toughened up somewhat. Because that's about the only thing I can think of that will empower those who do the key work.
Re: (Score:3)
That is sad.
That is not, that is the reality of the the sampling industry. There's literally countless examples out there of commissioned work specifically created for sampling and other people using those sampling systems to create something great.
Also Saki Fujita's livelihood wasn't given up. She is full time employed for using her actual voice. The vocoder didn't make her obsolete unlike what is being proposed here with AI likeness. In fact Saki Fujita even played ... Hatsune Miku in several anime series, which is a
Ultimately they will Lose (Score:2)
Using the scanned information...
The sad thing is that while I definitely support the actors guild in their fight to have their digital avatars earn them money, ultimately they are going to lose the fight because in a few years these systems will not need scans or existing human likenesses. Once studios can cross the uncanny valley and generate film-realistic human avatars without scans these guys are going to be out of jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
That is likely true. Fortunately, they won't be able to build AIs that can replicate everything about humans for at least another 40 years, but they'll cross the UV long before that and will be able to do "good enough" synthesized individuals.
Re:It's called automation. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a difference between automating the task itself and creating a virtual clone of an individual.
Re: It's called automation. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But those virtual clones aren't even needed for background actors, so I don't even know what this whole discussion is about. A computer can already generate a realistic looking digital human, just look at software like the UnrealEngine 5 and Meta Humans. A digital scan of someone for background purposes isn't needed anymore. For already known 'stars' it's a different matter. In a decade with AI and digital humans getting better and better, they don't need real humans anymore to actually create a movie, so studio's create their own stars and do whatever with them, no actors union can do didlysquat to that.
Sure, eventually this won't be necessary. Soon it will be economically feasible for background actors to be replaced by AI-generated background humans that will be copy/pasted into movies automatically using AI driven CGI. However, I don't think that the issue here is the digital cloning of background actors so much as it is studios expecting that: "background performers should be able to be scanned, get one day's pay, and their companies should own that scan, their image, their likeness and should be able
Re:It's called automation. (Score:5, Insightful)
They will be different.
The thing is, programmers are only as good as they are today. They improve over time. What I knew a decade ago is far from what I know today.
I'm in security. What I knew about security back then is laughable compared to what I know today. And it's not because I was "bad" back then. It was because the field changes at an insane pace. 10 years ago, SSL3.0 was considered secure, with 2.0 only no longer considered secure for a very short time. 10 years ago, SHA1 was something you could sensibly store your passwords in.
There have been so many new attacks in the meantime that anything developed, even by a very security conscious person from a decade ago, is broken today before it hits production.
That is the difference.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would assert that actors also improve over time. Watch "Parks and Recreation" and then watch "The Terminal List". It's a different Chris Pratt.
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly, but that's just the actor, it's not the "acting industry" that changes radically every other year. There isn't a new discovery and a new "acting paradigm" that you should know about being developed over and over. Sure, certain ideas of acting and how characters should be portrayed change over time, I mean, take a look at old movies from the 50s and compare them with today (and I'm not even going into whether actors could actually speak properly in the old times compared to the mumblers today...),
Re: (Score:2)
In 40 years, if Moore's Law or some equivalent continues to hold, it will be possible to build computers that simulate EVERY neuron in the human brain with a simulated time that is 1:1 with wall-clock time. Until then, yes, humans can learn better than computers because we can direct learning whereas AI instructors can only direct learning material, they've no control over what the AI actually learns.
The question is, who will have the most mind-share in 40 years? Because THEY will be the winners in the batt
Re: (Score:2)
Because we can do a much better job than any machine. For now, anyway. In 40 years (the time I'm expecting NNs to be able to actually duplicate humans) the story may be different, of course. But that gives us 40 years of fighting crappy rivals and setting social expectations. Whosoever rules the minds of the public rules their purses. Mindshare is everything, authority means nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a massive body of precedent of other analogues of this happening in the past to many professions. Seen many people doing calculus? No, because machines were taught to do it instead, based on body of work of those doing calculus in the past.
Yup, and that's awesome and will continue to be awesome right up until it happens to Luckyo's profession.
They're asking for restrictions to what is probably the most fundamental right to being human. Right to learn from other people. Their request is clouded in rhetorical obfuscation as is obviously the case for people who's profession is all about lying about everything that they are and misrepresenting themselves as something completely different.
But their request is the most anti-human thing anyone can ask. It's to chain our ability to learn from other people. To adapt. To improve ourselves. To be better in the future than we were in the past. Even the likes of Pol Pot weren't this extreme in their impulse to constrain human intelligence.
So you are saying what? ... that the actors are "people who's profession is all about lying about everything that they are and misrepresenting themselves as something completely different." and they are maliciously denying others (i.e. film studios) the "Right to learn from other people."?? But the actors are not denying other people the right to learn a damn thing. The actors are just not willing to sel
Re: (Score:2)
Actually you do expect a percentage of sales for doing nothing as a software writer. It's called "stock options" and "employee shares".
Ask yourself what is so special about what you do as a programmer, that you should get the right to own a small piece of your employer's future business in perpetuity if you so choose.
Re: (Score:2)
Ask yourself what is so special about what you do as a programmer, that you should get the right to own a small piece of your employer's future business in perpetuity if you so choose.
Ask yourself what is so special about what your employer does that they should get the right to own all of what you've created while being paid a nominal fee.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Mate, the software you write is surrendered by yourself to the company as agreed in your contract.
It is not a representation of you. It does not reflect on you, it is very likey only for the internal use of the company.
Writing software is akin to writing a report. Your name may be on it but it is not personally yours and does not contain anything of yourself.
However, the Actors *likeness*, what identifies themselves as themselves, their image, voice and personality. This is personally identifiable and li
Re: Over-entitled SOBs (Score:2)
I don't expect a percentage of sales...
You're being disingenuous. A shoe maker doesn't get paid per step but an actor - or musician, let's not forget those - gets paid per line, over and over because cocaine is expensive.
Re: Over-entitled SOBs (Score:2)
Those aren't valid comparisons. The auto maker who sells the car only generates revenue on that initial sale. However, with televisions and movies, revenue is generated every time that movie is shown or relicensed. Initial theatrical release is one thing. But something that then gets resold to television, re-release, syndication, you name it, generates new revenue on that same act.
The fact that you get paid once to create a product like software, simply a testament to your replaceability and non-unakness as
Re: (Score:2)
That's no longer true. Mercedes and other auto manufacturers will sell you a car, and then lease you the technical services that they've embedded into the vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you get paid once to create a product like software, simply a testament to your replaceability and non-unakness as a programmer. With acting or any performance, a lot of the value comes from the draw of the individual. Programmers can be replaced and nobody knows who wrote the code. People don't buy software because a specific person wrote it. They buy it based off of the program itself.
Isn't "replaceability" exactly what their strike is about? If they are correct, winning this fight won't stem the tide, just slow it down. It will just mean that they eventually will get replaced by entirely new CGI star creations that become the box office draw. Pixar 2.0 - NOW with more realism and AI vocals!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, quite a lot of programmers get royalties on their software. It's why the mobile app market is as strong as it is.
If you write software for your employer and aren't paid some in stock, then you're in a very regressive company.
In order to replicate an actor 100% they must (a) cross the uncanny valley, and (b) replicate the human brain perfectly. It's hard to say when (a) can be accomplished, but (b) will take another 40 years. Until then, the creators should be paying under existing IP and likeness
Re: Over-entitled SOBs (Score:2)
The rest of the entertainment industry gets paid residuals so why wouldn't the actors? Should a music band only be paid for the time in the studio and all the record label get all the residuals?
Re: (Score:2)
Not enough to get paid for a day's work, they demand "residuals". Who else does that?
The people who own the studios. In fact, the shareholders don't even do a day's work and want "dividends".
Re: (Score:2)
Book authors get royalties. Same thing. Except actors aren't authors. The writers might have a point.
Re: (Score:2)
No more absurd than expecting to get paid forever for one day's work.
Re: (Score:2)
Im starting a new publishing company. We will pay you for 1 copy of your book. Then we will make millions of copies of your book and sell it. But don't you worry,w e paid you for that one copy. If you want more money, write more books!
Re: Technically not free... (Score:2)
You're example is correct, but what it boils down to is that if you help create something, then in some cases you should retain some portion of ownership and thus be entitled to part of the continued profits.
Books are a good example - authors get a piece every time a copy is sold, because everyone makes money then. But when the book is read, no one gets paid. We seem to draw the line here with "creative" endeavors. The guys who built your house don't get a share of the profit every time it is sold, and I do
Re: (Score:2)
Can you link sources of your claim? There are many sources that say otherwise.
without any further info, (Score:2)
this is just a rant...
So they didn't receive any proposal? Or they did, but it doesn't contain what that guy cites? Or...?
Can you please elaborate further on this? Thanks
you will not know (Score:2)
"I will not pay to see a movie that contains an AI generated character(s) if said character(s) have a living breathing actor counterpart."
The living actor will be contractually restricted from revealing the proportion of AI-generated stuff, I guess.
Re: Hard To Spend The Money When You're Dead. (Score:2)
The money's being made. Does it go to the studio or to the family of the actor?
Re: (Score:2)
Studio.
Re: Hard To Spend The Money When You're Dead. (Score:2)
Why?
Re: (Score:2)
It's their assets. They could have picked anybody. The art is in the story. It is the actor's responsibility to take care of his family with whatever funds he made. The actor could have been sitting under a tree in a field in Missouri and never even had the chance to be in the movie, yet the studio would have made the movie anyway.
Re:Hard To Spend The Money When You're Dead. (Score:5, Informative)
No it came straight from the top of SAG/AFRA. Not "anonymous actor".
And yes, that was literally the proposal. That the actors would get a days pay for it.
Re: Hard To Spend The Money When You're Dead. (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a company in Israel already doing this, they digitize you but then contract a certain number of hours of your likeness, rather than perpetuity. So you are guaranteed more money if they continue to use it. Obviously not as much as in person, but it seems like the proper starting point for a hybrid model.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah....with a still (at the time) HOT Susan Dey.
Still a fun movie to watch...way ahead of it's time.