Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AI Movies

SAG-AFTRA Won't Budge As Studios Push To Own Actors' Likenesses In Perpetuity (theverge.com) 113

Posted by BeauHD from the stalemate dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Though negotiators from both the Screen Actors Guild (SAG-AFTRA) and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) met this past weekend in hopes of bringing Hollywood's ongoing labor strike to an end, contract talks have reportedly stalled once again due to the desire of studios to own performers' digitally scanned likenesses in perpetuity.

Previously, the AMPTP insisted that its most recent proposed contract was its "best and final" offer. But according to The Hollywood Reporter, SAG-AFTRA refused and walked away from the negotiations over the AMPTP's insistence on pushing for new rules regarding the use of people's likenesses that would ultimately leave actors in the lurch. Per The Hollywood Reporter, the AMPTP's newest contract would allow studios to secure the digitally scanned likenesses of all Schedule F performers -- members of the guild making more than the minimum $32,000 / episode rate for series or more than $60,000 for feature films.

The AMPTP has been trying to get SAG-AFTRA on board with the idea of studios paying actors for their likenesses since the strike began earlier this year. Because this most recent proposal would allow studios to use digital scans of dead actors without the consent of their estates or the guild, however, SAG-AFTRA has refused and expressed its desire for changes that would require the studios to pay actors each time their faces are used and receive consent from those actors before doing so. On Monday evening, SAG-AFTRA posted a short message to X (formerly Twitter) stating, "There are several essential items on which we still do not have an agreement, including AI."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SAG-AFTRA Won't Budge As Studios Push To Own Actors' Likenesses In Perpetuity More

SAG-AFTRA Won't Budge As Studios Push To Own Actors' Likenesses In Perpetuity

Comments Filter:

  • FREEDOM! (Score:3)

    by Thud457 ( 234763 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @05:14PM (#63988333) Homepage Journal
    You best believe in cyberpunk dystopias, [kym-cdn.com]
    because you're in one

  • The only person who should own the rights... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MpVpRb ( 1423381 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @05:15PM (#63988343)

    ,,,to their face is the person who owns it, for the duration of their lifetime. After that, it should become public domain

    • A bit rough for the surviving family when all the boutique plastic surgeons get wind of this.

    • Re: The only person who should own the rights... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by firewrought ( 36952 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @05:40PM (#63988403)
      This. It should be considered a moral right. Similar to how you can sell your labor but not sell yourself into slavery.

      • This. It should be considered a moral right. Similar to how you can sell your labor but not sell yourself into slavery.

        It's been a while since I read something so stupid. Congratulations. You've just given another reason theft should be legal.

        That is my likeness. I choose what movie it appears in. Once I'm dead you, nor anyone, has the right to use me or my likeness without my permission. Or does the whole, my body, my choice not matter?

        If you don't think I have the right to how my persona is used, I'll record you know, wait unitl you're dead, then make money off using your likeness. Neither your estate or any family me

        • OK, let's say that you have a successful career in the movies. There's going to be film from each of your movies that ended up on the cutting room floor. Now, let's also say that your studio keeps all of that film and, after you're dead, uses that to have you appear in new films. Are they entitled to do that, regardless of what your estate says or not? And, in either case, why?
        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • My favorite is Prince (Score:5, Informative)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @05:45PM (#63988413)
      he did that whole "artist formerly known as..." thing and everyone laughed. Late night had a field day.

      Years later I found out that his given name is Prince, and that the record studio got him in a contract where they owned his name. When the contract expired he switched back.

      • Prince also got very paranoid over this, and kept his later music locked up in a safe so that he had exclusive control over it and how it was released. The music industry is very well trained in how to exploit young and naive musicians.

      • He later went on to release an album by selling it to a newspaper who gave it away on their sunday edition. The music industry chastised him for being an idiot, and how we was "ruining" music and whatnot. The thing is, he probably made more money from that newspaper deal than he ever would have got from a record company. Doubly so because his album wasn't his best work by a long way.

        I too didn't understand the whole "symbol" thing at the time. It seems very few people did, and that's a shame. Contrast to (s

    • ,to their face is the person who owns it, for the duration of their lifetime. After that, it should become public domain

      It should be forever.

      The reason copyright is life of the author, plus some extra, is because that is an exchange - you agree to give your works to the public eventually in exchange for the government protecting your rights to exclusive ownership while you live, and have immediate heirs.

      A face though - there you have nothing to trade, you only have what you are. But what you are and are as

      • Why? Why should likeness rights be forever? If we are going to do it in a manner similar to IP laws, there HAS to be a limit, it CAN NOT be forever. Think of the implications that could have.

        • Think of the implications that could have.

          What is the harm in someone not being able to use your specific likeness again in any kind of generality? I see zero possible harm to disallowing that.

          I see MASSIVE active harm in allowing this after any amount of time. Should Churchill be advertising in favor of a particular beer brand? How about Obama with a rousing KKK endorsement?

    • Given the moral and ethical standards of entertainment industry executives, the inevitable outcome of such a law would be the early "accidental" death of a lot of successful actors.

      • Given the moral and ethical standards of entertainment industry executives, the inevitable outcome of such a law would be the early "accidental" death of a lot of successful actors.

        Yeah, I've seen that movie, [imdb.com].

        • I haven't seen it, but I looked it up on Wikipedia. I think I might see if I can find it somewhere and give it a watch.

          So maybe we're at the point where life imitates art. Entertainment industry executives have proved time and again there's nothing they won't do for a buck. I think their only concern about taking a life would be, "Can I get away with it?

    • Re:The only person who should own the rights... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @06:04PM (#63988467)

      ,,,to their face is the person who owns it, for the duration of their lifetime. After that, it should become public domain

      Agree partly. As much as I don't like copyright going on for a billion years after death I think a performer, or more to the point, their family, should still have control of their image after death.

      I can imagine a young performer passing away at the height of their fame and a bunch of B-movie studios suddenly casting them in cheap flicks (even pornography). I think decency requires that their family or whomever they entrusted the decision to should have control of the image for quite a while postmortem.

      Should James Dean's image at this point? Maybe. Should Heath Ledgers? I think his image should still be protected.

    • My question is; Will you have to be in the union to register, own your likeness?

    • Re:The only person who should own the rights... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @06:58PM (#63988595)

      Public domain should be same os other works out there - X years past the death of the copyright owner. Now, the movie industry would pound their head on the all over this, because they're the ones who pushed to keep extending the duration over and over...

      The rationale for protecting copyright is clear here, for many images and shows that have become public domain, or for which copyright lapsed through lack of enforcement, there have been major abuses. Winnie the Pooh in a slasher movie; The Banana Splits kids show in a horror movie; and who knows how many porns were involved in this (though undoubedly there's at least one Slashdot reader who's seen them all if I know this crowd).

      The other rationale is financial too of course - digitize the actor's face, voice, and mannerisms once, pay that actor once, then use the digital version forever without further payments. This is not an unfounded fear, because this is exactly what Hollywood wants.

      • X years past the death of the copyright owner

        VERY strong disagree; copyright should never have been expanded to it being "author's life plus ," and it shouldn't be normalized as OK. There was and still is a reason behind the rights ending merely 14-28 years originally - part of copyright in the constitution, to promote:

        To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

        Basically, it expired WITHIN the lifetime so the public domain had a regular influx of new material, and so that creators who would benefit from their copyright, would still have to create, which'd perpetuate the cycle of creation,

        • However, if the Hollywood moguls want this as their rule for their own movie copyrights, then it's only fair that they uphold that for their actor's likenesses as well. Fair is fair. If the studios don't like it, then they should lobby to fix copyright laws to no longer be in their favor, which of course they will never do.

        • I'm glad someone mentioned this. The term lengths completely defeat the intended purpose of copyright, and are based on some nebulous concept of "moral ownership" that, to my knowledge, is not articulated anywhere in law.

      • No they wouldn't they will simply make it so actors can sell their copyright to their image, make new actors sign it away and keep using their images, the longer the better.

        The rich will win no matter what.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mattr ( 78516 )

      Maybe. But then actors will have to compete with dead actors.
      I mean, writers compete with dead writers, and I guess engineers compete with dead engineers.. but fundamentally they make money being around to handle real world problems of the current era. It seems likely a dead actor could be manipulated to fulfill any script, even against the actor's beliefs or those of his family. Oh yeah, same for musicians so no more suing politicians for using their music without permission. I think you have to realize a

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      No person has a right to their face, because there are plenty of people who look very similar. Otherwise I'm demanding rights to having two hands with five fingers on each. Notably, hands are far more distinct per person than faces: see fingerprints and visible blood vessel patterns. But if they look similar, I get you charge you. Not to even mention that identical twins do exist. Including identical twin actors. Imagine the hilarity of "which one owns the likeness of the other" which is very real if this i

  • WAIT.... (Score:3)

    by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @05:23PM (#63988367) Homepage Journal

    Schedule F performers -- members of the guild making more than the minimum $32,000 / episode rate for series or more than $60,000 for feature films.

    Minimum wage for appearing on a TV show, 1 fucking episode is $32K?!?!?!

    Wholly shit......

    • If I was a member of that guild I'd prefer a numbered tier system. Schedule F has failure connotations.

    • Re:WAIT.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by berj ( 754323 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @05:48PM (#63988427)

      No.. that's not what that means. the $32,000 is the minimum for Schedule F performers. There are others (covered under other schedules) who make less under the current collective agreement.

    • Re:WAIT.... (Score:4, Informative)

      by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @05:54PM (#63988439)

      I was curious about what the "Schedule" meant, I did find a forum for film law that stated it this way

      Schedule F means the actor is paid $65k or more. Unless otherwise agree by the parties, it’s a flat fee, inclusive of all days/weeks worked, overtime, travel, rehearsal and post time. Rarely have I seen someone not agree to that, although they may ask for overages if you exceed a certain number of days. The only thing you cannot include in the fee, and its extra, are penalties. Such as forced call or meal penalties.

      https://www.thefilmlaw.com/cgi... [thefilmlaw.com]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jbengt ( 874751 )

      Minimum wage for appearing on a TV show, 1 fucking episode is $32K?!?!?!

      No, that's the minimum to be classified as Schedule F, not the minimum anyone can be paid. There are a lot of lower paid schedules.

    • Re:WAIT.... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by NormalVisual ( 565491 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @11:00PM (#63988995)

      No, $32K is not the minimum for an appearance in a single episode of a show. I have friends that have had speaking guest roles in shows like "Ozark" and were paid a few thousand dollars for a couple of minutes of screen time, but they might only get cast for two appearances per year and had to fly from all the way across the country on their own dime to do it. The per-episode pay looks extravagant for those of us used to a much smaller steady bi-weekly paycheck, but that money isn't a steady flow for most actors. It's like consulting gigs - you might make bank during the term of engagement, but that money has to last you until you score your next job.

      • Absolutely, you bring up a crucial point about the entertainment industry, especially for actors. The appearance fees might seem substantial at first glance, but the irregularity and uncertainty of job opportunities can pose significant challenges. It's akin to freelancing or consulting, where the income may come in bursts, and managing finances between gigs becomes paramount. For individuals navigating the fluctuating income landscape, adopting sound financial practices is essential. Planning for the downt

  • Should be illegal... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by christoban ( 3028573 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @05:28PM (#63988373)

    It should be illegal to give over such rights on any other than a one-use basis. Otherwise, any asshole could sneak this into any contract or agreement, and that's your likeness

    Just my opinion, not a lawyer. Don't come get me.

    • This is kinda why I like the idea (Score:4, Insightful)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @05:47PM (#63988419)
      of mandatory voting. You can't suppress "undesirables" voting if it's mandatory (and if you're complaint is uninformed people will vote stop breaking the education system already).

      A lot of times the only way to stop abuses is to make them impossible in the first place.
      • Unfortunately, it'd never make it in the US. People would bitch about being 'taxed' for not voting. The right wing Republicans would make it so odious to vote (like they do now) that it would be personally harmful for non-Republicans to vote (loss of pay, loss of job, etc). The people least able to vote and least able to pay the penalty would be the most likely to actually pay the penalty. It'd be the same old being-poor-is-expensive and being-poor-keeps-you-poor that is the US.

        • Unfortunately, it'd never make it in the US.

          Because it's a stupid idea. You'd never be able to enforce it, and it would cause enormous unrest with no real benefit.

          The right wing Republicans

          Oh, those waskawy Republicans! Seriously, do you broken records ever give it a rest? Why must every single issue be divided perfectly along partisan lines? Every single Republican is evil incarnate, and every Democrat is an angel just waiting to get his wings?

          would make it so odious to vote (like they do now)

          Riiight. Go get a free ID and easily obtainable and vote absentee through the mail, or go stand in line on Election Day. So fuc

          • Meant to say "free and easily obtainable ID."

          • Funny how lots of other countries manage to enforce mandatory voting without any civil unrest.

            So that's not a reason I'd accept. Any real reasons you think it's a stupid idea?

            • Funny how lots of other countries manage to enforce mandatory voting without any civil unrest

              What other countries? Has it solved all your problems? Like magic?

              • Australia, Belgium, Luxembourg, Singapore...

                Did I say it would solve problems like magic? I just offered a rebuttal to your insane comment that it would be impossible.

                Certainly I believe the healthcare systems in the four countries I named are significantly better than that of the USA.

                That may be a plus or a minus depending on your personal political beliefs.

      • You can't suppress "undesirables" voting if it's mandatory

        Sure you can. It's just that in addition to not being able to vote, the "undesirables" would also have to pay a fine.

        • there'd be massive lawsuits which they'd would lose because the optics of fining somebody would be bad. It's not "fair".

          Americans and people in general care deeply about "fairness". It's easy to trick people into think unfair things are fair a lot of times, but there are limits. And fining somebody for not doing something you required them to do when they tried to do it would be one of those.

      • Making voting mandatory does not magically improve everything - see Australia as an example.

        (Not having a dig at the Aussies, it's a great country, but from what I've seen of their politics it's just as bad as everywhere else.)

        • Maybe yes, maybe no, but their public heathcare shits all over the US system.

          Honestly no competition. If mandatory voting improves the important things, that's good enough for me.
    • Aging celebs thinking about retiring might not agree with that. Some might want to cash in big now by selling their likeness for 70 years after their death for huge lump sum they can spend while still living.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by UpnAtom ( 551727 )

      In the EU (and still in the UK), burying unfair terms in a contract makes them unenforceable.

      https://hsfnotes.com/litigatio... [hsfnotes.com]

      Likewise, the EU disqualifies unfair terms in consumer contracts that weren't made obvious ahead of the sale.

      • Yeah, that's good, but I'm not always talking about buried terms. Also don't you still have to sue and bear that expense? That may me the case over here, I'm not a lawyer.

        I'm really less concerned about buried stuff and more concerned with terms you and everyone knows is in there, but you're pressured or forced to sign.

        If the terms of use on my iPad required me to allow Apple to use every image I take for any reason, I'd have no real choice but to tap "Agree!"

  • Well if they won't give up... (Score:3)

    by christoban ( 3028573 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @05:30PM (#63988379)

    If the studios won't budge on something so fundamental, we should make this a law.

  • Keep the stale-mate going for a few more years (Score:4, Funny)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @05:41PM (#63988405)

    I've got a whole stack of unwatched series to binge on. I'll need the time to catch up.

  • AMPTP knows this is a non-starter because soon AI will be able to cheaply and accurately replace one actor with another's likeness. Hard to believe they are negotiating in good faith. This is an existential threat to both the union and its members livelihoods.

  • Licensing likeness isn't just bad for actors (Score:3)

    by wakeboarder ( 2695839 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @06:00PM (#63988457)
    it's bad for everyone, it means we get less original content and end up seeing the same thing over and over again. Come up with something original.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by evanh ( 627108 )

      It potentially goes beyond acting too. This has potential to set the rules around training of all deep learning neural nets. Eg: The source material used for ChatGPT4's training set. Which is seriously overdue.

  • All of you tools who've done the DNA test on any of the ancestry websites have signed away you're rights to your DNA. This is actually less invasive since it's your external image, not the very composition of who you are.

  • It's all about money (Score:5, Insightful)

    by larryjoe ( 135075 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @06:52PM (#63988577)

    The studios are essentially asking for a significant decrease in the amount paid to the actors. What they want is the right to use many copies of the actors faces for the same current price. Of course, the actors are right to refuse. Agreeing would be like the studios allowing a consumer to buy one copy of a movie and ceding that consumer the rights to make infinite copies and do what the buyer wishes with those copies.

    What the studios are asking for is reasonable if they are willing to pay the significantly increased price for the significantly increased usage. But this argument isn't about rights. It's about money.

    • I'd argue it's more extreme than that, and that a better analogy would be paying a plumber to install a toilet but somehow magically conferring his skills and experience upon the customer so that they could easily do their own work at the same level. An actor's appearance and/or voice is often a fundamental part of their contribution to something, and depriving them of that exclusive is like stealing (as in, depriving them of the ability to use) what they bring to a project.

  • I support SAG-AFTRA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @07:38PM (#63988675) Journal

    I support SAG-AFTRA wholeheartedly.

    The studios will turn this into a cash cow in perpetuity and the actors themselves won't get shit.

  • Turns out that was just the beginning. The grassfuckers in Hollywood have a whole a$$load of bad ideas in mind. The problem, as they see it, is they don't want to have to talk to Worldwide XR to license image rights from an estate once someone dies. That costs money and residuals. So instead the idea is to "secure" (i.e. steal) their digital likeness rights while the celebrity is alive. Then the Awesome-O 3000 can go to work making infinite plots.

  • American actors are expensive. Use ones from cheaper countries to produce the next generation of films and starve the LA actors into submission. In effect those other countries provide 'scab' labour - but I suspect that most countries will accept the extra activity without asking too many questions; the growing popularity of South Korean shows is perhaps an indication of this.

  • The studios should NOT be able to use a digital recreation of an actor's likeness or voice without their permission (or for dead actors, the permission of their estates). And the studios should have to pay money each time they want to use that actor's digital recreation in a movie or TV show.

  • Just like the old IP getting recycled into oblivion, I don't want to see the same old shit over and over.

    I like seeing new faces.

  • Once these actors are images in perpetuity, who will become the next top actors? There won't be any lower level actors to take their place, just AI generated images. Once that happens the entire industry will collapse. No need for sound engineers, camera people, caterers, assistance, costumers, makeup artists, and many other groups that I cannot think of off the top of my head. That is a lot of people without jobs. A lot of cost removed, yet I expect the price of a ticket to go up at the same time. Mo

    • And to return this to 'news for nerds' constantly we see US companies saying 'we can't find any people!' Well, if you've offshored all the lower level work where does your next generation of senior (engineers, doctors, whatever) come from? Without experience how do you get seasoned skill? Obviously not the same situation at all, but yes, actors don't start at the top and I really hate to tell folks who run industries this, that while 'entertainment in a vacuum' will work for a while, it won't work forever

    • Well, we'll just have to go to live plays. Or will those be acted by anthropomorphic robots?

Slashdot Top Deals

To communicate is the beginning of understanding. -- AT&T

Close