SAG-AFTRA Calls Out Fortnite Over Darth Vader AI Voice 75
SAG-AFTRA has filed a labor complaint against Fortnite developer Epic Games, alleging the game improperly used AI to replicate James Earl Jones' Darth Vader voice without bargaining with the union, despite the estate's approval. Gizmodo reports: The union has now filed an unfair labor practice charge (link to the PDF is on the SAG-AFTRA website) that calls out "Fortnite's signatory company, Llama Productions" for "[replacing] the work of human performers with AI technology" without "providing any notice of their intent to do this and without bargaining with us over appropriate terms."
The union notes that it's not against the general idea here: "We celebrate the right of our members and their estates to control the use of their digital replicas and welcome the use of new technologies to allow new generations to share in the enjoyment of those legacies and renowned roles." The problem is that the AI being used here makes human voice actors obsolete, and "we must protect our right to bargain terms and conditions around uses of voice that replace the work of our members, including those who previously did the work of matching Darth Vader's iconic rhythm and tone in video games."
So far there's been no response from Epic Games on the filing. The Hollywood Reporter notes that despite the SAG-AFTRA's still-ongoing Interactive Media Agreement strike, which has been stuck for months on negotiating "AI protections for voice actors in video games," actors can actually work on Fortnite without violating the strike, since the game falls under an exception for titles that were in production before August 2023.
The union notes that it's not against the general idea here: "We celebrate the right of our members and their estates to control the use of their digital replicas and welcome the use of new technologies to allow new generations to share in the enjoyment of those legacies and renowned roles." The problem is that the AI being used here makes human voice actors obsolete, and "we must protect our right to bargain terms and conditions around uses of voice that replace the work of our members, including those who previously did the work of matching Darth Vader's iconic rhythm and tone in video games."
So far there's been no response from Epic Games on the filing. The Hollywood Reporter notes that despite the SAG-AFTRA's still-ongoing Interactive Media Agreement strike, which has been stuck for months on negotiating "AI protections for voice actors in video games," actors can actually work on Fortnite without violating the strike, since the game falls under an exception for titles that were in production before August 2023.
Petition to the judge (Score:2, Insightful)
SAG-AFTRA is effectively suing to try and get a job of a couple of lines.
The defendant however is Epic games and this is about Fortnite
Is it possible the judge could find both parties at fault and just fine them both into oblivion? :-) If not, which pig in the muck pen are you rooting for?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Petition to the judge (Score:5, Insightful)
The details of this particular action are incidental. The specifics, the duration, and the value don't matter.
What they are doing - and probably must do to remain relevant - is block the creation of precedent.
most decent bass voices can do that sound (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of looking at this as people doing a thing versus AI/LLM doing a thing, and that being the crux of the problem, let's look at what leverage they're using:
"... around uses of voice that replace the work of our members, including those who previously did the work of matching Darth Vader's iconic rhythm and tone in video games."
It doesn't really matter where the replacement voice came from. They're (mostly?) making a union claim. You've gotta get your voices from the union, or get their approval if the
I get JEJ suing, the union is a stretch (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're replicating someone's work with AI, then you should pay them.
But the idea that the union can force companies to pay voice actors in general instead of AI is BS. You don't have a right to be hired because you're in a union.
Re:I get JEJ suing, the union is a stretch (Score:5, Informative)
If you're replicating someone's work with AI, then you should pay them.
JEJ is dead, and he already got paid for this. Before he died he was paid to license his voice for AI reproduction for exactly this scenario. The odd part here is the union thinking they deserve a cut of the money for someone who is no longer an active member.
Re:I get JEJ suing, the union is a stretch (Score:5, Interesting)
The odd part here is the union thinking they deserve a cut of the money
You must not have a lot of experience with unions to think there's anything odd about this behavior. It's pretty well expected for them to pull something like this. It's not about protecting the artist, it's about getting their cut and maintaining their control.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't think the union filed the complaint to 'get money' from Epic. I think this is a poorly-thought attempt to 'represent their members' rights'.
Looking at the PDF of the complaint linked in the statement on their website, it seems the problem is that Epic didn't go and look to employ a 'live' voiceover artist SAG member who could do the voice work, but instead went 'straight to the source' (see what I did there?). The company didn't hire a union member, so the union is big mad.
I think their goal in d
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at the PDF of the complaint linked in the statement on their website, it seems the problem is that Epic didn't go and look to employ a 'live' voiceover artist SAG member who could do the voice work, but instead went 'straight to the source' (see what I did there?).
SAG is suing because the game didn't hire a live SAG member to do interactive voiceover work in a MOBA, where the live voiceover artist has to respond in real time on a 24/7/365 basis to an unknown number of dialog streams... while the voice actors were on strike. When SAG can produce a voice actor who can, at any time day or night, with no rest at any time, produce intelligent voice response to whatever a player might say, and do this in, say, ten simultaneous dialogs, I'll concede the SAG has some truly a
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I get JEJ suing, the union is a stretch (Score:4, Informative)
“JEJ is dead, and he already got paid for this.”
Yes. Which is why his estate isn’t the one filing the complaint. This isn’t about estate rights. It’s about Epic bypassing its bargaining obligations to living SAG-AFTRA performers. There are people alive right now—professionals—who have voiced Darth Vader in games. They’re the ones being replaced. They’re the ones being cut out of the process. They’re the ones whose rights are being violated.
“The odd part here is the union thinking they deserve a cut of the money”
Wrong again. SAG-AFTRA isn’t asking for a cut. They’re asserting their federally protected right to negotiate the terms under which AI replaces union work. If you don’t negotiate, you’re breaking the law—plain and simple.
“for someone who is no longer an active member.”
That’s not how union contracts work. When a job traditionally performed by union labor is automated or outsourced, the union still has standing to bargain over that change—regardless of who originally performed the role. The work isn’t “free” just because the original performer is gone. If that logic held, every employer would simply license past performances, wrap them in AI, and declare the union obsolete.
Here’s what this really boils down to:
Epic Games used a technological shortcut to avoid paying living professionals—and failed to follow the bargaining process required by law. This isn’t about money for the dead. It’s about power for the living.
And one more thing: for all the tech-bro coders and developers watching this unfold from the sidelines—thinking this is just a “voice actor problem”—remember this:
Your job can be trained into a model, too.
Re: (Score:3)
The interesting bit is that the only real tool a union has is the strike. When AI can outright replace you, all a strike does is speed up the replacement process.
It is only a matter of time before AI tools replace 99% of the production process. Maybe 99.9%.
Re: I get JEJ suing, the union is a stretch (Score:3)
Piracy. (Score:2)
When AI can outright replace you, all a strike does is speed up the replacement process.
It is only a matter of time before AI tools replace 99% of the production process. Maybe 99.9%.
And this means that you'll be able to happily torrent, all these without any (copyright) legal recourse from those companies.
Remember: only the output of members of the H. sapiens specie is copyrightable. Not even selfies by apes are. And AI output certainly is NOT.
It means that today you can rip out this sound-bytes and share them freely and remix them. Nobody can sue you for copyright infringement.
When 999% or 99.9% of the production process is AI, it means that more than 90% of a movie or videogame is t
Re: (Score:2)
Remember: only the output of members of the H. sapiens specie is copyrightable. Not even selfies by apes are. And AI output certainly is NOT.
For now.
Do you have enough lobbying money to keep things like this indefinitely? No?
And the mega-corporation that would benefit the most from having AI-content copyrightable, do they have billions of dollars to throw into lobbying until their wishes become true? Yes?
That's it then. AI-content WILL become copyrightable. It's not a matter of if, but of when.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're replicating someone's work with AI, then you should pay them.
But the idea that the union can force companies to pay voice actors in general instead of AI is BS. You don't have a right to be hired because you're in a union.
The following question then becomes if a person does impressions of people onstage, do they have to pay Sag- Afra or some undetermined people to do those impressions? It's no different than this situation, or even worse, since JEJ's estate has approved its use.
Doesn't Sag-Afra have better things to do, like insure Diversity, Inclusion, and Equality?
Re: (Score:1)
Doesn't Sag-Afra have better things to do, like insure Diversity, Inclusion, and Equality?
People who complain about DEI will wish from the bottom of their heart DEI were in place by the time AI agents and robots are deemed three orders of magnitude more meritorious than they are at their careers (not mere job, their entire career), and meritocratically replace them. And also their would be second career. And the third. And fourth. And they find themselves finally reduced to begging on the streets for utter lack of any merit whatsoever, the lazy bums!
Re:I get JEJ suing, the union is a stretch (Score:4, Informative)
Doesn't Sag-Afra have better things to do, like insure Diversity, Inclusion, and Equality?
People who complain about DEI will wish from the bottom of their heart DEI were in place by the time AI agents and robots are deemed three orders of magnitude more meritorious than they are at their careers (not mere job, their entire career), and meritocratically replace them. And also their would be second career. And the third. And fourth. And they find themselves finally reduced to begging on the streets for utter lack of any merit whatsoever, the lazy bums!
So I take it that the only people left employed will be really into DEI?
I really threw our Diversity indoctrinator for a loop, after she told us that Diversity meant cherishing all cultures.
I asked her if we were to cherish The Djibuti's who practice female infibulation, because Diversity says all cultures, and the ritual removal of the vulva and clitoris of women when they reach puberty.
It is easy to sit in America whining about how bad you have it, where people think we're the absolute worst people on earth, while supporting female infibulation and death by stoning while buried with only your head sticking out as the target - for adultery. Gotta Cherish diversity, and no exceptions allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
I asked her if we were to cherish The Djibuti's who practice female infibulation, because Diversity says all cultures, and the ritual removal of the vulva and clitoris of women when they reach puberty.
You had a stupid "indoctrinator". DEI doesn't mean "cherishing" the breaking of laws and norms of sociability. It's (lower-case) liberalism, not anti-liberalism.
Rather than exposing nonsense and strawmen, try Google. The top organic results are generally accurate.
Re: (Score:3)
I asked her if we were to cherish The Djibuti's who practice female infibulation, because Diversity says all cultures, and the ritual removal of the vulva and clitoris of women when they reach puberty.
You had a stupid "indoctrinator". DEI doesn't mean "cherishing" the breaking of laws and norms of sociability. It's (lower-case) liberalism, not anti-liberalism.
Rather than exposing nonsense and strawmen, try Google. The top organic results are generally accurate.
Out of curiosity - are you in favor of infibulation if the girl consents to it? If no, why do you deny self determination and identity.
But here's your problem - you are playing the "no True Scotsman" You are being quite intolerant by telling anyone that a Trained diversity coach, who BTW was a dark skinned identifying as female person of African descent, that she was stupid. Stop being racist! We all know that in a world of self identification and pronouns that she is completely entitled to her own ju
Re: (Score:2)
Being tolerant and accepting of all cultures doesn't mean being tolerant and accepting of everything in that culture.
For example, I am generally tolerant and accepting of "Southern" culture, which often seems to fetishize things like hunting, NASCAR, and country music, even though I personally dislike those things.
I'm not tolerant of the abject stupidity that often comes with it, such as the denial of the efficacy of vaccines, the general demonization of large urban cities and the people in them, or the ide
Re: (Score:2)
Out of curiosity - are you in favor of infibulation if the girl consents to it?
I'm a transhumanist, so yes, I don't mind body modifications of any kind if the person wants to do it and it doesn't impose anything upon anyone else. Conversely, I'm opposed to forcing anyone to suffer body modification they are unwilling to go through.
For example, I'm in favor of circumcision for adult converts to Judaism, Islam, and Americanism, but opposed to the forced circumcision of infants.
You are being quite intolerant by telling anyone that a Trained diversity coach, who BTW was a dark skinned identifying as female person of African descent, that she was stupid.
If the way you described her reaction was as you described, yes, she was stupid. Also, I don't care for you att
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you think AI will completely upend civilization why hasn't industrialization already destroyed it?
Because previous technological revolutions removed some careers that people with a certain IQ range could perform, while opening other careers people with that same IQ range could perform, so all it took for someone to change careers was retraining and a bit of luck.
The AI revolution is different. Once robotics catch up, it's going to remove all careers for IQ ranges up to n, with n increasing year by year. Retraining will do nothing, as once the person is properly retrained into a new job suitable to their
Re: (Score:2)
No, because the viewers know this is not the real person speaking, only someone impersonating them for a few moments.
It's no different than this situation, or even worse, since JEJ's estate has approved its use.
No, it's not. People playing the game do not know it is not JEJ speaking the lines. He may have given permission to u
Re: (Score:2)
People playing the game do not know it is not JEJ speaking the lines. He may have given permission to use his voice after his death, but unless you know of this agreement, to you it's him speaking, not an AI-generated voice.
People are so stupid, amirite? Because JEJ was resurrected by Fortnite - Happens all the time.
Let's face it. This is SAG-AFRA and their rageboner about AI. They are trying to tap-dance around JEJ and his family approving the use of his generated voice because it is AI.
They want a cut of the profits, and ideally to make anything generated with AI just go away. They are going to lose that battle in the end.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're replicating someone's work with AI, then you should pay them.
This is far too unqualified of a statement. If I somehow have AI build my house (like, running the machines that stand up walls or 3d printing cement), which would clearly replace many skilled laborers, who are they supposed to pay and why?
This pressure tactic is only an option because of the union. If you or your company is ok not using union workers (which may mean other workers that are part of said union have to walk), then it's no different than using AI as your scabs - at least as far as the union is
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have a right to be hired because you're in a union.
Said the guy who can easily find a new job due their own solely individual merit (in other words, due to mere luck). A belief that changes once all that merit doesn't suffice anymore (aka, their luck ends), and they face eviction, homelessness, and begging for food.
Re: (Score:2)
This post is a masterclass in missing the point. It takes a real labor law violation and tries to spin it as a tantrum over job entitlement. Let’s be precise:
“If you're replicating someone's work with AI, then you should pay them.”
Correct—and irrelevant here. James Earl Jones was paid. His estate approved the license. The issue isn’t compensation for him. The issue is whether the use of that AI voice displaced union-covered work without negotiation.
“The idea that the union can force companies to pay voice actors in general instead of AI is BS.”
That’s not what SAG-AFTRA is doing. They’re not banning AI. They’re enforcing a core tenet of la
Like defending a sandcastle from the tide. (Score:2)
This really all depends on what contractual agreements that Epic Games has had with SAG-AFTRA's membership. However, if they have had none then SAG-AFTRA is grasping at straws.
I understand SAG-AFTRA's plight but even if they win this battle, they will lose the war, not by any fault of their own but merely by the fact that machines are cheaper.
Re: (Score:2)
Like defending a sandcastle from the tide
You are surely speaking of copyright itself.
Defending sandcastles is what a lot of laws do.
Re: (Score:2)
This really all depends on what contractual agreements that Epic Games has had with SAG-AFTRA's membership. However, if they have had none then SAG-AFTRA is grasping at straws.
I understand SAG-AFTRA's plight but even if they win this battle, they will lose the war, not by any fault of their own but merely by the fact that machines are cheaper.
Less issues as well.
There wouldn't be any Rachel Zeglers, wrecking movies that should have been money in the bank, and causing havoc with fellow actors.
Not that I'd want that to happen, part of the pop culture surrounding movies is interest in the actors and their personalities. But sometimes the toxic ones can make a real mess for ya.
Re: (Score:2)
"If you don't like it then don't see it" is a simple concept that everyone understands. What I don't understand why there are people that then bitch and moan about it after the fact. Like, why even bother giving it a second thought? Why go out of your way to learn the actors name? Why do you care so much? Before you say you don't, do recall that your brought this up unprompted and then whined about a specific actor "wrecking movies".
How are SAG-AFTRA involved? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
SAG is arguing that Epic is required to use SAG member voice actors instead of using the AI JEJ voice.
More to do with Voice Actors still alive .. (Score:2)
Putting aside the absurd decadence of paying people who 'play pretend' for a living enough money to feed the hungry, this looks like a test case for their existing union members who'll be worried about getting ripped off by AI.
Re: (Score:2)
What's their logic here? (Score:2)
From what I've seen, it's an LLM with a Darth Vader text to speech on top of it that players can interact with by voice. Are they arguing that they could provide a hundred thousand Darth Vader voice impersonators to interact with players real-time? Or is it a more generic "there is a voice there, give us money now" sort of thing?
Re:What's their logic here? (Score:5, Insightful)
The voice is James Earl Jones, and he did license his voice for use with AI before he died.
However, even though all that is in place, he was a SAG member, and there are certain agreements in use of that voice, AI generated or not. In addition, SAG members are on strike from providing voice work with video game companies.
Basically it boils down to determining if the AI voice of James Earl Jones is being used in contravention to his SAG membership - as in is it still technically a SAG voice work and being used while technically on strike.
It's basically a bunch of interesting points to be considered - do you have control of your voice now after you pass? Is your AI voice still you and thus still comes under all the agreements to be upheld - can your estate control who uses your voice for what work, or is it now at the mercy of the media companies who are free to sample and use your voice in their works without estate approval just because you let them use AI to do it?
It's an interesting question, and regardless of whether you think unions are good or bad, it's likely something only a union could bring up. Other actors without such representation might not have the ability to sue to control usage anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks for the input.
What mainly caught my eye were phrases from the summary like "The problem is that the AI being used here makes human voice actors obsolete," which just doesn't seem to be applicable to this use case at all. There's just no conceivable way this feature could exist without TTS. If the summary had indicated it was over whether or not the estate had the authority to agree to the use, or that this wasn't cleared with the estate, or something along those lines, I wouldn't have thought much of
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Is your AI voice still you and thus still comes under all the agreements to be upheld - can your estate control who uses your voice for what work, or is it now at the mercy of the media companies who are free to sample and use your voice in their works without estate approval just because you let them use AI to do it?
It's an interesting question, and regardless of whether you think unions are good or bad, it's likely something only a union could bring up. Other actors without such representation might not have the ability to sue to control usage anymore.
And are impressionists required to pay someone for every person they impersonate?
I mean, Doing a Darth Vader Impersonation isn't that difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
If they are a SAG member and they do impressions then they pay dues, if you do impressions then you're an actor doing a performance.
If it's a SAG production then they have to make sure they pay SAG rates and abide by the agreed upon rules.
We all think a DV impression isn't hard but I'm not impressing my buddies, this is a multi billion enterprise that wants to leverage the established copyrightable character to sell products for money.
Re: (Score:2)
If they are a SAG member and they do impressions then they pay dues, if you do impressions then you're an actor doing a performance.
If it's a SAG production then they have to make sure they pay SAG rates and abide by the agreed upon rules.
We all think a DV impression isn't hard but I'm not impressing my buddies, this is a multi billion enterprise that wants to leverage the established copyrightable character to sell products for money.
Sounds like they are greasing the skids for their downfall.
I suspect that Hollywood is eying these video games with some alarm. Because in the not too distant future, the CG actors will be indistinguishable from human actors. At that point, their demands to be paid for dead actor's voices will seem quaint.
And at that point, even if SAG-AFRA manages to block it in the USA, is their influence worldwide? Nope, it isn't. So this is coming, like it or not.
How close is it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's up to the audience, if people are willing to accept AI voice actors in their media then it's probably done for.
If the public rejects it or the tech can't actually, well, act then productions will still need professional actors and VA's.
Frankly I am leaning to the latter since while AI can do good voices, it can't really, well, act, at least in my opinion. Like when I see an AI actually create a new character and act it out. Like we can all make fun of Seth MacFarlane but that's a VA who can do an c
Re: (Score:2)
Darth Chad is a youtube star. Did he pay dues?
Is he related to Darth Pookie or Ray-Ray?
Re: (Score:2)
However, even though all that is in place, he was a SAG member, and there are certain agreements in use of that voice, AI generated or not.
The article seems to imply that SAG doesn't have these agreements in place. Their complaint is that the company didn't negotiate with SAG for appropriate terms, which means to me that no existing terms are in place to restrict what the company did. So why would they negotiate with SAG at all? I'm hoping to read something soon written by an actual lawyer explaining why SAG feels like they have a case here, because it isn't obvious even after reading their very brief legal filing.
Re: (Score:2)
Your comment might sound reasonable on the surface—but it’s a misdirection. You spend a lot of time raising abstract, philosophical questions about posthumous identity and estate control, while ignoring the actual labor law violation at the heart of this case.
Let’s bring the discussion back to reality.
“It boils down to determining if the AI voice of James Earl Jones is being used in contravention to his SAG membership”
No, it doesn’t. This case isn’t about Jones' membership. It’s about Epic Games replacing current union-covered voice work with AI and doing so without bargaining—a cl
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
can your estate control who uses your voice for what work, or is it now at the mercy of the media companies who are free to sample and use your voice in their works without estate approval just because you let them use AI to do it?
A point here... the JEJ estate approved the use, and got paid for it. The union is not suing on behalf of the JEJ estate. The union is suing on behalf of its members who could have gotten work instead of the JEJ estate being paid for the use of its asset (the JEJ AI voice.)
SAG may have a good case. If Epic has previously worked with SAG members and thus signed SAG contracts to abide by SAG union rules and this use is a violation of those rules and assuming those rules were in place at the time of the sig
it's their job to negotiate that, (Score:2)
SAG-AFTRA (Score:3)
We can't expect to advance as a civilization if people keep thinking they have the right to demand they be hired to do work that can be done by something or someone else. If horse carriage drivers had the right to transportation work, we would never have gotten trains or card. You don't have more right to a job than someone else and especially you don't have the right to prevent someone from using a machine to do a particular job.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the tired old tech-bro Darwinism again: “If machines can do your job, step aside.”
It sounds edgy until you realize it’s just warmed-over Gilded Age logic in a cyberpunk hoodie.
Let’s take it apart:
“We can’t expect to advance as a civilization if people keep thinking they have the right to demand they be hired”
No one is “demanding” permanent employment. Unions negotiate terms when disruptive change hits the workplace—like, say, being replaced by your own AI-trained voice model. That’s not Luddism. That’s basic labor law, and it exists because history shows aga
Re: (Score:2)
You said:
'No one is "demanding" permanent employment. Unions negotiate terms when disruptive change hits the workplaceâ"like, say, being replaced by your own AI-trained voice model. Thatâ(TM)s not Luddism. Thatâ(TM)s basic labor law, and it exists because history shows again and again: without collective action, the gains of innovation get hoarded at the top while the people doing the actual work get tossed aside.'
I think that's the whole point. There are no 'people' doing this actual work.
Re: (Score:2)
I am all for worker protections, but not via the charade of jobs that only slow things down. Forcing someone to hire somebody is nothing but a tax, so just do it directly. Tax or demand (government or ex-worker) ownership stake in the company instead.
OMG (Score:2)
I guess Eddie Izzard will be next for his:
"Give me the Penne all'arrabiata."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
problem (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If JEJ was alive and Epic hired him and then SAG goes on strike then chances are JEJ walks away until given the all clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you not understand the word "if"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
that shouldn't grant them the right to then appropriate your likeness for themselves to control for all eternity for *their* interests
That applies to the company paying to use the voice as well, this is the crux of the argument the union is making, whether you believe it's right or wrong. Dead or alive they don't own the voice or likeness, just a license to use it.
Re: problem (Score:2)
Lame lawsuit (Score:2)
That was never a condition of our agreement! (Score:2)
without bargaining with the union, despite the estate's approval.
I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.
Sounds like something Epic would do (Score:2)
Epic complained bitterly about having to fork (knife) over money to Apple and Google for using their infrastructure. Now they're trying to use JEJ without paying for it not to mention Lucasfilm (did they get the rights to Darth Vader?).
I assume Breach of Contract? (Score:2)
I guess It's not that the voice is AI.. It is that they used a voice in their game that does not come from a union member.
Presumably SAG got Epic to sign a collective bargaining contract with them in the past. This gives the union a monopoly on the right to negotiate labor terms, and it requires the studio to obtain the union's permission to hire anybody non-union for a project.
So the union's argument for the labor complaint would be that using the Voice constitutes a change in employment similar to co
This is why collective bargaining is a good thing (Score:2)
SAG-AFTRA isn’t suing over James Earl Jones. They’re fighting for the future of human voice actors.
Yes, Jones licensed his voice for Darth Vader. Yes, his estate gave permission. No, that’s not what this NLRB complaint is about.
The issue is that Epic Games (through Llama Productions) used AI to replace union-covered work—voice acting—without bargaining with the union. That’s a violation of federal labor law. Under the National Labor Relations Act, you can’t just sid
Re: (Score:1)
SAG-AFTRA isn’t suing over James Earl Jones. They’re fighting for the future of human voice actors.
They are also going to be fighting an uphill PR battle, given the nature of some of the members and how the entertainment behemoth has been handling some things like translations of anime and the back-and-forth of "only a person can voice a animated character" style progressive nonsense.
A lot of people are hoping they burn out.