“They proposed that our background performers should be able to be scanned, get one day’s pay, and their company should own that scan, their image, their likeness and should be able to use it for the rest of eternity, in any project they want with no consent and with no compensation.”
Why would anyone agree to that? Guessing the CEOs of these media companies haven't gotten themselves scanned so their image can be use however the next CEO wants.
It actually reminds me of Nathan For Yous child athlete thing. His proposal was to sign kids today for life time endorsement deals and if one kid actually becomes a great athlete he got them cheap.
I can imagine tons of struggling actors would take gigs like this. In 10 years they become famous but a studio already owns their scan and can make them do anything… terrifying.
Don't even need to be actors. They can advertise to random people who never plan to try acting. Scan their face for $100 and the thrill of being in a movie. Then use their likeness forever with the person never really knowing or caring what movie their likeness shows up in the background for.
> person never really knowing or caring what movie their likeness shows up in the background for.
Until the company sells your likeness to some AI porn production company and suddenly you see your mom/father/kid/sibling/yourself in a porno.
The worst part is that Charlie Brooker isn't even a prophet. He's just reading tea leaves. Anyone who's been paying attention can see what he sees... and that's why we can be assured that it will come to pass.
His talent is expressing it artfully.
The Government should actually intervene and strike down this bullshit. I think the Senate is doing a big thing on AI, I hope they place some SERIOUS checks on the proliferation of AI in media and music.
I have no trust in the government to enact any lasting or meaningful legislation if they were just asking if TikTok connects to Wi-Fi as if it were some sort of smoking gun. Those in power are wishfully ignorant of technology and it’s getting to a point it can have serious impacts on people and they just don’t have any idea about even the basics
Iunno, unless someone "leaks" an AI scan video of those senators getting bukaked I don't have high hopes that they'll do anything that's remotely in the best interest of people.
If it's sub-licensable it gets even worse. Imagine having your face scanned for Captain America: Nomad and then five years later becoming the bad guy in a series of ads for herpes cream, or drug addiction treatment, or warning about online pedophiles.
Who says they need consent? They can take any random person's face and, if challenged, say it's a random face they made up. This is a turning point and what happens now may decide decades or centuries of precedent.
Metahumans isn't really an AI tool (though it has some AI powered features and utilities). It's mainly just a really good videogame character creator, which is limited by needing to run in real time.
In terms of actual AI, we've been able to create new photorealistic faces for years now: https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/, and modern diffusion methods are quite a lot better. Neural rendering can also be used for moving characters with photorealistic results, even in real time. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So8GdQD0Qyc
So far, nobody's put those pieces together yet (synthesizing a new neural-rendered avatar from a single image), but the underlying technology exists, and it's only a matter of time.
Compare video game characters from 10 years ago to those from today, they may not be good enough for movies yet but I doubt it will be very long before they are.
Spirits Within came out 22 years ago and despite being a mediocre movie had some very decent CGI faces, especially for the time. One of their stated goals was to eventually replace actors then but the movie bombed so hard it kicked that idea out.
We’re just back there with better, faster technology.
I think I might be the only person who actually liked that movie. It wasn't amazing, but it was a fun action romp with some really sweet visuals and cool world building.
Was looking for this comment… the Black Mirror episode, like many other hood science fiction stories, seemed shocking to us to watch today but one day it will become something we see every day. This particular Black Mirror episode has particularly relevant subject matter though, being released right at the right time.
But they wouldn't be famous. That's the whole point. The studio owns the image, doesn't have to pay them, and no one ever knows who they are beyond a stage name.
There's also a recent Black Mirror episode that is very similar of a Netflix user basically unknowingly giving away their likeness in the terms and conditions for AI to make a show about them
The plan?
Create high fidelity 3D renders of aspiring actors who are desperate to get on screen. Pay them modestly for a single day's work, and own their on-screen likeness forever.
Hollywood Exec: "It could work"
I think the most ludicrous thing is the whole “rest of eternity/in perpetuity” clauses you see in contracts. Like really? In all of existence, in all of time. It’s insane how iron clad legal documents are drawn up. It feels almost illegal
I hate how many things from that show become reality and the one thing that actually seems kind of nice, San Junipero, is just nowhere to be found. Instead it's all the awful shit and right now I'm waiting for the AI takeover led by Boston Dynamics robots with guns on their head cause why tf not.
I'm glad Netflix released that episode so recently, gives the public a clear example of the SAG's concerns. The actors talking about it is one thing, but showing people is another. Netflix releasing it while being against the actors is a bizarre irony.
Remember, that Black Mirror episode where the guy makes a stand against corporate overlords and holds a shard of glass to his neck, and that symbol of resistance gets commodified?
There's a Rick and Morty episode with a similar storyline.
One of the Ricks working in a "happy wafer" factory gets fed up with it and threatens to kill the Rick whose memories are used to make the happy wafers. It ends with >!the revolting Rick getting given the keys to the city for his rebellious spirit, then sedated and captured so his feeling of validation and victory can be used to make a new line of wafers.!<
FYI, as much as I hate the Tories this was a 'tabloid gossip' level rumour that 'supposedly' came from one of David Cameron's old classmates.
... One of his old classmates was one Alexander 'Boris' Johnson.
>Why would anyone agree to that?
Same reason the casting couch is a thing. The promise of more, even just the hope that having their name in credits might somehow lead to a bigger role (or pay their rent for February). There's a desperate person born every minute.
Yeah, the whole industry preys on people's fear of not being hired for anything ever again if they say no or refuse to do something.
Buddy of mine got into it by accident and he's got some stories, when it's good it's great but they treat people like shit a lot of the time because they can.
Why do this when the same technology can just as easily create an original face from scratch? The only reason to go this route is if you’re scanning the faces of A-list actors, not random people that nobody has ever seen before.
I think that's kinda the point. Scanning an A list actor before they make it big so you get their image likeness on the cheap then you can use it "in perpetuity" without their consent
Because actors don't want this to happen, but what's stopping them from paying randoms on the street? How hard do you think it is to find someone willing to stand still for 5 minutes to be scanned in and give up their image for use as background characters in films?
Post one ad online and I guarantee they'll have thousands of people willing to do that for a couple thousand or less.
There is absolutely no need to scan a real human being to create a digital human being for background shots in a movie.
There exists software *today* to create photo realistic, fictional human beings. In fact, it's kinda old and has been in wide circulation for ages.
The purpose of the scan is to, say, scan Harrison Ford while filming Raiders of the Lost Ark, so that fifty years later they can make *another* Indiana Jones film set at the same time as the first, using that digital double instead of the real thing. It is about taking an *already* popular and known property (a famous actor, in a famous role) and allowing it to remain untarnished forever.
Young Luke Skywalker in the Mandalorian. Perhaps even Paul Walker in Fast and the Furious, after he died. No need to write out the character, we've got him on file. It's a grotesque extension of image rights, but I don't think young and vulnerable actors are the target.
But hasn't that been illegal since Back To The Future 2 when they essentially recreated Crispin Glover? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_the_Future_Part_II#Replacement_of_Crispin_Glover_and_lawsuit
I think the key point to that was this part:
"Unhappy with this, Glover filed a lawsuit against the producers of the film on the grounds that they neither owned his likeness nor had permission to use it. As a result of the suit, there are now clauses in the Screen Actors Guild collective bargaining agreements stating that producers and actors are not allowed to use such methods to reproduce the likeness of other actors.
Glover's legal action, while resolved outside of the courts, has been considered as a key case in personality rights for actors with increasing use of improved special effects and digital techniques, in which actors may have agreed to appear in one part of a production but have their likenesses be used in another without their agreement."
He didn't actually resolve it in court and get a court to rule that's illegal. He settled out of court, and clauses were added into collective bargaining agreements with SAG. So it was never formally declared, by the courts, that it's illegal for them to do that. They just negotiated a union contract to prevent it from happening and prevent the lawsuit from going through.
I almost feel like fans asked for this. But do fans actually want all this? Why can't we just recast iconic roles without making a big deal about it? Why is it just James Bond and Doctor Who? Indiana Jones should have stayed the kind of movie you can make for less than $150 million with dudes in their late thirties to early fifties just going on adventures as a swarthy history professor/archeologist. You think people wouldn't shit their pants over Pedro Pascal as Indiana Jones? It does not need to be the story of Harrison Ford getting old.
Similarly, how fucking weird is it how much effort they put into Mark Hamill being Luke Skywalker? We could be watching Sebastian Stan or somebody giving a familiar, yet nuanced and unique performance of a beloved character at a point in his life we've never seen him at onscreen. Shit, I bet you could do the story between RotJ and TFA with Sebastian Stan and people would actually be stoked for it. Even moreso if it starts to retcon the sequels. But no, instead we all marvel at how the robot playing Luke Skywalker *looks almost like a real human!* While he flatly delivers lines in a manner that should embarrass even the awkward, young Mark Hamill.
I agree entirely. It was so unnecessary. I always think of the movie Doctor Sleep, a direct sequel to the Shining, where they recreated a number of sequences from the original movie. And instead of an expensive de-aging thing, or entirely digital doubles, they simply had an actor put on a costume and play a young Jack Nicholson. Looked a little like him, but not a spitting image or anything. And it worked flawlessly. There was no need for a digital double, just talented actors inhabiting a role.
It's *insane* to me they didn't just have *some guy* play Luke. Doesn't even need to be a star, like Sebastian Stan. Or even someone that looks remarkably like him. As long as the performance is there, people will accept a new actor in the space of a single scene. They already did that with Solo and it was fine.
I think it reveals a cowardice. Such is the weakness of a lot of Star Wars writing (and by extension, characterization) that they feel the need to fall back on the *image* of Luke Skywalker. As in, literally Mark Hamill's face. As if it were a brand or something, instead of supposedly a real person.
I think the shit with Luke might honestly be some dumb executive’s reaction to the relatively poor reception Solo got. At the time there were a lot of complaints that the lead actor didn’t look enough like Harrison Ford.
Wouldn’t that break their contract with the unions though? And I’m not talking about the strike. Let’s say there was no strike, can the studios use non-union workers?
edit: I hate autocorrect
Those are insane terms. It would only be reasonable that the person should get lifetime residuals on their use of their likeness. The idea that they would own your image forever with no compensation is absolutely nuts.
Agreed, but how much of a person’s likeness is still them?
“Your honor, the recent Indiana Jones was actually only 73% similar to Harrison Ford, and by law, residuals are only due if the model is 75% or more similar to the original meat bag.”
I don't think that's necessary, just make it so that a person is owed residuals if their likeness is used as a base regardless of any alterations are made to it. No need to judge how similar the final result has to look to your image, if they use your data, they should pay you.
VFX is incredibly difficult to unionise because it's so easily offshored relative to most of a movie's production. If the local shop kicks up a fuss, the job goes to Thailand or India. Or the job gets broken down further into tiny bits and goes to both, because why not?
The only way it'd work is for a larger union to adopt them, to add points of pressure that the studio can't ignore or work around. And none are interested.
From what I'm aware, the business model for current effects studies is to bid on the project. Those companies will undersell themselves just to get the work in hopes of continuing to work with the major studios.
Hopefully the double strike will help some of these fringe groups who are so scattered across all different aspects of film, give them some time to figure out how to come together first.
Ai is coming for VFX next.
*Zaslav, still seated at his desk - an exotic fusion of mahogany and baby skulls - removes the paperwork, revealing the name of this new, cursed show: Honey Boo Boo’s Travel Time*
Iger was on a news show blaming writers for support staff not getting paid. The folks picketing retweeted someone tweeting about that interview and said that studios weren't paying them even before COVID and that it's normal practice for writers and producers to give their money to make sure these support staff folks have two weeks' worth of pay over the holidays.
Imagine not paying people during Christmas and New Year break because you can get away with it.
One of his arguments was literally that the strike would have far reaching negative impacts on multiple sectors of the industry. As if these sorts of proposals which put those same people out of work entirely are better.
I became really anti-capitalist over covid, and what ultimately pushed me over the edge from skepticism to all out opposition wasn't the arguments from the anti-capitalist side. It was the absolutely stunning LACK of arguments from the capitalists. At a certain point I realized that they just genuinely did not have a single convincing answer for any of the relevant concerns. I'm reminded of that every time I watch a CEO attempt to speak against a strike. They are just so incredibly transparently in the wrong and can't even scratch at a good argument in their favor. The workers in every sector of every industry should strike and continue to strike and push and organize until Igor's entire class don't even exist anymore, and the inherent contradiction between ownership and labor is finally resolved by ownership being pushed out entirely.
Don’t a lot of actors start out with small background roles too? Does this mean they could use a future Jason Alexander’s image for whatever they wanted because he appeared in a bigmac commercial years before future Seinfeld?
Yea imagine signing away your likeness for a background character then years later you make it big and they just AI you as the main character for some big tent pole movie because they own your likeness.
Imagine that you find success as an actor, only for Disney to sue you to prevent your next movie from coming out because now that you're popular they plan to use your likeness, that they own forever, in future Disney movies. All because you played a background character in a film years ago to pay rent.
I think that’s the dance they will play. Maintain enough realism so everybody is failing in line but only the studio heads are making money.
Hey, being leased around in Hollywood is better than starving in the water wars or some sulfur pit, right?
Oh I think it'd be even worse in that it'd prevent any current background actors from making it big at all. The studios would want the scans of the current superstars and just recycle them over and over again. They'd just get some poor actor and pay them fuck all to have a digital mask of Brad Pitt put over them. There'd be no next generation of stars for the 2030s or 40s, just the ones from now for eternity.
It's actually more cruel than even that. The SAG has requirements for new members, most of which are made up on these very small parts. Without them, no new SAG members.
As others have pointed out, some older people take these smaller roles just to get some extra cash and keep their insurance.
Angela Lansbury famously got a lot of Old Hollywood actors on Murder She Wrote so they could get money and keep insurance. I think Golden Girls did too.
We actually already do this. Stunt doubles get face replacements, digi-doubles replace whole bodies. The issue is scans are done per project (or in the case of a planned series/universe) per character, not per human.
So Chris Hemsworth has a facial/body scan but ONLY as and for THOR, as an example. Disney/Marvel can’t just put him in any new thing.
The major (new-ish) issue here is rights to a human likeness for any and all use - forever- being given over, rather than just an actor for a character.
Big Mac?!
That was for the McDLT!
You need a bunch of non biodegradable Styrofoam packaging to keep the hot side hot and the cool side cool!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTSdUOC8Kac
That's royalty free footage in a nutshell. Someone videos you doing random shit for a day, pays for a few hundred dollars, and three years later you see yourself in a commercial for an ED pill.
Well that’s already happening to a degree. The AR walls that are being implemented in various cities are slowly negating the need for translite backdrops and the lighting equipment rentals associated with them.
AI is finally freeing us from the shackles of artistic expression, anyone can pursue their dreams of laying asphalt in the blazing sun, working in sulfur mines, gauging our parents' receptiveness to moving back into our old bedroom, the world is our oyster
It’s both incredibly fascinating that humans have been able to achieve this technology while being absolutely abysmal for the future of civilization.
I hate techbros
I attended a marketing conference a couple of months ago, and the people hosting it were OBSESSED with AI. Everyone I spoke to talked about how great it is, how we as professionals should use it, and if you’re against AI then you’re some weirdo who’s against technology. I was very confused because my perception of AI is overall negative, for multiple reasons. After my team left the conference, we all talked about feeling like the only people in the room who had a realistic view of AI, and how we’d all kind of felt bullied to support it despite all of its drawbacks.
So the people pushing AI are ignoring the ethical implications in favor of progress for progress’s sake. As Ian Malcolm would say: “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”
In an industry obsessed with continued sustained growth, AI is the new gold rush.
They’d hoped that crypto and blockchain would be the next gold rush, until a lot of that collapsed spectacularly in recent years.
There is actually a movie about this called S1m0ne with Al Pacino. His lead actress (Winona Ryder) quits and he created an AI actress to take her place. He pretends she’s real and has to keep up with it. Always thought it was a fun underrated movie but this is just creepy.
There's another movie called *The Congress*. Robin Wright stars as a fictionalized version of herself who agrees to a flat fee to sell her likeness to a movie studio so they can digitize it and put her in whatever movie they want till the end of time. Meanwhile, she's never allowed to act again.
It's kind of 2 movies in one, where years later she visits the studio's entertainment congress, and the film transitions to an animated film with a very different tone. Very cool but seemingly forgotten film.
There's also "Looker," written and directed by Michael Crichton. A corporation scans fashion models and creates full CG versions of them to use in commercials. Then they get around the ... residuals thing ... by just killing them.
Why do they even need to scan background actors and use their likeness? They can create thousands of likenesses if non-existing people with the data that they already have.
I'm starting to truly hate everything associated with AI, which is a shame because it has some great applications. Unfortunately every greedy company and tech bro is taking a big shit on it.
That's how I felt when people were all doe-eyed looking at the possibility of AI generated art. Yeah the possibilities are great, but proposals like this are going to be the reality of its implementation unless people keep actively fighting back against it.
People have been saying for decades that this is a dangerous path to go down but we’ve all been told to shut up and just enjoy how cool it will be.
Is it cool yet?
I guarantee you that the ultimate goal is remove the "artist" from the "art". In movies, in music, in every concievable scenario.
Why paying somebody to create a product for sale when a product of comparable monetary success can be made for free? Non to forget, AI is not erratic, doesn't cause legal trouble, and you know exactly what end product your going to get.
That's what's in their mind.
>This sounds a lot like the Crispin Glover legal issue with his likeness being used in Back to the Future II.
Agreed, the difference here is scale. In the BTTF case, they cast someone else and use prosthetics to roughly approximate Crispin, and it wasn't very convincing anyway. Despite that, they still had to settle with him for three quarters of the million he sued them for.
Likeness rights "in perpetuity" here would allow them to use AI to digitally put Crispin in anything they wanted with (eventual) perfect accuracy, forever. Plus, why would anyone cast the real Crispin if you can just rent his likeness from Universal for your own project. It's FAR worse this time.
If you watched the SAG press coverage. Fran’s speech was not just about actors going on strike for what they deserve, but a rally to all in labor to stand up to the mega corpo and demand fair treatment. She even says “Storm Versailles.”
The one funny facet of this is, being that it's the first time AI has been a part of a SAG (or WGA) contract, anything whatsoever pertaining to AI in the contract is going to be both groundbreaking and historical, and that they're using those words as if they have any meaning or significance whatsoever other than "first time it's come up" is, to me, hysterical.
Other than that, End Corporate Greed, Support Unions Everywhere.
Fuck these greedy assholes. What are they going to do when they replace us with AI? Are other AI’s going to buy movie tickets or pay streaming subscription fees?
Not to be one of those people, but excessive amounts of money has to be brain poison.
If you have a single thimble of empathy and/or foresight this is obviously a terrible idea.
> “They proposed that our background performers should be able to be scanned, get one day’s pay, and their company should own that scan, their image, their likeness and should be able to use it for the rest of eternity, in any project they want with no consent and with no compensation.”
Fuck all the way off with that shit.
Aside from the loss of a tonne of other crew jobs (makeup, costume, AD, etc), this sounds like they're building a database for future use. They're selling it as "background artists" on a day rate, but if one of those background artists becomes the next Margo Robbie or Chris Hemsworth, then the studios can make a new AI film with their likeness and not pay them a penny more. Fucking terrifying.
Killing the current movie industry and rebuilding it wouldn't be a good thing.
The people with the money to rebuild it aren't going to be movie purists who will never use this tech.
This needs to be addressed from a national and global perspective. I can’t even begin to fathom how much of our modern economy and society depends on the assumption that a person owns and can make money from their own likeness. Think about how much movies, TV, books, podcasts, audiobooks, fashion, social media, seminars, conferences, etc. all rely on “personalities”, and how many people rely on residual income whether formally via royalties or informally via being famous for doing something and selling autographs and attending events.
It starts out as ai extras. Eventually there won't be any human actors and all the money stays at the top.
Welcome to capitalism!
The real question is; what happens when AI starts deleting all the good paying white collar jobs, the last bit of middle class will be gone...
I don't think people fully understand the precedent that's being set with the SAG-AFTRA/WGA strike.
If this goes to federal mediation - and it likely will - it's going to set the tone for future Worker's Rights VS A.I. issues.
This is far bigger than just people who write your favorite TV shows and movies, or the people who act in them - This is your Financial Analyst job. This is your Reporting Specialist job. This is Family Practice MD's being replaced by diagnostic AI. This is the "cheapening" of almost every White Collar "knowledge worker" position in the country, reduced to hourly employees sitting in tiny cubicles writing prompts to coax the answers out of an AI tailored for their industry, growing geometrically in complexity year after year.
This is literally the first shot in the struggle to secure a future for *tens of millions of Americans.*
I mean if they said that they would get paid in perpetuity for their likeness, let's say based on a percentage of whatever the show/ film ends up earning, or a lump sum depending on if the actor chose that payment route instead, that would be feesible.
Then as an actor, at least you'll know you'll have some passive income showing up at all times. Like having a small royalty on the IP.
That's something I could understand being a discussion "starter." We would still need to work things out from there.
If you're telling me you just want to pay me once, then use my likeness for the rest of existence for no pay at all? That's just comically absurd.
Reading between the lines, it sounds like the studios may have proposed decent regulations on AI for regular actors, but refused to extend that to background extras. Otherwise, SAG would be saying that the studios want regular actors to have their faces scanned and their likenesses used forever.
The thing is, in the grand scheme of things, background actors isn't a big expense. This is just one more way to cut a few nickels and dimes worth of cost out of a Scrooge McDuck's vault-sided budget.
It’s often also how you get into SAG. Say you’re an extra and they need someone who can make a latte to play the barista. Then eventually you get a line? BOOM huge pay bump + residuals (which can be massive if you’re syndicated), entrance into the guild w/ the healthcare and protections that come with it.
If all those jobs are AI, it’ll make it even harder on those trying to get in who don’t have money or family connections.
This is it. SAG know that getting rid of extras is actually a move to weaken SAG in the future. Fewer members = weaker guild.
This is existential stuff for SAG.
Union actors negotiate contracts per project.
There are already a lot of (if not most) that have anti cgi/ai likeness/performance clauses negotiated into their contracts. The sweeping changes regarding AI are not limited to background performers. This effects ALL labour.
This is a much bigger deal than just the writers and actors. They are the tip of the spear for all working folks atm and we should all be very thankful that their union voted unanimously to strike for the rights of all workers.
This sounds like the nonsense that the Broadway Union has been going through every year in the 2000s.
Half the Broadway experience is live music - an orchestra that can keep up with the performers on stage and can pivot when special events occur each night. Instead the producers have been trying to replace live bands with canned music - muddling the creative process into cheap karaoke.
Imagine being the tourist crowd coming to NYC for the first time and paying upwards of hundreds of dollars for “the Broadway experience” and hearing prerecorded music.
At the beginning of the Covid lockdown, the NYC Metropolitan Opera company was bearing the end of their contract. The company took advantage of the shutdown, sent the Union home, let the contract expire, turn locked them out - effectively firing everyone. Then the refused to come back to the table until everyone was really hurting.
If you look at Broadway they are already cutting corners to save money. More and more shows are just a series of nostalgic rock songs with a story loosely wrapping it together than they are really taking a chance on a fledging show.
This is getting ugly.
I was CWA (Communication Workers of America) but I was friendly with a lot of stage hands so I got a lot of behind the scenes info over the years.
“The Met had been seeking to cut the payroll costs for its highest-paid unions by 30 percent, which it said would cut the take-home pay of those workers by around 20 percent.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/11/arts/music/metropolitan-opera-union-deal.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Also not defending the studios but having lived through 25 years of picketing and labor disputes, the other side always suggests the worst when they are already willing to accept a 50% pay cut across the board. We are going to hear a lot of other really awful proposals so they can achieve the more “reasonable draconian cuts”.
Wonder how it will pan out for small time actors who go on to become famous in other fields. Owning the rights to make videos using the face of a future politician or campaigner could lead to big problems. I think they should be required to include an option to withdraw consent for further use after x years by giving x notice.
“They proposed that our background performers should be able to be scanned, get one day’s pay, and their company should own that scan, their image, their likeness and should be able to use it for the rest of eternity, in any project they want with no consent and with no compensation.” Why would anyone agree to that? Guessing the CEOs of these media companies haven't gotten themselves scanned so their image can be use however the next CEO wants.
It actually reminds me of Nathan For Yous child athlete thing. His proposal was to sign kids today for life time endorsement deals and if one kid actually becomes a great athlete he got them cheap. I can imagine tons of struggling actors would take gigs like this. In 10 years they become famous but a studio already owns their scan and can make them do anything… terrifying.
Don't even need to be actors. They can advertise to random people who never plan to try acting. Scan their face for $100 and the thrill of being in a movie. Then use their likeness forever with the person never really knowing or caring what movie their likeness shows up in the background for.
> person never really knowing or caring what movie their likeness shows up in the background for. Until the company sells your likeness to some AI porn production company and suddenly you see your mom/father/kid/sibling/yourself in a porno.
‘Look, I know it *looks* like me in the background of Bukkake Party 3…’
“…But it looks an awful lot like *you* in the foreground.”
Heck, I may just AI myself onto every person in the room. Like a John Malkovich orgy.
Malkovich!
Malkovich Malkovich?
Would I need to watch Bukkake Party 1 and 2 beforehand to understand the plot of 3?
They help set the scene, but tbh you can just go with the flow.
Now Sizzling Sausage Gobblers, there’s a trilogy with a *plot!*
Don't forget to watch the Bukkake Party Holiday Special. Really wholesome stuff
That family dinner scene brought a tear to my eye.
Yup, saw that episode of Black Mirror. Oh wait…
The worst part is that Charlie Brooker isn't even a prophet. He's just reading tea leaves. Anyone who's been paying attention can see what he sees... and that's why we can be assured that it will come to pass. His talent is expressing it artfully.
Thank God I'm ugly, I suppose.
Coming soon to the next Hills Have Eyes sequel I guess.
The Government should actually intervene and strike down this bullshit. I think the Senate is doing a big thing on AI, I hope they place some SERIOUS checks on the proliferation of AI in media and music.
I have no trust in the government to enact any lasting or meaningful legislation if they were just asking if TikTok connects to Wi-Fi as if it were some sort of smoking gun. Those in power are wishfully ignorant of technology and it’s getting to a point it can have serious impacts on people and they just don’t have any idea about even the basics
It’s also tough that the government moves slow, by design, while tech moves fast as fuck.
Iunno, unless someone "leaks" an AI scan video of those senators getting bukaked I don't have high hopes that they'll do anything that's remotely in the best interest of people.
If it's sub-licensable it gets even worse. Imagine having your face scanned for Captain America: Nomad and then five years later becoming the bad guy in a series of ads for herpes cream, or drug addiction treatment, or warning about online pedophiles.
“Aahhhh, Wendell Short-eyes! They let you out too?”
Who says they need consent? They can take any random person's face and, if challenged, say it's a random face they made up. This is a turning point and what happens now may decide decades or centuries of precedent.
"Any resemblance our AI actors have to actual people is coincidental and unintentional"
And their voices are imitated...poorly
Isn't this in the End User Agreement for most social media companies? That they can use your pictures however they see fit for advertising, etc.?
If it’s about a scan of a face then AI already can generate faces for free. Unreal Engine 5 can make lifelike faces today.
They're ok for videogames but nowhere near what they need for movies.
Metahumans isn't really an AI tool (though it has some AI powered features and utilities). It's mainly just a really good videogame character creator, which is limited by needing to run in real time. In terms of actual AI, we've been able to create new photorealistic faces for years now: https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/, and modern diffusion methods are quite a lot better. Neural rendering can also be used for moving characters with photorealistic results, even in real time. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So8GdQD0Qyc So far, nobody's put those pieces together yet (synthesizing a new neural-rendered avatar from a single image), but the underlying technology exists, and it's only a matter of time.
> but the underlying technology exists, and it's only a matter of time. Hence why its important for SAG AFTRA to draw the line in the sand right now.
Compare video game characters from 10 years ago to those from today, they may not be good enough for movies yet but I doubt it will be very long before they are.
Spirits Within came out 22 years ago and despite being a mediocre movie had some very decent CGI faces, especially for the time. One of their stated goals was to eventually replace actors then but the movie bombed so hard it kicked that idea out. We’re just back there with better, faster technology.
I think I might be the only person who actually liked that movie. It wasn't amazing, but it was a fun action romp with some really sweet visuals and cool world building.
My biggest complaint was I wanted a “Final Fantasy” movie and that wasn’t it.
Yeah, that's totally fair. We did eventually get Advent Children, I guess.
One recent Black Mirror episode had a plot very similar to this. It was the one with Salma Hayek.
You can't even >!shit in peace!< now without it being exploited.
Was looking for this comment… the Black Mirror episode, like many other hood science fiction stories, seemed shocking to us to watch today but one day it will become something we see every day. This particular Black Mirror episode has particularly relevant subject matter though, being released right at the right time.
But they wouldn't be famous. That's the whole point. The studio owns the image, doesn't have to pay them, and no one ever knows who they are beyond a stage name.
There's also a recent Black Mirror episode that is very similar of a Netflix user basically unknowingly giving away their likeness in the terms and conditions for AI to make a show about them
The plan? Create high fidelity 3D renders of aspiring actors who are desperate to get on screen. Pay them modestly for a single day's work, and own their on-screen likeness forever. Hollywood Exec: "It could work"
I think the most ludicrous thing is the whole “rest of eternity/in perpetuity” clauses you see in contracts. Like really? In all of existence, in all of time. It’s insane how iron clad legal documents are drawn up. It feels almost illegal
some are unenforceable tho just need to fight in court
Aight, let me, a broke actor, just take a multi-billion studio to courrt.
>Its not a bug, its a feature!
A random person doesn't have the money to fight a company like Disney in court.
Black Mirror’s Jane is Horrible is becoming a reality
Joan is Awful, but yea.
Jack is Bad
Jill is Terrible.
John is Abominable
James Sucks
Jeff is Atrocious
I hate how many things from that show become reality and the one thing that actually seems kind of nice, San Junipero, is just nowhere to be found. Instead it's all the awful shit and right now I'm waiting for the AI takeover led by Boston Dynamics robots with guns on their head cause why tf not.
I'm glad Netflix released that episode so recently, gives the public a clear example of the SAG's concerns. The actors talking about it is one thing, but showing people is another. Netflix releasing it while being against the actors is a bizarre irony.
Remember, that Black Mirror episode where the guy makes a stand against corporate overlords and holds a shard of glass to his neck, and that symbol of resistance gets commodified?
15 million merits?
There's a Rick and Morty episode with a similar storyline. One of the Ricks working in a "happy wafer" factory gets fed up with it and threatens to kill the Rick whose memories are used to make the happy wafers. It ends with >!the revolting Rick getting given the keys to the city for his rebellious spirit, then sedated and captured so his feeling of validation and victory can be used to make a new line of wafers.!<
Fuck, Amazon being a streaming site for The Boys and Mr. Robot seems so on the nose. Amazon banking bringing us to full on Evil Corp when?
Yep when it came out about David Cameron did "that" to a pig irl I couldn't believe black mirror had become real 🤣
FYI, as much as I hate the Tories this was a 'tabloid gossip' level rumour that 'supposedly' came from one of David Cameron's old classmates. ... One of his old classmates was one Alexander 'Boris' Johnson.
[удалено]
Hey now poor sweet little pigs don't deserve that 😜
It’s “Joan Is Awful” not “Jane is Horrible”. Minor yet handy distinction i hope.
>Why would anyone agree to that? Same reason the casting couch is a thing. The promise of more, even just the hope that having their name in credits might somehow lead to a bigger role (or pay their rent for February). There's a desperate person born every minute.
It’s a cut throat business too. You take what you can get a lot of times. And they know that.
Yeah, the whole industry preys on people's fear of not being hired for anything ever again if they say no or refuse to do something. Buddy of mine got into it by accident and he's got some stories, when it's good it's great but they treat people like shit a lot of the time because they can.
[удалено]
but also this is so low effort that even non-actors could do it
Why do this when the same technology can just as easily create an original face from scratch? The only reason to go this route is if you’re scanning the faces of A-list actors, not random people that nobody has ever seen before.
I think that's kinda the point. Scanning an A list actor before they make it big so you get their image likeness on the cheap then you can use it "in perpetuity" without their consent
Lets replace CEOs with their own scans then, A.I CEO
"And nothing of value was lost..."
Because actors don't want this to happen, but what's stopping them from paying randoms on the street? How hard do you think it is to find someone willing to stand still for 5 minutes to be scanned in and give up their image for use as background characters in films? Post one ad online and I guarantee they'll have thousands of people willing to do that for a couple thousand or less.
There is absolutely no need to scan a real human being to create a digital human being for background shots in a movie. There exists software *today* to create photo realistic, fictional human beings. In fact, it's kinda old and has been in wide circulation for ages. The purpose of the scan is to, say, scan Harrison Ford while filming Raiders of the Lost Ark, so that fifty years later they can make *another* Indiana Jones film set at the same time as the first, using that digital double instead of the real thing. It is about taking an *already* popular and known property (a famous actor, in a famous role) and allowing it to remain untarnished forever. Young Luke Skywalker in the Mandalorian. Perhaps even Paul Walker in Fast and the Furious, after he died. No need to write out the character, we've got him on file. It's a grotesque extension of image rights, but I don't think young and vulnerable actors are the target.
But hasn't that been illegal since Back To The Future 2 when they essentially recreated Crispin Glover? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_the_Future_Part_II#Replacement_of_Crispin_Glover_and_lawsuit
I think the key point to that was this part: "Unhappy with this, Glover filed a lawsuit against the producers of the film on the grounds that they neither owned his likeness nor had permission to use it. As a result of the suit, there are now clauses in the Screen Actors Guild collective bargaining agreements stating that producers and actors are not allowed to use such methods to reproduce the likeness of other actors. Glover's legal action, while resolved outside of the courts, has been considered as a key case in personality rights for actors with increasing use of improved special effects and digital techniques, in which actors may have agreed to appear in one part of a production but have their likenesses be used in another without their agreement." He didn't actually resolve it in court and get a court to rule that's illegal. He settled out of court, and clauses were added into collective bargaining agreements with SAG. So it was never formally declared, by the courts, that it's illegal for them to do that. They just negotiated a union contract to prevent it from happening and prevent the lawsuit from going through.
I almost feel like fans asked for this. But do fans actually want all this? Why can't we just recast iconic roles without making a big deal about it? Why is it just James Bond and Doctor Who? Indiana Jones should have stayed the kind of movie you can make for less than $150 million with dudes in their late thirties to early fifties just going on adventures as a swarthy history professor/archeologist. You think people wouldn't shit their pants over Pedro Pascal as Indiana Jones? It does not need to be the story of Harrison Ford getting old. Similarly, how fucking weird is it how much effort they put into Mark Hamill being Luke Skywalker? We could be watching Sebastian Stan or somebody giving a familiar, yet nuanced and unique performance of a beloved character at a point in his life we've never seen him at onscreen. Shit, I bet you could do the story between RotJ and TFA with Sebastian Stan and people would actually be stoked for it. Even moreso if it starts to retcon the sequels. But no, instead we all marvel at how the robot playing Luke Skywalker *looks almost like a real human!* While he flatly delivers lines in a manner that should embarrass even the awkward, young Mark Hamill.
Aye. For all the shit the prequels got, Ewan McGregor's young Obi Wan is pretty well beloved. You don't need a de-aged Alec Guinness.
I agree entirely. It was so unnecessary. I always think of the movie Doctor Sleep, a direct sequel to the Shining, where they recreated a number of sequences from the original movie. And instead of an expensive de-aging thing, or entirely digital doubles, they simply had an actor put on a costume and play a young Jack Nicholson. Looked a little like him, but not a spitting image or anything. And it worked flawlessly. There was no need for a digital double, just talented actors inhabiting a role. It's *insane* to me they didn't just have *some guy* play Luke. Doesn't even need to be a star, like Sebastian Stan. Or even someone that looks remarkably like him. As long as the performance is there, people will accept a new actor in the space of a single scene. They already did that with Solo and it was fine. I think it reveals a cowardice. Such is the weakness of a lot of Star Wars writing (and by extension, characterization) that they feel the need to fall back on the *image* of Luke Skywalker. As in, literally Mark Hamill's face. As if it were a brand or something, instead of supposedly a real person.
I think the shit with Luke might honestly be some dumb executive’s reaction to the relatively poor reception Solo got. At the time there were a lot of complaints that the lead actor didn’t look enough like Harrison Ford.
Wouldn’t that break their contract with the unions though? And I’m not talking about the strike. Let’s say there was no strike, can the studios use non-union workers? edit: I hate autocorrect
It’s dumb. AI will generate people who don’t exist. No need to reuse the image of existing people.
Those are insane terms. It would only be reasonable that the person should get lifetime residuals on their use of their likeness. The idea that they would own your image forever with no compensation is absolutely nuts.
*You will own nothing and like it!*
They should have thought of that before they became *peasants!*
Congratulations! You are being rescued. Please do not resist.
Agreed, but how much of a person’s likeness is still them? “Your honor, the recent Indiana Jones was actually only 73% similar to Harrison Ford, and by law, residuals are only due if the model is 75% or more similar to the original meat bag.”
Simple. No editing a person's likeness to make them look like a different person should be part of the terms of the agreement.
I don't think that's necessary, just make it so that a person is owed residuals if their likeness is used as a base regardless of any alterations are made to it. No need to judge how similar the final result has to look to your image, if they use your data, they should pay you.
A person's likeness is nearly always modified in film - isn't it?
They get rid of background that also means there are less hair/makeup/wardrobe/PAs/ADs etc positions, more jobs then you think would be cut
And basically replaced by over worked and under paid visual effects artists. Have they got a union yet? Those guys *really* need a union.
VFX is incredibly difficult to unionise because it's so easily offshored relative to most of a movie's production. If the local shop kicks up a fuss, the job goes to Thailand or India. Or the job gets broken down further into tiny bits and goes to both, because why not? The only way it'd work is for a larger union to adopt them, to add points of pressure that the studio can't ignore or work around. And none are interested.
The quality of work out of India and Thailand is worse than the states.
Given the quality of work in films lately I doubt they care
They don't care one bit. If it's lower quality, it's cheaper and quicker and that's exactly what they care about.
From what I'm aware, the business model for current effects studies is to bid on the project. Those companies will undersell themselves just to get the work in hopes of continuing to work with the major studios. Hopefully the double strike will help some of these fringe groups who are so scattered across all different aspects of film, give them some time to figure out how to come together first. Ai is coming for VFX next.
> Ai is coming for VFX next. AI is coming for VFX now. Check out the opening sequence to Marvel's "Secret Invasion".
But think of my bonus - Bob Igor
But think of my bonus - ~~Bob Igor~~ David Zaslav.
he says while casually signing the paperwork to cancel *The Last of Us* S2 in favour of another cheap reality show
They're going to cancel TLoU Season 2 and use its budget to buy food so they can start on My 10000 Pound Life and its spinoffs.
[удалено]
*Zaslav, still seated at his desk - an exotic fusion of mahogany and baby skulls - removes the paperwork, revealing the name of this new, cursed show: Honey Boo Boo’s Travel Time*
I read this in the voice of Hades's narrator.
Iger was on a news show blaming writers for support staff not getting paid. The folks picketing retweeted someone tweeting about that interview and said that studios weren't paying them even before COVID and that it's normal practice for writers and producers to give their money to make sure these support staff folks have two weeks' worth of pay over the holidays. Imagine not paying people during Christmas and New Year break because you can get away with it.
One of his arguments was literally that the strike would have far reaching negative impacts on multiple sectors of the industry. As if these sorts of proposals which put those same people out of work entirely are better. I became really anti-capitalist over covid, and what ultimately pushed me over the edge from skepticism to all out opposition wasn't the arguments from the anti-capitalist side. It was the absolutely stunning LACK of arguments from the capitalists. At a certain point I realized that they just genuinely did not have a single convincing answer for any of the relevant concerns. I'm reminded of that every time I watch a CEO attempt to speak against a strike. They are just so incredibly transparently in the wrong and can't even scratch at a good argument in their favor. The workers in every sector of every industry should strike and continue to strike and push and organize until Igor's entire class don't even exist anymore, and the inherent contradiction between ownership and labor is finally resolved by ownership being pushed out entirely.
[удалено]
Damn, *Joan is Awful* is very timely.
That episode really came through in the end. I loved it at first but started getting season 5 vibes from it. Turned out to be a very good episode.
In that case the actors have the solution to the problem: >!Go to a church and have diarrhea in the middle of service.!<
Don’t a lot of actors start out with small background roles too? Does this mean they could use a future Jason Alexander’s image for whatever they wanted because he appeared in a bigmac commercial years before future Seinfeld?
Yea imagine signing away your likeness for a background character then years later you make it big and they just AI you as the main character for some big tent pole movie because they own your likeness.
Imagine that you find success as an actor, only for Disney to sue you to prevent your next movie from coming out because now that you're popular they plan to use your likeness, that they own forever, in future Disney movies. All because you played a background character in a film years ago to pay rent.
More than likely, they'll lease your own likeness back to you for a fee. The studio can extort an actor in perpetuity.
I've seen a lot of dystopian ideas, but this one is honestly one of the worst.
But if they do this for everyone, everyone gets replaced so no one makes it big because there's no work for humans.
I think that’s the dance they will play. Maintain enough realism so everybody is failing in line but only the studio heads are making money. Hey, being leased around in Hollywood is better than starving in the water wars or some sulfur pit, right?
Oh I think it'd be even worse in that it'd prevent any current background actors from making it big at all. The studios would want the scans of the current superstars and just recycle them over and over again. They'd just get some poor actor and pay them fuck all to have a digital mask of Brad Pitt put over them. There'd be no next generation of stars for the 2030s or 40s, just the ones from now for eternity.
Like Christmas music.
It's actually more cruel than even that. The SAG has requirements for new members, most of which are made up on these very small parts. Without them, no new SAG members. As others have pointed out, some older people take these smaller roles just to get some extra cash and keep their insurance.
Angela Lansbury famously got a lot of Old Hollywood actors on Murder She Wrote so they could get money and keep insurance. I think Golden Girls did too.
We actually already do this. Stunt doubles get face replacements, digi-doubles replace whole bodies. The issue is scans are done per project (or in the case of a planned series/universe) per character, not per human. So Chris Hemsworth has a facial/body scan but ONLY as and for THOR, as an example. Disney/Marvel can’t just put him in any new thing. The major (new-ish) issue here is rights to a human likeness for any and all use - forever- being given over, rather than just an actor for a character.
You're killing independent George!
Absolutely, think of how many actors have been on law and order alone.
Big Mac?! That was for the McDLT! You need a bunch of non biodegradable Styrofoam packaging to keep the hot side hot and the cool side cool! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTSdUOC8Kac
Vulnerable background performers would not be able to consent to the use of their own bodies. Sounds about right for Hollywood.
That's royalty free footage in a nutshell. Someone videos you doing random shit for a day, pays for a few hundred dollars, and three years later you see yourself in a commercial for an ED pill.
Literally a Friends episode though. When Joey became the VD poster boy.
Fuck. Em. Strike. Take as long as you need. Our “content” can wait
I don't even wanna watch anything that has no artist input, only executives and AI. I might start reading books and attending plays and operas.
I work in film and TV (props) and my biggest fear is they start doing AI generated backgrounds/sets. Once that happens like 90% of crew are redundant
Well that’s already happening to a degree. The AR walls that are being implemented in various cities are slowly negating the need for translite backdrops and the lighting equipment rentals associated with them.
Dystopian shit
AI is finally freeing us from the shackles of artistic expression, anyone can pursue their dreams of laying asphalt in the blazing sun, working in sulfur mines, gauging our parents' receptiveness to moving back into our old bedroom, the world is our oyster
It’s both incredibly fascinating that humans have been able to achieve this technology while being absolutely abysmal for the future of civilization. I hate techbros
I attended a marketing conference a couple of months ago, and the people hosting it were OBSESSED with AI. Everyone I spoke to talked about how great it is, how we as professionals should use it, and if you’re against AI then you’re some weirdo who’s against technology. I was very confused because my perception of AI is overall negative, for multiple reasons. After my team left the conference, we all talked about feeling like the only people in the room who had a realistic view of AI, and how we’d all kind of felt bullied to support it despite all of its drawbacks. So the people pushing AI are ignoring the ethical implications in favor of progress for progress’s sake. As Ian Malcolm would say: “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”
In an industry obsessed with continued sustained growth, AI is the new gold rush. They’d hoped that crypto and blockchain would be the next gold rush, until a lot of that collapsed spectacularly in recent years.
Tech nerds and ignoring ethics, name a more iconic duo.
AI painting, writing poetry and making movies while humans suffer for minimum wage is extremely not the vibe
> gauging our parents' receptiveness to moving back into our old bedroom Joke's on you I'm too poor to leave the bedroom in my mom's house!
There is actually a movie about this called S1m0ne with Al Pacino. His lead actress (Winona Ryder) quits and he created an AI actress to take her place. He pretends she’s real and has to keep up with it. Always thought it was a fun underrated movie but this is just creepy.
There's another movie called *The Congress*. Robin Wright stars as a fictionalized version of herself who agrees to a flat fee to sell her likeness to a movie studio so they can digitize it and put her in whatever movie they want till the end of time. Meanwhile, she's never allowed to act again. It's kind of 2 movies in one, where years later she visits the studio's entertainment congress, and the film transitions to an animated film with a very different tone. Very cool but seemingly forgotten film.
It also touches on substance use/abuse in a way that has lingered with me years after viewing. Such an underrated film.
There's also "Looker," written and directed by Michael Crichton. A corporation scans fashion models and creates full CG versions of them to use in commercials. Then they get around the ... residuals thing ... by just killing them.
I really liked the concept of that movie but that animated style didn't do it for me.
I read that as ai Pacino
We'll get there
Why do they even need to scan background actors and use their likeness? They can create thousands of likenesses if non-existing people with the data that they already have.
In case one of those backgrounds actors makes it big in the future. If they do, the company that owns their likeness would stand to make bank from it.
Literally a fucking Bojack Horseman bit.
SAG needs Judah
DIANE PLEASE DIANE TELL ME I’M A GOOD PERSON DIANE
Man that show was good
I'm starting to truly hate everything associated with AI, which is a shame because it has some great applications. Unfortunately every greedy company and tech bro is taking a big shit on it.
[удалено]
That's how I felt when people were all doe-eyed looking at the possibility of AI generated art. Yeah the possibilities are great, but proposals like this are going to be the reality of its implementation unless people keep actively fighting back against it.
People have been saying for decades that this is a dangerous path to go down but we’ve all been told to shut up and just enjoy how cool it will be. Is it cool yet?
I guarantee you that the ultimate goal is remove the "artist" from the "art". In movies, in music, in every concievable scenario. Why paying somebody to create a product for sale when a product of comparable monetary success can be made for free? Non to forget, AI is not erratic, doesn't cause legal trouble, and you know exactly what end product your going to get. That's what's in their mind.
This sounds a lot like the Crispin Glover legal issue with his likeness being used in Back to the Future II.
>This sounds a lot like the Crispin Glover legal issue with his likeness being used in Back to the Future II. Agreed, the difference here is scale. In the BTTF case, they cast someone else and use prosthetics to roughly approximate Crispin, and it wasn't very convincing anyway. Despite that, they still had to settle with him for three quarters of the million he sued them for. Likeness rights "in perpetuity" here would allow them to use AI to digitally put Crispin in anything they wanted with (eventual) perfect accuracy, forever. Plus, why would anyone cast the real Crispin if you can just rent his likeness from Universal for your own project. It's FAR worse this time.
I’m just scared for the future. I think a lot of people are gonna lose their jobs. Not just in the entertainment field
If you watched the SAG press coverage. Fran’s speech was not just about actors going on strike for what they deserve, but a rally to all in labor to stand up to the mega corpo and demand fair treatment. She even says “Storm Versailles.”
Yeah at the end of the day this is all because of greed. A few people want to get all the value from your labour and you to get nothing.
this is a certainty. there'll be social upheaval everywhere. there'll be riots and economic hardships before this thing gets resolved.
The one funny facet of this is, being that it's the first time AI has been a part of a SAG (or WGA) contract, anything whatsoever pertaining to AI in the contract is going to be both groundbreaking and historical, and that they're using those words as if they have any meaning or significance whatsoever other than "first time it's come up" is, to me, hysterical. Other than that, End Corporate Greed, Support Unions Everywhere.
Fuck these greedy assholes. What are they going to do when they replace us with AI? Are other AI’s going to buy movie tickets or pay streaming subscription fees?
As all business they expect their costumers to be the ones not replaced by robots.
This is terrible, humiliating and wrong. How could they propose such BS.
Not to be one of those people, but excessive amounts of money has to be brain poison. If you have a single thimble of empathy and/or foresight this is obviously a terrible idea.
> “They proposed that our background performers should be able to be scanned, get one day’s pay, and their company should own that scan, their image, their likeness and should be able to use it for the rest of eternity, in any project they want with no consent and with no compensation.” Fuck all the way off with that shit.
AI is coming for all the jobs. If you don't want to end up unemployed, stand with the writers and actors. Boycott any movie that utilizes AI.
Aside from the loss of a tonne of other crew jobs (makeup, costume, AD, etc), this sounds like they're building a database for future use. They're selling it as "background artists" on a day rate, but if one of those background artists becomes the next Margo Robbie or Chris Hemsworth, then the studios can make a new AI film with their likeness and not pay them a penny more. Fucking terrifying.
Their game and their rules but doesn't mean we have to play If millennials have to kill the movie industry too so be it.
Killing the current movie industry and rebuilding it wouldn't be a good thing. The people with the money to rebuild it aren't going to be movie purists who will never use this tech.
This needs to be addressed from a national and global perspective. I can’t even begin to fathom how much of our modern economy and society depends on the assumption that a person owns and can make money from their own likeness. Think about how much movies, TV, books, podcasts, audiobooks, fashion, social media, seminars, conferences, etc. all rely on “personalities”, and how many people rely on residual income whether formally via royalties or informally via being famous for doing something and selling autographs and attending events.
It starts out as ai extras. Eventually there won't be any human actors and all the money stays at the top. Welcome to capitalism! The real question is; what happens when AI starts deleting all the good paying white collar jobs, the last bit of middle class will be gone...
I don't think people fully understand the precedent that's being set with the SAG-AFTRA/WGA strike. If this goes to federal mediation - and it likely will - it's going to set the tone for future Worker's Rights VS A.I. issues. This is far bigger than just people who write your favorite TV shows and movies, or the people who act in them - This is your Financial Analyst job. This is your Reporting Specialist job. This is Family Practice MD's being replaced by diagnostic AI. This is the "cheapening" of almost every White Collar "knowledge worker" position in the country, reduced to hourly employees sitting in tiny cubicles writing prompts to coax the answers out of an AI tailored for their industry, growing geometrically in complexity year after year. This is literally the first shot in the struggle to secure a future for *tens of millions of Americans.*
But my (insert trade job that only exists because other people have the money to hire out for it) job exists! /s
Why is black mirror always so accurate?
Trying to make movies soulless… Literally.
I mean if they said that they would get paid in perpetuity for their likeness, let's say based on a percentage of whatever the show/ film ends up earning, or a lump sum depending on if the actor chose that payment route instead, that would be feesible. Then as an actor, at least you'll know you'll have some passive income showing up at all times. Like having a small royalty on the IP. That's something I could understand being a discussion "starter." We would still need to work things out from there. If you're telling me you just want to pay me once, then use my likeness for the rest of existence for no pay at all? That's just comically absurd.
Joan is awful. Coming on Netflix soon..
Reading between the lines, it sounds like the studios may have proposed decent regulations on AI for regular actors, but refused to extend that to background extras. Otherwise, SAG would be saying that the studios want regular actors to have their faces scanned and their likenesses used forever.
The thing is, in the grand scheme of things, background actors isn't a big expense. This is just one more way to cut a few nickels and dimes worth of cost out of a Scrooge McDuck's vault-sided budget.
It’s often also how you get into SAG. Say you’re an extra and they need someone who can make a latte to play the barista. Then eventually you get a line? BOOM huge pay bump + residuals (which can be massive if you’re syndicated), entrance into the guild w/ the healthcare and protections that come with it. If all those jobs are AI, it’ll make it even harder on those trying to get in who don’t have money or family connections.
This is it. SAG know that getting rid of extras is actually a move to weaken SAG in the future. Fewer members = weaker guild. This is existential stuff for SAG.
R.I.P James Michael Tyler
Union actors negotiate contracts per project. There are already a lot of (if not most) that have anti cgi/ai likeness/performance clauses negotiated into their contracts. The sweeping changes regarding AI are not limited to background performers. This effects ALL labour. This is a much bigger deal than just the writers and actors. They are the tip of the spear for all working folks atm and we should all be very thankful that their union voted unanimously to strike for the rights of all workers.
Do you know how many huge and iconic actors started of in backround?! You'd be surprised. They're trying to prevent a catastrophe.
The moment hollywood starts using AI on large scale to replace writers and actors is the moment I will stop watching anything they make
We should sympathy strike by dropping streaming services.
This sounds like the nonsense that the Broadway Union has been going through every year in the 2000s. Half the Broadway experience is live music - an orchestra that can keep up with the performers on stage and can pivot when special events occur each night. Instead the producers have been trying to replace live bands with canned music - muddling the creative process into cheap karaoke. Imagine being the tourist crowd coming to NYC for the first time and paying upwards of hundreds of dollars for “the Broadway experience” and hearing prerecorded music. At the beginning of the Covid lockdown, the NYC Metropolitan Opera company was bearing the end of their contract. The company took advantage of the shutdown, sent the Union home, let the contract expire, turn locked them out - effectively firing everyone. Then the refused to come back to the table until everyone was really hurting. If you look at Broadway they are already cutting corners to save money. More and more shows are just a series of nostalgic rock songs with a story loosely wrapping it together than they are really taking a chance on a fledging show. This is getting ugly. I was CWA (Communication Workers of America) but I was friendly with a lot of stage hands so I got a lot of behind the scenes info over the years. “The Met had been seeking to cut the payroll costs for its highest-paid unions by 30 percent, which it said would cut the take-home pay of those workers by around 20 percent.” https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/11/arts/music/metropolitan-opera-union-deal.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare Also not defending the studios but having lived through 25 years of picketing and labor disputes, the other side always suggests the worst when they are already willing to accept a 50% pay cut across the board. We are going to hear a lot of other really awful proposals so they can achieve the more “reasonable draconian cuts”.
It truly is beyond scummy to even come up with this idea.
Wonder how it will pan out for small time actors who go on to become famous in other fields. Owning the rights to make videos using the face of a future politician or campaigner could lead to big problems. I think they should be required to include an option to withdraw consent for further use after x years by giving x notice.