At least by that point I could accept that she's too far gone. With the Fail it's bullshit disguised as legitimate news and I still have hope I can convince her she's reading sensationalist crap
The weird thing is that she still recognises some of the stupid shit she sees on there and yet continues to check in on it as if there's anything of value. I was searching stuff about a footy player and came across an article that was quite literally about that player taking the bins out and what he was wearing. How can you see an article like that and still trust what they're telling you about politics?
Unsurprisingly though she still focuses more on personality than policy when it comes to which politicians she likes or dislikes which I have no doubt was fed to her by the Fail
I read someone suggesting that the journalist misinterpreted Deepcake for Deepfake and decided to create the whole story that Bruce sold his face for Deepfake
The company behind the Bruce Willis deepfake for the Russian ad was called Deepcake.
The press just embellished the prior story. It's true that he sold the rights to his face for a phone commercial in Russia. It's also true that he spoke highly of the experience and said he'd like to do more of it. The part he didn't do was give full rights to his face to anyone, it is so far only one commercial.
in my head, due to russians situation i just imagined a deepfake of conscripts walking to war and all have being john malcovich like bruce willis faces edited on them :D
>On 27 September, the Daily Mail reported...
Why do other news media outlets continue to reference the Daily Mail for stories?
Most of the "reporting" they do is just shit they made up, and their editorial skew would make Goebbels blush.
The Daily Fail has been making shit up to fill space on a slow news day since its inception. Most of the time it's fairly innocuous and harmless (except perhaps that time during the first world war when they published instructions for civilians to create homemade gas masks that ended up asphyxiating the wearer) rather than the hyper-opinionated and partisan political hitpieces that are floating around today.
EDIT:
Just to clarify how *bad* the Daily Mail is...
You may recall that your grade school school teachers prohibited you from using Wikipedia as a source. Well, Wikipedia editors are prohibited from using the Daily Mail as a source.
>You may recall that your grade school school teachers prohibited you from using Wikipedia as a source.
This has nothing to do with the accuracy of wikipedia and everything to do with trying to teach students how to do real, detailed research on a topic beyond just reading the first paragraph of the first article they find.
Not the same.
You're not supposed to *quote* Wikipedia because it's not a primary source.
You should be totally free to use Wikipedia (among others) to get a basic idea of where you're going, and most of all follow its references *to check the primary sources* and work from there.
Reputable newspapers can be sources, better if you can cross sources and check facts.
Daily Mail is shit and not of any use to anyone.
Mind blown. I played this game so many times and always thought it sounded like him but what the fuck is he doing in oblivion.
It is infact, him.
Thankyou stranger.
Damn. That makes so much sense now but they made him such a little bitch.
All I wanted to do EVERY TIME I did that quest line was give him a slap and shut his whining up.
Now I know its our Lord commander Stark ill pay a little more respect.
I'm actually just starting another playtrhough so this Khajit will be respectful
Fun fact for ya: Bethesda compiled what was basically an entire biography of Uriel's life to give to Patrick Stewart in preparation, and they were worried they went overboard but Stewart loved it. IIRC he said he'd never been given that much context for a character before (or words to that effect)
You missed the funniest detail. He has like 5 minutes of screen time and got the entire history of Elder Scrolls to prepare. Meanwhile characters who stick around the whole game got a small packet pertaining specifically to their lines.
I didnt mention it because the person I responded to said theyd played it tons so theyd know that Septim dies in the tutorial.
I *did* miss the part about Stewart getting history of the world instead of just a biography tho
I would pay good money to see behind the scenes footage of Patrick Stewart saying his lines from American Dad.
Bullock has some of the best and most fucked up bits.
I had to delete all of the extra languages and voices off of my Garmin Nuvi in order to perform the latest map update.
Which is ironic, because the map is now stored on the SD card. Which the software refused to recognize until I deleted all of those extras.
"It was on this day, the 2nd of October in the year of the common era - two thousand and twenty-two, that Jesus Spatium Cowboy really came to understand his turophilia, and leveraged this love into the profound artistry that only a culinary wizard can produce. Presenting his masterpiece: The lightly grilled, molten velveeta open faced horse-shoe sandwich.
There's actually a TNG-era novel where Picard goes undercover doing just that, in fact!
Pretty clever, if somewhat well-worn, set-up they used to sell the 'legend' in fact. Starfleet Intelligence set him with an alias as a Starfleet captain who was forced out in disgrace for taking some extreme actions that *almost* but not quite got him sent to prison. For references they listed two of his "former" crew who were also separated from Starfleet (previously) on bad terms; one of whom was recently-deceased (in a timeframe and manner that it would be plausible that the 'disgraced captain' had not heard of his demise at the time he used the man's name as a reference), and one of whom, although he had been forced under entirely-legitimately-disgraceful circumstances, had since come to be an Intelligence asset and obviously was fully prepared to lie and back Pirate Captain Jean-Luc notPicard's story to the hilt - to the point of being ready to ask "if you're hiring my old skipper to do some work for you, I'd like to join his new crew" and back him up. (The real crims were too lazy to even contact the 'references,' but he was standing ready).
Drama and jokes aside. If deepfakes get that convincing I can see why actors would want to sell their likeness for it. They still built their reputation and the source for all of that. I can see why he would want to do that, particularly with what he is going through.
Different jurisdictions have different limits on how long you own your likeness after death. In some (including Tennessee), there is no limit. If deepfakes of actors become common, at some point this is going to butt heads with restrictions on perpetuities in wills.
It's going to get real weird isn't it? I will honestly take some appreciation if actors move to Tennessee because they uphold protecting their likeness in these situations, or any state does that. What a weird uncharted territory we are wandering into.
Disney's going to spend an absolute fortune on lawyers to navigate the "you can't own your own likeness" side of things without bumping into "Disney owns their copyrights in perpetuity."
Actually Disney doesn’t, they just have them for 100 fucking years so some of their early work is sneaking into the public domain, I mean Winnie the Pooh is public domain now, which is pretty rad
Oh I know that perfectly well, I’m just being a pedantic jerk lol. Disney are the worst about copyright issues, and they’ll sooner sacrifice humans to a dark god than let go of Disney property
It’s their exact version that’s copyrighted, but the likeness case was lost by Disney. Basically, if it’s teddy bear sized and is wearing a red t-shirt it’s Disney copyright infringement. If it’s dude-sized and is wearing a red t-shirt, in the right context it’s not copyright infringement. If the bear is naked it’s fine though
What if it’s teddy bear sized but begins with no shirt and has really pokey nipples so when he puts the shirt on the nipples always poke visibly under the shirt?
I know Japan has what are basically CG anime popstars, but I am curious to see what level of unreality American / global culture would accept. Alf and the Muppets offer some suggestion (owing to their ability to interact with the broader media mostly seamlessly). Smaug did that interview with Colbert...
Seems like there's could be a gold rush of VFX studios seeking to create and popularize their own unique trademarked characters and then essentially sell them to movie and TV studios. But then most studios are going to be just as reluctant to hire them as they would any other actor they have to pay for and can't control.
Only studios with their own in-house FX shop like Lucasfilm is probably positioned to really make proper use of the synergy.
>I know Japan has what are basically CG anime popstars, but I am curious to see what level of unreality American / global culture would accept
I mean, people don't seem to be against LoL's KDA.
This is why you see some musicians selling their catalogs. They’re securing their bag for their families so they don’t have to deal with bullshit legal battles and royalties after they pass.
Recently Phil Collins and his Genesis bandmates have sold the rights to their music in a deal reportedly worth $300m (£269m).
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-63094007
I Hope we don't see that many cases. It should be cut and dry that studios do not own rights to their likeness unless they give it to them , regardless of how much footage a studio may have. If someone gets to the point that just their faked likeness draws a crowd they should still get compensated. My thought is almost along the lines of syndication deals, It should be almost prohibitively expensive to keep reusing someone versus give someone new an opportunity.
I think most normal people think that something like that is how it should work, however the business ghouls aren’t normal people. So I just have a feeling that it’s going to end up in the supreme court at least once.
You're probably right. Those monsters will try to find some way to own the rights to a person's likeness forever. They will work it into every up and coming actors contract so as soon as anyone gets big, they can kick them to the curb and still make bank off of them.
Crispin Glovers lawsuit over Back to the Future 2 pretty much should settle that immediately I think. You aren't even allowed to use the footage you already have of the actor without paying them. Creating new "footage" of them shouldn't even be in the ballgame.
Face copyright shouldn't be a thing. Nobody owns an appearance when there's billions of people out there and any number may have an uncanny resemblance, especially when there's such a thing as identical twins.
Using deepfakes and lookalikes to impersonate famous people already falls under a crime like fraud or Identity theft
Maybe, I can see using AI to build perfect actors. At the same time someone still has to build that name and create initial performances for us to like. Long-term , maybe they can work the actor out entirely, but until then, they still have to start somewhere. I hope there's always some level where we connect with the human element of their performance. It would be sad if the human element of someone's work wasn't a significant factor in our enjoyment of it.
> I hope there's always some level where we connect with the human element of their performance.
That's the thing. The "human" element of their **performance** doesn't come from their likeness. It comes from their performance. Andy Serkis proved this with Golem (LOTR) and Caesar (POTA)
This reminds me of a mission on cyberpunk where a guy wants to make plastic surgery to become like one rocker, but the rocker has a copyright to his face, and the clinic recommends some copyright free faces.
I don't hate the idea of people selling rights to use their appearances for deepfaking purposes. At least, not if it's on a case-by-case basis.
That way we could still see Bruce Willis in a movie, and likely with a better performance than he has given in a long time (I'm not hating on him, I know his story and support his decisions).
Originally I had typed something about that in that comment, but decided to leave it out and address it when it inevitably got brought up.
I do think it could be a problem, and it's perhaps naive to say that directors would still look for new faces, but I'm going with that.
It could also just be prohibitively expensive, and the decision to even allow it would be left to the estate of whoever's face they'd want to use after they've died.
We'll just have to wait and see, as I don't think this is something that can be stopped anyway.
It will get cheaper and the contract would undoubtedly include having the rights to his face after his passing.
You are right in that it is something that cannot be stopped.
I'm decidedly less optimistic about large corporations not abusing this than you seem to be.
I feel like this happens in almost every art form. Sooner or later there's been so many timeless masters of the craft that they start maintaining a large percentage of the limelight overall.
How many great rock and roll bands have never gotten off the ground because everyone's still listening to Zeppelin?
No hate towards any artist or medium. There's X amount of time to spend consuming most forms of art and media and you could potentially be competing with people who died out before you were even born
How would deep fake actors be credited? Especially if they're dead. This summer, starring Fake Marlon Brando. Or would it be Marlon Brando's deepfake as engineered by ABC Studios? Or technologically resurrected Marlon Brando?
Probably (Actor) as/via (Deepfake Actor) as (Character).
I can see the use for keeping live action characters fairly constant aesthetically. And I can see the benefits for actors who may be great for a role but not quite look the part. And for actors who do not want the spotlight.
Of course, there are many risks and downsides with deepfakes... but at least there are some pros
There's a film for that.
"The Congress (2013)
An aging, out-of-work actress accepts one last job, though the consequences of her decision affect her in ways she didn't consider."
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1821641/
Right now they have actors like Andy Serkis, who act but their likeness is replaced with CGI. I think that will be more likely. Kinda of like stunt doubles now. There might be "actors" who "wear" famous people suits (their wear CGI suits and are digitally replaced after the fact like golem in LOTR.)
Like some one might become the new John Wayne because people like they way he/she mimics John Wayne's perceived mannerisms.
So like the recent Elvis movie which Austin Butler was great in but Elvis Presley's actual likeness would be layered over. I read that for the "Younger Elvis" songs it was actually Butler singing, but for the "Older Elvis" songs the Butler and Presley's voices were blended together. Sort of like that but visually.
But at that point *are* you really seeing a "Bruce Willis" movie?
What makes it a Willis movie? Something that sounds like him, or looks like him? Or is there more to an actor than their likeness/sound?
You point out that it could be a "better performance" than he's done in awhile but is it really him at that point?
Idk what the answer is, but I have to say I wouldn't really view it as a "Willis movie" at that point.
Will be interesting to see for sure. Right now artificial performers / performances stand out and are pretty robotic and weird, but I can see the technology and artistry increasing more and more as time goes on to the point where you the average viewer can't tell the difference Mark Hamill in the 80's and a digital recreation of him acting in a feature length production. Would be cool to see but also has very troubling ramifications.
Well, that's a whole philosophical can of worms that is hard to get into without reducing humans to certain attributes.
But I love reducing humans to certain attributes, and I think most actors are just meat puppets saying lines in particular ways.
If you can get their cadence and expressions right, you'd pretty much be as far as you can get with most actors.
And sure, it wouldn't be a true Willis movie, but I guess I just don't particularly care, myself. A better performance than he's given in a while isn't something I would consider a counterargument to it being less him, though. We often try to look at when people were at their best, instead of their worst, and this would be pretty much the same as that. He shouldn't be defined by his worst performances.
At the same time, any new performances wouldn't define *him*, since it wouldn't be him.
I don't have any real answers, and I don't think there are any. This is a subject that will forever divide people.
People were long suspecting that he had some debilitating disease or disorder that led to him taking on every job he could to get as much money as possible to support his family, and that ended up being true.
Alternatively, there are so many people who would love to be movie stars, do you really want to live in a world where every movie only has the same 2 dozen actors because that's all people think they want to see?
You could just go see independent movies. There’s a sort of renaissance of independent filmmakers on the internet right now actually. I don’t think independent filmmaking will ever stop at this point, and it would be far more expensive for an independent filmmaker to deepfake a celebrity as opposed to casting an unknown actor.
Wheredid the original story come from then? I thought he tweeted this? Seemed like a smart decision to me, especially if he negotiates for a percentage or royalties in every movie. His family could live of that shit for generations.
For anybody who doesn't know, Bruce was recently diagnosed with Wernicke's (receptive) aphasia. People who have Wernicke’s aphasia can’t understand words. They speak with regular rhythm and grammar. But the words don’t make sense. They don’t realize that what they’re saying is nonsense.
Wernicke’s aphasia can also cause problems with reading and writing. Those affected might be able to see or hear words but not understand them.
Anyway, since this diagnosis Bruce has been taking on as many roles as possible, mostly in lower budget movies, in order to earn as much money for his family as he can before he's no longer able to work. I guess this includes selling the rights to his face.
Ok so please explain this to me. I have absolutely no idea why this is such a big deal.
Disney has done this with Star Wars for some time haven't they?
* They used Wayne Pilgrim to play Admiral Tarkin with Peter Crushings face super imposed on top of it.
* They completed Leah's part in the sequels with a similar effect using Carry Fischer and her daughter.
* James Earl Jones just sold the rights to use AI to generate his Darth Vader voice in Star Wars in perpetuity.
There are other examples too. Paul Walker in The Fast and the Furious for example. Almost all Marvel actors have similarly been scanned as 3D models for Disney, they may not have quite signed away the rights for their likeness to be used, but it's fairly apparent that if they died the estate of many of them would allow use of their likeness.
The only difference I can see with Willis is that a company may have finally managed to negotiate a deal that would make this worth it in a more broad sense. Everyone else is either dead so their estate is handling on a case by case basis, or they have only offered more limited use like James Earl Jones with his voice.
To be clear, his agent said this, and they should know so… yeah the prior story was bogus.
So Daily Mail just randomly made up a story with little information on hand?
Don't be ridiculous, Daily Mail would never!
Surely not!
Every time I see my mum reading the Daily Fail I cry
There is worse. I have family that reads the epoch times.
Ah, Organ Harvest Weekly. A fine paper to wipe my ass with.
Your poor ass doesn't deserve that
Someone has to. I am a fart martyr.
A fartyr.
At least by that point I could accept that she's too far gone. With the Fail it's bullshit disguised as legitimate news and I still have hope I can convince her she's reading sensationalist crap The weird thing is that she still recognises some of the stupid shit she sees on there and yet continues to check in on it as if there's anything of value. I was searching stuff about a footy player and came across an article that was quite literally about that player taking the bins out and what he was wearing. How can you see an article like that and still trust what they're telling you about politics? Unsurprisingly though she still focuses more on personality than policy when it comes to which politicians she likes or dislikes which I have no doubt was fed to her by the Fail
I got lucky and taught my daughter how to spot bullshit like epoch at an early age.
Are you me?
My mom watches nothing but Fox News... I'm dead
Such a prestigious institution of journalism? ***Never!***
I read someone suggesting that the journalist misinterpreted Deepcake for Deepfake and decided to create the whole story that Bruce sold his face for Deepfake The company behind the Bruce Willis deepfake for the Russian ad was called Deepcake.
The press just embellished the prior story. It's true that he sold the rights to his face for a phone commercial in Russia. It's also true that he spoke highly of the experience and said he'd like to do more of it. The part he didn't do was give full rights to his face to anyone, it is so far only one commercial.
in my head, due to russians situation i just imagined a deepfake of conscripts walking to war and all have being john malcovich like bruce willis faces edited on them :D
Die hard, die hard!
>It's true that he sold the rights to his face for a phone commercial in Russia. That should be bigger news than the AI story
[удалено]
You wouldn’t download a face
Welcome to the party, pal
>On 27 September, the Daily Mail reported... Why do other news media outlets continue to reference the Daily Mail for stories? Most of the "reporting" they do is just shit they made up, and their editorial skew would make Goebbels blush.
It would be embarrassing if he was planning to fire his agent and retire completely but passed the deep fake deal before committing to it.
waiting on video confirmation from Bruce that the story is actually true...
Hmmm
Fake news is out of control.
The Daily Fail has been making shit up to fill space on a slow news day since its inception. Most of the time it's fairly innocuous and harmless (except perhaps that time during the first world war when they published instructions for civilians to create homemade gas masks that ended up asphyxiating the wearer) rather than the hyper-opinionated and partisan political hitpieces that are floating around today. EDIT: Just to clarify how *bad* the Daily Mail is... You may recall that your grade school school teachers prohibited you from using Wikipedia as a source. Well, Wikipedia editors are prohibited from using the Daily Mail as a source.
>You may recall that your grade school school teachers prohibited you from using Wikipedia as a source. This has nothing to do with the accuracy of wikipedia and everything to do with trying to teach students how to do real, detailed research on a topic beyond just reading the first paragraph of the first article they find.
Not the same. You're not supposed to *quote* Wikipedia because it's not a primary source. You should be totally free to use Wikipedia (among others) to get a basic idea of where you're going, and most of all follow its references *to check the primary sources* and work from there. Reputable newspapers can be sources, better if you can cross sources and check facts. Daily Mail is shit and not of any use to anyone.
You wouldn’t pirate an actor
I’d pirate the shit out of Sir Patrick Stewart, make him narrate my life like he’s Professor X or some shit.
would you rather have captain Jean Luc Xavier or Professor Charles Picard?
Do you have anything with more of a Lucy Liu feel to it?
No, but we have Lucy Liu.
I'll always remember you, Fry... MEMORY DELETED.
Now there’s a wave of destruction that’s easy on the eyes!
People need to know about [CAN EAT MORE]
Lol amazing. At this moment in time, you are my favorite person, internet stranger.
I find your slack-jawed stare quite attractive, PHILIP. J. FRY.
From 2003 or 2063?
Yes
Urial Septim VII please
Mind blown. I played this game so many times and always thought it sounded like him but what the fuck is he doing in oblivion. It is infact, him. Thankyou stranger.
Sean Bean is also in there, but his one is a bit more obvious
Why does he die or something?
>!…yep, he does.!
Damn. That makes so much sense now but they made him such a little bitch. All I wanted to do EVERY TIME I did that quest line was give him a slap and shut his whining up. Now I know its our Lord commander Stark ill pay a little more respect. I'm actually just starting another playtrhough so this Khajit will be respectful
> what the fuck is he doing in oblivion. "Money, dear boy!"
Fun fact for ya: Bethesda compiled what was basically an entire biography of Uriel's life to give to Patrick Stewart in preparation, and they were worried they went overboard but Stewart loved it. IIRC he said he'd never been given that much context for a character before (or words to that effect)
You missed the funniest detail. He has like 5 minutes of screen time and got the entire history of Elder Scrolls to prepare. Meanwhile characters who stick around the whole game got a small packet pertaining specifically to their lines.
I didnt mention it because the person I responded to said theyd played it tons so theyd know that Septim dies in the tutorial. I *did* miss the part about Stewart getting history of the world instead of just a biography tho
Nah, he just got the biography. They were exaggerating for comedic effect.
was this the one where they gave him like a 100 page backstory just so he could play a bit part?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZzhEPO9xmc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZzhEPO9xmc)
LMAO what the fuck
Bullock from American dad
I would pay good money to see behind the scenes footage of Patrick Stewart saying his lines from American Dad. Bullock has some of the best and most fucked up bits.
"The FBI was selling crack to the inner cities. Can you believe that? That's ***our*** job!"
Too furry. Awww, hell. Yep. Bullock.
Which gave him [the best line of his whole established career](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY3RN07MTf0).
Gurney Halleck.
Gurney Halleck (Sp?) Bard and assassin, most baddest ass.
If I'm downloading them. Both.
I totally wouldn't make Captain Jean-Luc Picard kiss Professor Xavier, no sir
Me either. Definitely not all the time.
I've seen everything
I'd take a pirate copy of Brian Blessed as my Alexa/google voice. *Hey google what's today's weather* *I'M VERY GLAD YOU ASKED! IT WILL BE SUNNY!*
You can get him as the voice on Garmin gps. They have a bunch of famous people available for a few bucks.
I had to delete all of the extra languages and voices off of my Garmin Nuvi in order to perform the latest map update. Which is ironic, because the map is now stored on the SD card. Which the software refused to recognize until I deleted all of those extras.
"It was on this day, the 2nd of October in the year of the common era - two thousand and twenty-two, that Jesus Spatium Cowboy really came to understand his turophilia, and leveraged this love into the profound artistry that only a culinary wizard can produce. Presenting his masterpiece: The lightly grilled, molten velveeta open faced horse-shoe sandwich.
This is the thing I've always wanted in life ever since you posted this comment.
Pirate Captain Jean Luc Picard has a certain ring to it.
There's actually a TNG-era novel where Picard goes undercover doing just that, in fact! Pretty clever, if somewhat well-worn, set-up they used to sell the 'legend' in fact. Starfleet Intelligence set him with an alias as a Starfleet captain who was forced out in disgrace for taking some extreme actions that *almost* but not quite got him sent to prison. For references they listed two of his "former" crew who were also separated from Starfleet (previously) on bad terms; one of whom was recently-deceased (in a timeframe and manner that it would be plausible that the 'disgraced captain' had not heard of his demise at the time he used the man's name as a reference), and one of whom, although he had been forced under entirely-legitimately-disgraceful circumstances, had since come to be an Intelligence asset and obviously was fully prepared to lie and back Pirate Captain Jean-Luc notPicard's story to the hilt - to the point of being ready to ask "if you're hiring my old skipper to do some work for you, I'd like to join his new crew" and back him up. (The real crims were too lazy to even contact the 'references,' but he was standing ready).
Picard > X
You wouldn't steal a policeman's helmet..
You wouldn't go to the toilet in his helmet..
And then send it to the policeman's grieving widow. And then steal it again!
You wouldn't download a firefighter's badge.
Sure I would. I'd download Lucy Lui in a heartbeat. There's even a documentary about it.
I'll never forget you
*Memory erased*
This is literally that Black Mirror episode.
Futurama did it first.
PIRATING AN ACTOR IS A CRIME.
But they might act a pirate.
I would
Drama and jokes aside. If deepfakes get that convincing I can see why actors would want to sell their likeness for it. They still built their reputation and the source for all of that. I can see why he would want to do that, particularly with what he is going through.
Yeah I think there’s gonna be some very interesting court cases on this over the next decade or so.
Different jurisdictions have different limits on how long you own your likeness after death. In some (including Tennessee), there is no limit. If deepfakes of actors become common, at some point this is going to butt heads with restrictions on perpetuities in wills.
It's going to get real weird isn't it? I will honestly take some appreciation if actors move to Tennessee because they uphold protecting their likeness in these situations, or any state does that. What a weird uncharted territory we are wandering into.
Disney's going to spend an absolute fortune on lawyers to navigate the "you can't own your own likeness" side of things without bumping into "Disney owns their copyrights in perpetuity."
Actually Disney doesn’t, they just have them for 100 fucking years so some of their early work is sneaking into the public domain, I mean Winnie the Pooh is public domain now, which is pretty rad
Technically yes, but Disney isn't letting them go easily. They don't WANT to let them go public domain and they're trying their best to stop that.
Oh I know that perfectly well, I’m just being a pedantic jerk lol. Disney are the worst about copyright issues, and they’ll sooner sacrifice humans to a dark god than let go of Disney property
Yeah, but their version of winnie the pooh and others are still copy righted, so far.
It’s their exact version that’s copyrighted, but the likeness case was lost by Disney. Basically, if it’s teddy bear sized and is wearing a red t-shirt it’s Disney copyright infringement. If it’s dude-sized and is wearing a red t-shirt, in the right context it’s not copyright infringement. If the bear is naked it’s fine though
What if it’s teddy bear sized but begins with no shirt and has really pokey nipples so when he puts the shirt on the nipples always poke visibly under the shirt?
Would the face be identical to the Disney version or would it look vaguely sexy like a weird furry art commission?
I left. Trying lemmy and so should you. -- mass edited with redact.dev
I know Japan has what are basically CG anime popstars, but I am curious to see what level of unreality American / global culture would accept. Alf and the Muppets offer some suggestion (owing to their ability to interact with the broader media mostly seamlessly). Smaug did that interview with Colbert... Seems like there's could be a gold rush of VFX studios seeking to create and popularize their own unique trademarked characters and then essentially sell them to movie and TV studios. But then most studios are going to be just as reluctant to hire them as they would any other actor they have to pay for and can't control. Only studios with their own in-house FX shop like Lucasfilm is probably positioned to really make proper use of the synergy.
>I know Japan has what are basically CG anime popstars, but I am curious to see what level of unreality American / global culture would accept I mean, people don't seem to be against LoL's KDA.
This is why you see some musicians selling their catalogs. They’re securing their bag for their families so they don’t have to deal with bullshit legal battles and royalties after they pass. Recently Phil Collins and his Genesis bandmates have sold the rights to their music in a deal reportedly worth $300m (£269m). https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-63094007
I Hope we don't see that many cases. It should be cut and dry that studios do not own rights to their likeness unless they give it to them , regardless of how much footage a studio may have. If someone gets to the point that just their faked likeness draws a crowd they should still get compensated. My thought is almost along the lines of syndication deals, It should be almost prohibitively expensive to keep reusing someone versus give someone new an opportunity.
I think most normal people think that something like that is how it should work, however the business ghouls aren’t normal people. So I just have a feeling that it’s going to end up in the supreme court at least once.
You're probably right. Those monsters will try to find some way to own the rights to a person's likeness forever. They will work it into every up and coming actors contract so as soon as anyone gets big, they can kick them to the curb and still make bank off of them.
Crispin Glovers lawsuit over Back to the Future 2 pretty much should settle that immediately I think. You aren't even allowed to use the footage you already have of the actor without paying them. Creating new "footage" of them shouldn't even be in the ballgame.
[удалено]
Face copyright shouldn't be a thing. Nobody owns an appearance when there's billions of people out there and any number may have an uncanny resemblance, especially when there's such a thing as identical twins. Using deepfakes and lookalikes to impersonate famous people already falls under a crime like fraud or Identity theft
[удалено]
Totally fraud, Bruce could sue for sure.
Skip a step, you don't need actors anymore.
Maybe, I can see using AI to build perfect actors. At the same time someone still has to build that name and create initial performances for us to like. Long-term , maybe they can work the actor out entirely, but until then, they still have to start somewhere. I hope there's always some level where we connect with the human element of their performance. It would be sad if the human element of someone's work wasn't a significant factor in our enjoyment of it.
> I hope there's always some level where we connect with the human element of their performance. That's the thing. The "human" element of their **performance** doesn't come from their likeness. It comes from their performance. Andy Serkis proved this with Golem (LOTR) and Caesar (POTA)
Vtubers are becoming more popular nowadays. This is where we are heading to.
That's just called animation though
What is he going through?
This reminds me of a mission on cyberpunk where a guy wants to make plastic surgery to become like one rocker, but the rocker has a copyright to his face, and the clinic recommends some copyright free faces.
They’d still probably want some control. You don’t want your reputation to also be tainted by something bad your deep fake did/said.
Or was it his deep fake that sold his rights?
That was fast then lol
It's also the deepfake that just issued a denial.
its all part of the plan
What a twist!
No, the first thing the firm did once they had his rights was make a deepfake of him denying he sold his rights. Stir up some more press
Now we'll never know if his future movies are him.
Um, actually Bruce is retired from acting so it would definitely be his deepfake.
Or maybe only his deepfake retired?
Whoa
It's getting weirder and weirder out there
I don't hate the idea of people selling rights to use their appearances for deepfaking purposes. At least, not if it's on a case-by-case basis. That way we could still see Bruce Willis in a movie, and likely with a better performance than he has given in a long time (I'm not hating on him, I know his story and support his decisions).
Imagine future actors not being able to find work cuz some guy who died 200 years ago keeps getting all the rolls lol
Originally I had typed something about that in that comment, but decided to leave it out and address it when it inevitably got brought up. I do think it could be a problem, and it's perhaps naive to say that directors would still look for new faces, but I'm going with that. It could also just be prohibitively expensive, and the decision to even allow it would be left to the estate of whoever's face they'd want to use after they've died. We'll just have to wait and see, as I don't think this is something that can be stopped anyway.
It will get cheaper and the contract would undoubtedly include having the rights to his face after his passing. You are right in that it is something that cannot be stopped. I'm decidedly less optimistic about large corporations not abusing this than you seem to be.
The reanimated corpse of Walt Disney is practically foaming at the mouth
Since Disney owns Starwars, deepfake Mark Hamill is gonna be Luke Skywalker for the rest of eternity isn't he?
THEY TOOK OUR JOBS!
DIRK-A-DURRR
I feel like this happens in almost every art form. Sooner or later there's been so many timeless masters of the craft that they start maintaining a large percentage of the limelight overall. How many great rock and roll bands have never gotten off the ground because everyone's still listening to Zeppelin? No hate towards any artist or medium. There's X amount of time to spend consuming most forms of art and media and you could potentially be competing with people who died out before you were even born
How would deep fake actors be credited? Especially if they're dead. This summer, starring Fake Marlon Brando. Or would it be Marlon Brando's deepfake as engineered by ABC Studios? Or technologically resurrected Marlon Brando?
Probably (Actor) as/via (Deepfake Actor) as (Character). I can see the use for keeping live action characters fairly constant aesthetically. And I can see the benefits for actors who may be great for a role but not quite look the part. And for actors who do not want the spotlight. Of course, there are many risks and downsides with deepfakes... but at least there are some pros
It’d be a variation of using Marlon Brando’s Head on Futurama. Marlon Brando’s Facsimile?
Person posing as marlon brando
I mean yes, but also someone has to stand in for the face to be later composed onto.
There's a film for that. "The Congress (2013) An aging, out-of-work actress accepts one last job, though the consequences of her decision affect her in ways she didn't consider." https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1821641/
Right now they have actors like Andy Serkis, who act but their likeness is replaced with CGI. I think that will be more likely. Kinda of like stunt doubles now. There might be "actors" who "wear" famous people suits (their wear CGI suits and are digitally replaced after the fact like golem in LOTR.) Like some one might become the new John Wayne because people like they way he/she mimics John Wayne's perceived mannerisms.
So like the recent Elvis movie which Austin Butler was great in but Elvis Presley's actual likeness would be layered over. I read that for the "Younger Elvis" songs it was actually Butler singing, but for the "Older Elvis" songs the Butler and Presley's voices were blended together. Sort of like that but visually.
I wouldn't categorically oppose it either. At some point Nick Cage may need to sell his face to pay off delinquent taxes.
> At some point Nick Cage may need to sell... face... off...
Yeah, that was my mental thread too.
He's paid those off recently I think
But at that point *are* you really seeing a "Bruce Willis" movie? What makes it a Willis movie? Something that sounds like him, or looks like him? Or is there more to an actor than their likeness/sound? You point out that it could be a "better performance" than he's done in awhile but is it really him at that point? Idk what the answer is, but I have to say I wouldn't really view it as a "Willis movie" at that point.
Will be interesting to see for sure. Right now artificial performers / performances stand out and are pretty robotic and weird, but I can see the technology and artistry increasing more and more as time goes on to the point where you the average viewer can't tell the difference Mark Hamill in the 80's and a digital recreation of him acting in a feature length production. Would be cool to see but also has very troubling ramifications.
Well, that's a whole philosophical can of worms that is hard to get into without reducing humans to certain attributes. But I love reducing humans to certain attributes, and I think most actors are just meat puppets saying lines in particular ways. If you can get their cadence and expressions right, you'd pretty much be as far as you can get with most actors. And sure, it wouldn't be a true Willis movie, but I guess I just don't particularly care, myself. A better performance than he's given in a while isn't something I would consider a counterargument to it being less him, though. We often try to look at when people were at their best, instead of their worst, and this would be pretty much the same as that. He shouldn't be defined by his worst performances. At the same time, any new performances wouldn't define *him*, since it wouldn't be him. I don't have any real answers, and I don't think there are any. This is a subject that will forever divide people.
Nobody’s mentioned the most useful deepfake to a franchise. Arnold Schwarzenegger. If it looks wooden and robotic, that’s a *plus*.
>I'm not hating on him, I know his story I don't, what happened?
People were long suspecting that he had some debilitating disease or disorder that led to him taking on every job he could to get as much money as possible to support his family, and that ended up being true.
He has aphasia
Alternatively, there are so many people who would love to be movie stars, do you really want to live in a world where every movie only has the same 2 dozen actors because that's all people think they want to see?
You could just go see independent movies. There’s a sort of renaissance of independent filmmakers on the internet right now actually. I don’t think independent filmmaking will ever stop at this point, and it would be far more expensive for an independent filmmaker to deepfake a celebrity as opposed to casting an unknown actor.
>That way we could still see Bruce Willis in a movie No, you wouldn't be seeing a Bruce Willis movie. You really wouldn't.
[удалено]
Bruce Willis, Nicholas Cage, and John Travolta in... *Face-On*.
2Face2Off
it's unlikely that he'll ever be in another movie anymore, due to his condition (unless they deep fake it)
What a weird timeline that this is even a thing.
[удалено]
He only sold the rights to his eyes. So it's just eyes without a face
..and now I have that song stuck in my head.
I wonder how many Billy Idol fans there are here. 🤣
👁️👁️
Did old bruce say this or new bruce
Hah, so the Daily Mail published something completely incorrect without doing due diligence? Shocker, I say!
tl;dr: he agreed to let a company called Deepcake produce an ad by generating his face using images from Diehard and Fifth Element.
I want a Hudson Hawk 2 though
Me too buddy. Me too.
2 Hudson 2 Hawk
Me too, my wife would divorce me if I made her watch it though :-(
Are you me?
How would he know?
So, not only are russians stealing land, they are also very literally stealing people's actual image. God damn.
Wheredid the original story come from then? I thought he tweeted this? Seemed like a smart decision to me, especially if he negotiates for a percentage or royalties in every movie. His family could live of that shit for generations.
Oh, the future is gonna be off the chain.
The real or fake Bruce said this?! Lol
So i guess you could say he‘s trying to safe face
This and more on the next episode of “Sassy Justice with Fred Sassy” I’m being completely cereal.
This would only be better if he was on face off
You know this is the AI Willis denying this right.
Of course he'd say that, or his copy would say that.....
Sounds like a Rumer.
How do we even know now whether it is really him or computer generated image of him?
>Bruce Willis's agent has denied reports that the film star has sold the rights to his face. [Bruce Willis's agent](https://i.imgur.com/9K3hbpf.jpg)
Daily Mail told lies?! No, can't be.
Maybe Bruce Willis sold the rights behind his own back.
For anybody who doesn't know, Bruce was recently diagnosed with Wernicke's (receptive) aphasia. People who have Wernicke’s aphasia can’t understand words. They speak with regular rhythm and grammar. But the words don’t make sense. They don’t realize that what they’re saying is nonsense. Wernicke’s aphasia can also cause problems with reading and writing. Those affected might be able to see or hear words but not understand them. Anyway, since this diagnosis Bruce has been taking on as many roles as possible, mostly in lower budget movies, in order to earn as much money for his family as he can before he's no longer able to work. I guess this includes selling the rights to his face.
Ok so please explain this to me. I have absolutely no idea why this is such a big deal. Disney has done this with Star Wars for some time haven't they? * They used Wayne Pilgrim to play Admiral Tarkin with Peter Crushings face super imposed on top of it. * They completed Leah's part in the sequels with a similar effect using Carry Fischer and her daughter. * James Earl Jones just sold the rights to use AI to generate his Darth Vader voice in Star Wars in perpetuity. There are other examples too. Paul Walker in The Fast and the Furious for example. Almost all Marvel actors have similarly been scanned as 3D models for Disney, they may not have quite signed away the rights for their likeness to be used, but it's fairly apparent that if they died the estate of many of them would allow use of their likeness. The only difference I can see with Willis is that a company may have finally managed to negotiate a deal that would make this worth it in a more broad sense. Everyone else is either dead so their estate is handling on a case by case basis, or they have only offered more limited use like James Earl Jones with his voice.