AI and the actors strike

[studiot]

Possibly a lesser known bone of contention is the following claim  (my emboldening)

Quote

Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, the chief negotiator for the SAG-AFTRA union, criticised producers for their proposals over AI so far.

He said studios had asked for the ability to scan the faces of background artists for the payment of one day's work, and then be able to own and use their likeness "for the rest of eternity, in any project they want, with no consent and no compensation".

If that sounds like the plot of an episode of Charlie Brooker's Black Mirror, that's because it is.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66200334

 

 

Comments and thoughts ?

[StringJunky]

The people that are alive today, will die, and a new generation will be born, ignorant of the issues. AI commences unimpeded. It's back to the "new-fangled weavers" and Luddites. Once you know something, you can't unknow it.

Edited July 14, 2023 by StringJunky

[studiot]

22 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The people that are alive today, will die, and a new generation will be born, ignorant of the issues. AI commences unimpeded. It's back to the "new-fangled weavers" and Luddites. Once you know something, you can't unknow it.

Thanks for the reply, but the Luddite issue was different.

Two people can't wear the same jumper. There will always be a need for roughly the same number of jumpers as people.

If an AI can reuse the same image again and again for different purposes (as was done in later Terminators) there is no need for so many actors in future.

[Sensei]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Comments and thoughts ?

Face book is a sufficient source of all kinds of faces.. and they will do it for free..

 

Studios, as well as ordinary artists, since it can be downloaded for free, have access to the motion capture database with bone or face movements. Once recorded, the movement of an actor/stuntman in a special suit can be reused millions of times at any time.

https://www.google.com/search?q=motion+capture

..which, of course, reduced the need for real paid experienced stuntmen..

 

George Lucas started shooting Star Wars in the middle of the series, due to the inability to pay stuntmen or generate so many "clones" in the first 3 episodes.

 

Edited July 14, 2023 by Sensei

[Endy0816]

Do think needs to be a discussion on the subject, though unsure if actors and writers aren't already too late. You can digitally generate entirely artificial individuals.

[mistermack]

If I was on the side of the actors/writers, I would get together as a union, and design a contract that they consider fair. Then use that template throughout the industry, and refuse en-masse to sign anything else. 

In any case, there are copyright laws that could be tweaked to give people rights to their image and voice etc.

But as in any other walk of life, if you agree to sell something freely, it should then belong to the buyer, so long as there is no deception involved. You could put a legal time limit on the period, at government level, if that was considered desirable. 

Personally, it doesn't affect me at all. The last movie film I watched was Green Card, with Gerard Depardieu and Andi McDowell. And that wasn't my choice, but it was a good film. But it was 30 years ago. And I don't think I've watched a film on tv in that time either, although I have watched bits of them, usually not my own choice.

My attention span doesn't allow it

[Genady]

So, in the near future all movies will be realistically looking computer animations.

Aren't they already?

[TheVat]

I'm sort of a movie buff (indie films, foreign, surrealism, sci-fi, mysteries, political thrillers, spy thrilers, comedies, period dramas, well, a pretty broad range) and IMO it is real human actors, inhabiting a character, taking risks, experimenting, getting caught up in a moment, that are at the heart of a story well told and what distinguish great film from the vast cesspool of CGI shlock that is out there now.  To put those hardworking professionals on the street while you use soulless digital simulacra in their place would be a crime against humanity and a death blow to the art of cinema.  This is a case where the Luddites should not just smash the looms, but also burn the mills and toss the owners into the inferno.

Yeah, strong opinion here.  😀

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

Aren't they already?

You can't tell. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0258153/ 

To a large extent, film stars have been steadily pricing themselves out of the market. Movies are just too expensive to make and too expensive to attend in a cinema - and cinemas have been growing meaner and more claustrophobic for decades, so that going to one is not even a special occasion: might as well wait for the DVD to watch in the comfort of one's home.

Quote

More people now say that they prefer seeing a movie for the first time at home on a streaming service than in a theater.

With all the cosmetic medicine and dentistry available, there are far too many near-identical physically perfect actors anyway; they might as well have been computer generated. And, of course, a number of animated features have been very successful; the audience is ready to accept digital imagery.

Maybe someday we'll start going to live performances again, on a more intimate local scale, on a modest budget....  Meantime, streamed and recorded entertainment doesn't differentiate between real and fabricated action.   

 

Edited July 15, 2023 by Peterkin

[StringJunky]

9 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I'm sort of a movie buff (indie films, foreign, surrealism, sci-fi, mysteries, political thrillers, spy thrilers, comedies, period dramas, well, a pretty broad range) and IMO it is real human actors, inhabiting a character, taking risks, experimenting, getting caught up in a moment, that are at the heart of a story well told and what distinguish great film from the vast cesspool of CGI shlock that is out there now.  To put those hardworking professionals on the street while you use soulless digital simulacra in their place would be a crime against humanity and a death blow to the art of cinema.  This is a case where the Luddites should not just smash the looms, but also burn the mills and toss the owners into the inferno.

Yeah, strong opinion here.  😀

We are 'old'.  We have spent our lives adapting to change and a lot us don't want to do that any more... it's a problem for the young uns. A new, naive mind will just adapt to the circumstances it finds by default, with no awareness of history to refute it, like we often do. There appears to be a periodic, collective amnesia with each successive generation.

[Peterkin]

11 minutes ago, TheVat said:

To put those hardworking professionals on the street while you use soulless digital simulacra in their place would be a crime against humanity and a death blow to the art of cinema.

Not all cinema is worth saving. It's exactly that splashy, glitzy, overpriced and overhyped mass-produced movie that's making the industry unsustainable. It can continue - on a much reduced scale - less location shooting, smaller cast, fewer sequels, more quality than quantity and size (and, fps, less obtrusive soundtrack!). Yes, film is a valuable art form, like boats are a valuable form of transport, but 

not this!

[TheVat]

19 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Not all cinema is worth saving. It's exactly that splashy, glitzy, overpriced and overhyped mass-produced movie that's making the industry unsustainable. It can continue - on a much reduced scale - less location shooting, smaller cast, fewer sequels, more quality than quantity and size (and, fps, less obtrusive soundtrack!). Yes, film is a valuable art form, like boats are a valuable form of transport, but 

not this!

Yes, and some actors have gotten the money fever and turn down interesting work (in favor of juvenile comic book movies) that other more serious actors long to be offered.  Which is why I hope independent film, with its many handy rowboats, survives.  

30 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

We are 'old'.  We have spent our lives adapting to change and a lot us don't want to do that any more... it's a problem for the young uns. A new, naive mind will just adapt to the circumstances it finds by default, with no awareness of history to refute it, like we often do. There appears to be a periodic, collective amnesia with each successive generation.

True.  I hope the younguns aren't allowed to forget what live actors can bring to a film, much the same as hoping they don't forget what reading a book (with its longer attention span) does for the mind.  Like the broom or rake, some technologies are already matured and don't improve with the addition of an engine.

[swansont]

4 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Yes, and some actors have gotten the money fever and turn down interesting work (in favor of juvenile comic book movies) that other more serious actors long to be offered.  

But the strike is not about the ones who can pick and choose what roles they will take.

[TheVat]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

But the strike is not about the ones who can pick and choose what roles they will take.

Yes, that was a bit OT reply to PKs comment

"To a large extent, film stars have been steadily pricing themselves out of the market."

One reason I hope indie film survives is that it will provide a place for the large pool of skill and artistic passion to be found among the B-list actors who cannot pick and choose so much.  

[StringJunky]

"Ladeez and gentlemen... please welcome SimOne!"

[iNow]

10 hours ago, Genady said:

So, in the near future all movies will be realistically looking computer animations.

More like in the upcoming election(s)… 

On 7/14/2023 at 11:58 AM, studiot said:

Comments and thoughts ?

It’s not entirely all bad. Many of those same writers currently striking are also themselves realizing improved more enjoyable outputs and scripts by supplementing their own talents and creativity with prompts to the LLMs.

They’re often becoming better writers via use of AI, but I fully acknowledge that on-net their financial concerns around now this will change (decrease) demand for their skillsets are fully warranted.

The blacksmiths felt similarly as cars replaced horse and buggies. 

[dimreepr]

On 7/14/2023 at 5:58 PM, studiot said:

Comments and thoughts ?

For me this is similar to the miner's strike in 80's UK, in that the bosses don't need to produce coal anymore; they have already lost IMHO.

This, for me, is just the first skirmish in the on coming war for the jobs that an AI can't do, on a 24/7 shift basis... 

21 hours ago, TheVat said:

I'm sort of a movie buff (indie films, foreign, surrealism, sci-fi, mysteries, political thrillers, spy thrilers, comedies, period dramas, well, a pretty broad range) and IMO it is real human actors, inhabiting a character, taking risks, experimenting, getting caught up in a moment, that are at the heart of a story well told and what distinguish great film from the vast cesspool of CGI shlock that is out there now.  To put those hardworking professionals on the street while you use soulless digital simulacra in their place would be a crime against humanity and a death blow to the art of cinema.  This is a case where the Luddites should not just smash the looms, but also burn the mills and toss the owners into the inferno.

Yeah, strong opinion here.  😀

You'll be pleased to know that at least the theatre will remain, relatively, immune to AI overlap.

Edit. cross posted with @StringJunky. Kids will always love a "Punch and Judy" show on the beach, surely... 🤒

Edited July 16, 2023 by dimreepr

[StringJunky]

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You'll be pleased to know that at least the theatre will remain, relatively, immune to AI overlap.

ABBA's ABBAtars may foretell  differently.

[Genady]

In the related news, AI resurrection of Brazilian singer for car ad sparks joy and ethical worries | Brazil | The Guardian

Quote

Beloved musician Elis Regina died aged 36 in 1982 but a new Volkswagen commercial shows her duetting with her daughter

 

[mistermack]

What will happen to copyrights, if you are rehashing earlier work? 

If I run a top AI machine after inputting all of the Harry Potter books, and demanding a new novel, will I own the copyright, or will JK Rowling? After all, it could earn tens of millions in revenue, so it's not chickenfeed. Maybe this has already been thrashed out in the courts, I'm not aware of it either way.

[TheVat]

IIRC, a character created by a writer is part of their intellectual property and cannot be used by other writers without permission.

The exception is when the copyright is expired.  Anyone can use a Jane Austen character, or Captain Ahab.  

[swansont]

On 7/16/2023 at 11:36 AM, Genady said:

In the related news, AI resurrection of Brazilian singer for car ad sparks joy and ethical worries | Brazil | The Guardian

 

Not really new, from an ethics standpoint. Tech allowed Fred Astaire to dance with a vacuum cleaner, in 1995. (he died in ‘87)

 

[mistermack]

4 hours ago, TheVat said:

IIRC, a character created by a writer is part of their intellectual property and cannot be used by other writers without permission.

The exception is when the copyright is expired.  Anyone can use a Jane Austen character, or Captain Ahab.  

What if you ARE the character? Like Donald Trump. I wonder if he owns the copyright to Donald Trump? 

There was a film on tv the other day about the airliner that ditched in the Hudson. I wonder if the pilot got money for creating the character ? 

[studiot]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Not really new, from an ethics standpoint. Tech allowed Fred Astaire to dance with a vacuum cleaner, in 1995. (he died in ‘87)

But did the makers pay anyone for the use of the older material ?

 

That is the key question that was in the original article I linked to and even extracted the key paragraph.
And that is what makes it different from the Luddites.

 

The luddites were complaining because someone had found a machine that could make cloth more cheaply then they could.

But actual cloth still had to be made.

What the Managers are proposing is that once they have a single print of someone, they can had the punters a photocopy in future.

Would you as a customer be satisfied with a recording of some opera star played to you, having bought a ticket to see the real mcCoy ?

 

 

[StringJunky]

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

But did the makers pay anyone for the use of the older material ?

 

That is the key question that was in the original article I linked to and even extracted the key paragraph.
And that is what makes it different from the Luddites.

 

The luddites were complaining because someone had found a machine that could make cloth more cheaply then they could.

But actual cloth still had to be made.

What the Managers are proposing is that once they have a single print of someone, they can had the punters a photocopy in future.

Would you as a customer be satisfied with a recording of some opera star played to you, having bought a ticket to see the real mcCoy ?

 

 

If they are deceased, there isn't much other options. I just see it as a new-fangled form of TV or film (movies) that increases the sensory experience of someone being present.