Writers Guild of America (WGA) strike news 2 2

[CAHokie]

On 9/6/2023 at 7:12 PM, fantastic_four said:

No young actor serious about being an actor will ever sign a contract giving away their digital rights.  If you do you'll essentially be ending your career, or at least shortening it once fully-digital actors become practical.  And if you're young that's going to happen long before you'd be ready to retire.

All of this applies to the current generation of kids in EVERY career.  There are a lot of white collar jobs I'd be extremely skeptical about sending my kids to college for from now on because we aren't far from them becoming obsolete just as actors are having to face.

You…just changed it to now they have a contract to sign instead of just showing up and being told they are being scanned. I think I understand what it’s like for some to debate with Roy now.   

[drotto]

On 9/6/2023 at 5:59 PM, fantastic_four said:

Why does it need to be stopped?  If it's not in the contract then yes, it has to be stopped.  But if that's the case a strike isn't the resolution, a civil lawsuit is.  I'm guessing since this is a strike instead of a lawsuit there has been language in their contracts giving the studios free reign to use their digital avatar in the future.

Big stars would just never sign that contract.  I don't see why such a contract shouldn't be allowed for unknown actors.  If they care they don't sign, if they don't they sign.  If you're an extra why would you care?  You're not doing it for a living anyway so I would imagine most extras would sign their digital selves away--and in most cases amused if they ever see themselves used in another way other than the scenes they explicitly shot.

Agree, this all will happen.  People just need to be incredibly careful with what they sign.  At minimum the studios have to clearly spell out if they are buying the rights to your likeness, and if they are, what are the terms, when can it be used, and how will that person get paid. I think it is somewhat far off for significant roles.

 

Some big names have in fact signed over their likeness in limited circumstances.  I believe Mark Hamill has done it in regards to Luke.

[CAHokie]

On 9/6/2023 at 7:22 PM, drotto said:

Agree, this all will happen.  People just need to be incredibly careful with what they sign.  At minimum the studios have to clearly spell out if they are buying the rights to your likeness, and if they are, what are the terms, when can it be used, and how will that person get paid. I think it is somewhat far off for significant roles.

 

Some big names have in fact signed over their likeness in limited circumstances.  I believe Mark Hamill has done it in regards to Luke.

Yes, but I bet it was a carefully worded contract with stipulations and good pay. Not the SAG daily rate, we are scanning you, go stand in line or bounce out.

[troydivision1]

The major media conglomerates are beholden to their shareholders and Wall Street quarterly results.
Most of their (CEOs / C-Suite Executives / Owners) wealth is directly related to stock options, bonuses, and what the board dictates.
They have every reason to cling to every penny they can.
It's literally their job to do so.
That being said, as humans, they should absolutely do better by every single person that creates the media that makes them money.
This goes doubly for Amazon, Apple, Disney, and Universal.
(as each of these also own / operate / source labor from in and around the world to increase their market cap)

[fantastic_four]

On 9/6/2023 at 7:19 PM, CAHokie said:

You…just changed it to now they have a contract to sign instead of just showing up and being told they are being scanned. I think I understand what it’s like for some to debate with Roy now.   

If extras are not signing a contract giving their digital likeness away then the studios aren't thinking things through.  Certainly any future Denzel would sue them silly once a studio started earning significant income from their digital likeness if there wasn't a contract.

Edited September 6, 2023 by fantastic_four

[Eclipse]

On 9/6/2023 at 7:05 PM, CAHokie said:

Btw….They didn’t start off as extras or minor roles for and giggles. Its how most get into the industry and learn how filming scenes and the movements work.

Every day at work (when we had work) i see 50-75 extras all hoping to make it one day. They have big dreams and hope to get noticed to hopefully get at least a speaking line in something during the next tryout. Thinking they would want to sign this all away is ludicrous. And this has to end soon, i havent worked since mid June!

[RobAnybody]

George Clooney was an "extra" on The Facts of Life way back when.  Do you think he would have said "naaah... I'll pass on this minor role. I'm gonna be George Clooney in like 20 years"?

EDIT: fwiw: that was more directed @fantastic_four, rather than @Eclipse

Edited September 7, 2023 by RobAnybody

[fantastic_four]

On 9/6/2023 at 8:44 PM, Eclipse said:

Every day at work (when we had work) i see 50-75 extras all hoping to make it one day. They have big dreams and hope to get noticed to hopefully get at least a speaking line in something during the next tryout. Thinking they would want to sign this all away is ludicrous. And this has to end soon, i havent worked since mid June!

Unions of factory workers in the 19th century and in the early 20th century tried their best to use strikes to fight the automation of their jobs, too.  Back then there wasn't as much history of it happening for them to know it was a doomed effort.  I thought the Actor's Guild would be somewhat aware of the history of fighting automation--and particularly unions fighting automation--and give up on their AI demands, but apparently not.

So yea, it's going to drag on if they keep clinging to their AI provisions.

[CAHokie]

On 9/6/2023 at 8:57 PM, RobAnybody said:

George Clooney was an "extra" on The Facts of Life way back when.  Do you think he would have said "naaah... I'll pass on this minor role. I'm gonna be George Clooney in like 20 years"?

EDIT: fwiw: that was more directed @fantastic_four, rather than @Eclipse

Exactly. Eastwood, Stallone, Willis, Arnold, etc…. All started off in the background. All had big dreams but we all know that a very few make it big.
 

As @Eclipse said, there are dozens to a hundred on a set every day. Most will never even get a speaking role. Do they really have the option of saying no, Im not doing that because I’m going to be big some day. No of course not, because they need the job today and one tomorrow. 
 

I’m not saying AI should never be used, just that a set of rules need to be in place and followed. 

 

[Microchip]

On 9/7/2023 at 11:03 AM, fantastic_four said:

Unions of factory workers in the 19th century and in the early 20th century tried their best to use strikes to fight the automation of their jobs, too.  Back then there wasn't as much history of it happening for them to know it was a doomed effort.  I thought the Actor's Guild would be somewhat aware of the history of fighting automation--and particularly unions fighting automation--and give up on their AI demands, but apparently not.

So yea, it's going to drag on if they keep clinging to their AI provisions.

You're missing the point.

Getty Images have contracts in place protesting their IP.

AI does not change the IP of actors.   The only thing missing is putting the right contracts in place.   Right now the studio's are trying to say the actors don't have IP.   The complete opposite is true. 

[CAHokie]

On 9/6/2023 at 8:44 PM, Eclipse said:

Every day at work (when we had work) i see 50-75 extras all hoping to make it one day. They have big dreams and hope to get noticed to hopefully get at least a speaking line in something during the next tryout. Thinking they would want to sign this all away is ludicrous. And this has to end soon, i havent worked since mid June!

Rereading it, I am not for sure what you meant by the bolded section.

The issue is not so much them signing a contract giving away their likeness, that is their decision. (Though there should be guidelines and rules on it.) The main issue is that some are saying they are being told to get scanned with no contract/protections in place at all.

[Larryw7]

On 9/6/2023 at 4:51 PM, Bosco685 said:

That's the bigger concern if it was me.

You paid me at a point in time to scan my image. So the studio now assumes in perpetuity they own your likeness and owe you nothing further.

Sounds like the comic book industry.

[fantastic_four]

On 9/6/2023 at 10:00 PM, Microchip said:

You're missing the point.

Getty Images have contracts in place protesting their IP.

AI does not change the IP of actors.   The only thing missing is putting the right contracts in place.   Right now the studio's are trying to say the actors don't have IP.   The complete opposite is true. 

You'll have to explain a bit more about what Getty Images is protesting.  I've seen images with their watermarks around the web, but other than that I don't know what they do or what the nature of their protest would be.

I agree, actors still own their likeness as digital avatars just as they would their likeness as photographs, videos, or in any other medium.  Or at least that's what my educated guess would be as to how courts would interpret how a digital avatar falls under patent laws.  I'm also guessing this hasn't gone to court yet to say that for sure, but who knows, maybe there is trial precedent about actors owning their digital likeness.  If anyone knows of one please do share.

If the studios are claiming that digital actor avatars aren't the actor's intellectual property then that's surprising.  Do you recall who said that?  One of the studio heads I'm guessing?  I'm definitely interested to see if they tried to explain that position.  They may be referring to a lack of court precedent establishing that fact as I mentioned in my last paragraph.  Either way I can't begin to imagine their lawyers would ever let them use digital actor avatars without signing contracts with those actors, PARTICULARLY any actor that the camera does a close-up on with spoken lines.  Maybe they're skipping the contracts with extras since the monetary risk should be extremely small with them since they barely get paid, but even that seems at least somewhat risky if they're not getting them to sign their rights away.

[TupennyConan]

Hollywood can scan me.

[CAHokie]

On 9/7/2023 at 10:30 AM, fantastic_four said:

You'll have to explain a bit more about what Getty Images is protesting.  I've seen images with their watermarks around the web, but other than that I don't know what they do or what the nature of their protest would be.

I agree, actors still own their likeness as digital avatars just as they would their likeness as photographs, videos, or in any other medium.  Or at least that's what my educated guess would be as to how courts would interpret how a digital avatar falls under patent laws.  I'm also guessing this hasn't gone to court yet to say that for sure, but who knows, maybe there is trial precedent about actors owning their digital likeness.  If anyone knows of one please do share.

If the studios are claiming that digital actor avatars aren't the actor's intellectual property then that's surprising.  Do you recall who said that?  One of the studio heads I'm guessing?  I'm definitely interested to see if they tried to explain that position.  They may be referring to a lack of court precedent establishing that fact as I mentioned in my last paragraph.  Either way I can't begin to imagine their lawyers would ever let them use digital actor avatars without signing contracts with those actors, PARTICULARLY any actor that the camera does a close-up on with spoken lines.  Maybe they're skipping the contracts with extras since the monetary risk should be extremely small with them since they barely get paid, but even that seems at least somewhat risky if they're not getting them to sign their rights away.

I thought it was a simple misspelling and he meant protecting. “Protecting their IP” not protesting.

[fantastic_four]

On 9/7/2023 at 11:36 AM, CAHokie said:

I thought it was a simple misspelling and he meant protecting. “Protecting their IP” not protesting.

I still don't get it.  Why is it their IP?  Do they serve as agents for extras or something?

[Bosco685]

On 9/7/2023 at 11:04 AM, TupennyConan said:

Hollywood can scan me.

[Microchip]

On 9/8/2023 at 3:15 AM, fantastic_four said:

On 9/8/2023 at 1:36 AM, CAHokie said:

I thought it was a simple misspelling and he meant protecting. “Protecting their IP” not protesting.

I still don't get it.  Why is it their IP?  Do they serve as agents for extras or something?

Getty's image library is their IP.

The actors image, voice is their IP.

It's not complicated.

The studio's don't any have rights over any of the actors IP in-perpetuity because they hired an extra to work for a few hours on a particular day long ago.

They're inviting a class action of substantial remedy against them.

The only time where someone's "abilities" have been used in-perpetuity is when people entrain the movements of robots in factories.   The strokes of auto-paint robots are human movements for instance.

 

 

[drotto]

On 9/7/2023 at 6:45 PM, Microchip said:

Getty's image library is their IP.

The actors image, voice is their IP.

It's not complicated.

The studio's don't any have rights over any of the actors IP in-perpetuity because they hired an extra to work for a few hours on a particular day long ago.

They're inviting a class action of substantial remedy against them.

The only time where someone's "abilities" have been used in-perpetuity is when people entrain the movements of robots in factories.   The strokes of auto-paint robots are human movements for instance.

 

 

I think current laws suggest that an individual owns their likeness and voice, so in essence we are all our own personal IP's. As such companies can not use them without permission. As such, the actors union should insure that companies can not sneak any language counter to that in any stock contracts. If anyone elects to sell their personal IP with full knowlwdge, that is one them. 

[CAHokie]

On 9/7/2023 at 6:54 PM, drotto said:

I think current laws suggest that an individual owns their likeness and voice, so in essence we are all our own personal IP's. As such companies can not use them without permission. As such, the actors union should insure that companies can not sneak any language counter to that in any stock contracts. If anyone elects to sell their personal IP with full knowlwdge, that is one them. 

Yes, on all of the above. Really though, this could open up a new job classification. If you need AI faces you don’t need real actors or those with aspirations. Advertise it and pay normal people that don’t mind selling their likeness. Need a homeless character. Go find one and give them a contract to get scanned. Need a pretty blonde, same thing!