6 ms·

The fear, as I understand it, is that an actor will get scanned as an extra background mook in whatever movie, then not own the rights to their image when they

The fear, as I understand it, is that an actor will get scanned as an extra background mook in whatever movie, then not own the rights to their image when they get famous later. With how advanced ML deep-fakes have gotten, digital actors could go from background details that nobody really cares about to "the lead actors are all digital homunculi, their visages the result of blending multiple actors together"

epups 3y ago
But if this is the fear, why should we care? If John Doe, who is currently a bartender, wants to concede to Warner his appearance in perpetuity in exchange for $1000, that's his business.
- Goronmon 3y ago
  If John Doe, who is currently a bartender, wants to concede to Warner his appearance in perpetuity in exchange for $1000, that's his business. Aside from the whole question of consent to the "in perpetuity" side of the issue, the law does actually care about fairness when it comes to contracts.
- trubeliever 3y ago
  [dead]
chimeracoder 3y ago
> The fear, as I understand it, is that an actor will get scanned as an extra background mook in whatever movie, then not own the rights to their image when they get famous later. Exactly. People are talking as if this is just about background roles, but that's not the point. Studios already use CGI people for background roles. That's cheap and easy, and there's no need to scan individuals for that. The whole point of doing these body scans is to generate images that look like that specific actor. They're not doing that because they loved Joe Schmoe's performance as Silent Background Witness #4. They're doing that because Joe Schmoe might become a big star ten years down the line, and if that happens, they want to be able to produce movies with Joe Schmoe without paying him, or without even asking him beforehand at all.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  > Joe Schmoe might become a big star ten years down the line The chances of that happening are indistinguishable from zero.
  - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
    Not quite because it does happen or there would be no stars. Think of all the actors who played bit parts in TV shows from years ago. For instance, Pedro Pascal was on Buffy. He's a household name now, but then he was nobody waaaay before he was on GoT. The vast majority of famous actors earned their stripes via bit parts. It would behoove a studio to be making these scans just in case they happened to work with the next Brad Pitt at some point.
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      Would you be as excited to see a hologram of Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible, as opposed to see the real Tom doing his own stunts? Besides, if technology could create a CGI actor as good as a real actor, the screen actors' guild is finished anyway, one way or another.
      - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
        People pay a lot of money to go see Avatar.
  - dmonitor 3y ago
    the odds that any individual extra will become huge are slim to none. the odds that a huge actor started their career with a role as an extra is pretty high.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    >The chances of that happening are indistinguishable from zero Yeah, no. John Krasinski was waiting tables and struggling to make ends meet before getting his part as Jim in The Office that made him a household name today. The casts of Friends and The Big Bang Theory were mostly nobodys before getting their parts which made them multi-millionaries that everyone recognizes today. It's survivorship bias, but some of those "nobodys" actually do end up becoming very big "somebodys" later on, and the movie studios want to own their digital likeness for cheap early on, just in case, so that if they do become somebodys, they can pump out and monetize valuable ML generated content based on their likeness without having to pay them.
WalterBright 3y ago
You can always turn fame into cash in other ways. For example, Carrie Fisher (I'm reading her biography) lived off of her fame from Star Wars for the rest of her life (and she got the role in Star Wars because her mother was famous). Her movie roles after SW were not particularly memorable. But, like the Kardashians, she made a lot of money by being famous. Even her novels were autobiographical. Her show (Wishful Drinking) was about herself. When she needed money, she'd go to a SW convention and sign autographs. And there's nothing wrong with that.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  Your example is just survivorship bias. 99% of people starring in movies don't have nowhere near the fame and bargaining power to demand royalties from past work the way stars like Carrie Fisher does. Yes, some unknown actors got super lucky and struck big the first time, which gave him/her leverage to negociate deals to live off the royalties off one single great movie/franchise for the rest of their lives because they became invaluable to the franchise, but the vast majority don't, and need to bounce around begging for parts in mediocre movies to make a living. It's why unions and regulations are important otherwise unscrupulous movie studios will just screw everyone entering the industry into signing off the rights to their visual likeness for pennies just so they can monetize them down the line. For every Tom Cruise there are thousands of talented people whose careers didn't go anywhere.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    I don't know what royalties Carrie got from Star Wars, but (according to her biography) she did run out of money at times and used her fame to get money. Carrie would have been wealthy even if she'd worked for Lucas for free. Would she have been famous without Lucas? Unlikely. Do you think anyone would pay to have a hologram of Carrie sign your t-shirt? Would anyone watch Larry King interview a hologram of Carrie? Would anyone pay to hire a hologram of Carrie to sing at their wedding? Would you pay to see a broadway show starring Carrie the Hologram?
    - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago

epups 3y ago

But if this is the fear, why should we care? If John Doe, who is currently a bartender, wants to concede to Warner his appearance in perpetuity in exchange for $1000, that's his business.

Goronmon 3y ago
If John Doe, who is currently a bartender, wants to concede to Warner his appearance in perpetuity in exchange for $1000, that's his business. Aside from the whole question of consent to the "in perpetuity" side of the issue, the law does actually care about fairness when it comes to contracts.
trubeliever 3y ago
[dead]

chimeracoder 3y ago

> The fear, as I understand it, is that an actor will get scanned as an extra background mook in whatever movie, then not own the rights to their image when they get famous later. Exactly. People are talking as if this is just about background roles, but that's not the point. Studios already use CGI people for background roles. That's cheap and easy, and there's no need to scan individuals for that. The whole point of doing these body scans is to generate images that look like that specific actor. They're not doing that because they loved Joe Schmoe's performance as Silent Background Witness #4. They're doing that because Joe Schmoe might become a big star ten years down the line, and if that happens, they want to be able to produce movies with Joe Schmoe without paying him, or without even asking him beforehand at all.

WalterBright 3y ago
> Joe Schmoe might become a big star ten years down the line The chances of that happening are indistinguishable from zero.
- SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
  Not quite because it does happen or there would be no stars. Think of all the actors who played bit parts in TV shows from years ago. For instance, Pedro Pascal was on Buffy. He's a household name now, but then he was nobody waaaay before he was on GoT. The vast majority of famous actors earned their stripes via bit parts. It would behoove a studio to be making these scans just in case they happened to work with the next Brad Pitt at some point.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    Would you be as excited to see a hologram of Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible, as opposed to see the real Tom doing his own stunts? Besides, if technology could create a CGI actor as good as a real actor, the screen actors' guild is finished anyway, one way or another.
    - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
      People pay a lot of money to go see Avatar.
- dmonitor 3y ago
  the odds that any individual extra will become huge are slim to none. the odds that a huge actor started their career with a role as an extra is pretty high.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  >The chances of that happening are indistinguishable from zero Yeah, no. John Krasinski was waiting tables and struggling to make ends meet before getting his part as Jim in The Office that made him a household name today. The casts of Friends and The Big Bang Theory were mostly nobodys before getting their parts which made them multi-millionaries that everyone recognizes today. It's survivorship bias, but some of those "nobodys" actually do end up becoming very big "somebodys" later on, and the movie studios want to own their digital likeness for cheap early on, just in case, so that if they do become somebodys, they can pump out and monetize valuable ML generated content based on their likeness without having to pay them.

WalterBright 3y ago

You can always turn fame into cash in other ways. For example, Carrie Fisher (I'm reading her biography) lived off of her fame from Star Wars for the rest of her life (and she got the role in Star Wars because her mother was famous). Her movie roles after SW were not particularly memorable. But, like the Kardashians, she made a lot of money by being famous. Even her novels were autobiographical. Her show (Wishful Drinking) was about herself. When she needed money, she'd go to a SW convention and sign autographs. And there's nothing wrong with that.

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
Your example is just survivorship bias. 99% of people starring in movies don't have nowhere near the fame and bargaining power to demand royalties from past work the way stars like Carrie Fisher does. Yes, some unknown actors got super lucky and struck big the first time, which gave him/her leverage to negociate deals to live off the royalties off one single great movie/franchise for the rest of their lives because they became invaluable to the franchise, but the vast majority don't, and need to bounce around begging for parts in mediocre movies to make a living. It's why unions and regulations are important otherwise unscrupulous movie studios will just screw everyone entering the industry into signing off the rights to their visual likeness for pennies just so they can monetize them down the line. For every Tom Cruise there are thousands of talented people whose careers didn't go anywhere.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  I don't know what royalties Carrie got from Star Wars, but (according to her biography) she did run out of money at times and used her fame to get money. Carrie would have been wealthy even if she'd worked for Lucas for free. Would she have been famous without Lucas? Unlikely. Do you think anyone would pay to have a hologram of Carrie sign your t-shirt? Would anyone watch Larry King interview a hologram of Carrie? Would anyone pay to hire a hologram of Carrie to sing at their wedding? Would you pay to see a broadway show starring Carrie the Hologram?
  - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago