4 ms·
That's true but what's more simple? Implementing UBI or banning this practice? Right now the latter is more simple and feasible. The former takes more time and
by likenesstheft 3y ago
That's true but what's more simple? Implementing UBI or banning this practice? Right now the latter is more simple and feasible. The former takes more time and investigation into how to do it properly so it scales forever.
- cwkoss 3y agoI don't think a law mandating human extras will be very effective in guaranteeing jobs. More likely, filmmakers will just change shots so there are less reasons for people to be in the background, because it is mandated to be expensive.
- em-bee 3y agobanning non-human extras is completely unfeasable. do you think it makes sense to stop every indie filmmaker with a small budget who can't afford to hire a lot of actors and extras from using computer generated characters? how about a fully computer animated film with a few real human characters? computer generated characters are not the problem. scanning real humans and keeping the perpetual right to use the data without paying is the problem.
- buffington 3y agoI think the real problem isn't scanning the humans and keeping perpetual rights to use the data without paying. It's scanning humans without telling them that's what they're being scanned for. While the stories I've heard may be anecdotal, I've heard people who, as extras on a production, tell stories about being scanned with zero explanation as to why. If people want to sign away their likeness, fine, but they need to be the ones agreeing to that.
- em-bee 3y agoIf people want to sign away their likeness, fine, but they need to be the ones agreeing to that. not until we have laws that make sure that those rights can not be signed away exclusively. no contract should be able to prevent someone using their own likeness to make a living. it's the same problem as with non-compete clauses.