2 ms·
I disagree. Your example is like reusing the 'stock footage' again in a new production. While I generally agree that producing a given scene should be work fo
by mjevans 3y ago
I disagree. Your example is like reusing the 'stock footage' again in a new production.
While I generally agree that producing a given scene should be work for hire (and similarly studios shouldn't collect residuals for themselves either after a point of time / profit; where the work graduates to public domain); I disagree that the _likeness_ and ability to virtually re-create a given actor's portrayal should be a forever thing. At least outside of it being produced from public domain records by anyone.
- olliej 3y agoLiterally the point of the article is that studios aren't wanting to reuse footage, they're wanting to use "AI" to create new footage with the person's face and likeness. It isn't reusing what they've been paid for, it's selling their image in new media that they aren't compensated for, and if their image specifically was not the valuable part then the studios wouldn't be wanting to do this, they'd just use a new and cheap actor instead. Given an actor's job is based in part on their image, voice, and likeness, that is equivalent to your current employer taking what they're paying you for now (your ability to write code), and saying therefore they have perpetual access to what made you valuable (the code you write).
- WWLink 3y agoThe other reason to not want to sign away your likeness to a studio: You won't have a say WHAT that new footage is. Imagine seeing yourself end up in AI porn.
- jmholla 3y agoI think the OP was saying that your prior employer would feel entitled to the code you write after you left their employment, not the code you wrote while you were there.