The TV writers' strike

[HeyItsSara]

I am all for equal pay for equal work and I don't know all the details that are being discussed ... but since AI is here to stay, I don't see how the writers can make a fuss about it being used.

Just like full orchestras don't get as much work anymore with the advent of one-man bands.

Thoughts?

 

[Aunt Bea]

Think of all the changes that have taken place during our lifetime and all of the people whose lives were disrupted by those changes.

You can spend your time being bitter about change or you can adapt and adjust your life to fit the new reality.

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
- Charles Darwin

 

[HeyItsSara]

I mean, look at professional sports. And dance. Lots of people want these jobs. They all don't get them, and many of those who do, don't make riches. You know what I mean?

 

[GotGarlic]

It's not about equal pay or bitterness about change. It's about people being paid fairly for the work they have done and their own images they have built. I heard one striker say that they used to be able to make a living from residual income from various movies and shows they had worked on, but now the payments are pennies instead of thousands of dollars. I'm pretty sure the studios can afford to pay them better.

Regarding AI, I don't know how it will play out, but from what I've seen, it's not ready for prime time yet. Lol, see what I did there?

 

[HeyItsSara]

Yes, some of their requests have merit. Not the AI one though.

 

[GotGarlic]

I mean, look at professional sports. And dance. Lots of people want these jobs. They all don't get them, and many of those who do, don't make riches. You know what I mean?

Not really. I don't think the people on strike are asking for jobs they don't deserve.

 

[HeyItsSara]

Lots of wonderful dancers deserve jobs that just don't exist. Ditto for musicians. Not everyone can make a living from their passion.

 

[GotGarlic]

Lots of wonderful dancers deserve jobs that just don't exist. Ditto for musicians. Not everyone can make a living from their passion.

That's true but I don't see what that has to do with the strike.

 

[HeyItsSara]

I am mostly speaking of the Union's abhorrence of AI technology "taking away their jobs".

 

[taxlady]

I think the part about AI that really sticks in the craws of the actors is the fact that they won't be paid fairly for their images. The companies are saying that for one regular day's wages, the company will own the image in perpetuity and for any possible use of that image. Not just for one day's wages, but if they want to work at all, they are subject to this licensing of their images.

 

[fmw]

I am all for equal pay for equal work and I don't know all the details that are being discussed ... but since AI is here to stay, I don't see how the writers can make a fuss about it being used.

Just like full orchestras don't get as much work anymore with the advent of one-man bands.

Thoughts?

They are making a fuss because they are in jeopardy of losing their jobs.

 

[Andy M.]

One of the actors' issues is the studios can take voice and image that the actor has been paid for then use it to create future performances the actor would not be paid for.

 

[Aunt Bea]

I don’t see that as any different than most companies views on intellectual property.

In most cases intellectual property is deemed to belong to the employer, not the employee, even though the employee is the creator or inventor of the work in question.

 

[taxlady]

I don’t see that as any different than most companies views on intellectual property.

In most cases intellectual property is deemed to belong to the employer, not the employee, even though the employee is the creator or inventor of the work in question.

This isn't the same. The work is the property of the employer, sure. But, the person's likeness is not.

 

[Aunt Bea]

This isn't the same. The work is the property of the employer, sure. But, the person's likeness is not.

If I was looking for work as an extra or in some minor role I would be free to decline the job and if I was a major talent I would be able to negotiate an individual agreement or again decline the role.

It seems like the major studios could pretty much eliminate paid extras by paying a small fee for average people in all walks of life for the use of their face, basically creating a casting library.

Like so many things the devil would be in the details. Could that ‘face’ end up in a porn film or if that ‘face’ became famous would that alter the original agreement, etc…

The use of AI will generate many test cases before some sort of best practice or industry standard emerges.

It’s all very interesting and I’m sure that AI will reshape many industries in the years to come.

 

[taxlady]

Yup, this is a frontier in the use of AI and the actors want to take a stand now, before it is too late. I am seeing more real solidarity than I would have guessed.

 

[dragnlaw]

Does invasion of privacy not come into the act? As Aunt Bea said - if my face is used as a back ground crowd and I allow it - what happens if they use my face as a mass murderer, still active aged porn star (wow, now there's a horror story) ....
some contract writing lawyer is going to make millions!
and another lawyer is going to make millions when they go to court!

 

[HeyItsSara]

in which star wars movie was a crowd either AI generated or a small crowd used and then cut and pasted to make it look bigger than it really was? if it was the 2nd case, i doubt anyone was paid 2 or 3 times their usual fee even though they were used multiple times.

i don't like it either. i just don't see any way around it. so many things are automated lately. self check out in the library and in many stores. voice mail in an office instead of a real person receptionist. etc.

 

[Andy M.]

in which star wars movie was a crowd either AI generated or a small crowd used and then cut and pasted to make it look bigger than it really was? if it was the 2nd case, i doubt anyone was paid 2 or 3 times their usual fee even though they were used multiple times.

i don't like it either. i just don't see any way around it. so many things are automated lately. self check out in the library and in many stores. voice mail in an office instead of a real person receptionist. etc.

No one pays for a movie ticket to watch a crowd of extras in the background of a movie scene. It's the movie stars that make huge profits for the studios. The stars simply expect to share in the profits they generate.

 

[taxlady]

No one pays for a movie ticket to watch a crowd of extras in the background of a movie scene. It's the movie stars that make huge profits for the studios. The stars simply expect to share in the profits they generate.

Agreed.

A group on FaceBook called, The Other 98%, shared this yesterday,

David Duchovny sued FOX because they sold "The X-Files" reruns to Fox-owned stations in a sweetheart deal (rather than on the open market), scamming him and other participants out of millions of dollars. Studios will try to get away with everything.

The fact that Duchovny had to SUE for his fair share is all the proof you need that no one is protected from this bs. There is no amount of fame or influence, no contribution to to a show’s success, that will make the studios do right by you unless forced.

Link to the post on FB