The fact that they actually offered that low of an amount for biometric AI data in perpetuity makes it clear they are operating in bad faith (more than usual)
I think this could be fair for background actors _if_ it was scoped to a single project.
Come in, get scanned, maybe do some mannerism mocap and then get the negotiated day rate. The rate for a single day should be higher than it is currently, but still less than the studio currently pays for multiple days of background work.
This would be closer to a win-win: the background actor gets paid more money for fewer hours of work, and the studio spends less money overall on background actors.
That’s how it’s been done, more or less, as far back as The Scorpion King. Digitally inserted extras have been a thing for awhile, but it still required the actors to do mocap and be scanned in costume.
(I swear, I've had that exact conversation here, with nearly that same tone. And of course, verbal contortions that they are somehow better individuals with 'special skills'. They're just more meat for the grinder.)
When the NLRB no longer requires negotiating for free-loaders, sure. But if I'm part of a union, you damn straight if you're getting the benefits and getting negotiation, I want you to pay your share.
https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em...
I would have to dig for the exact USC codes that construct the below paragraph taken from said website. I don't have that on hand.
"Your union has the duty to represent all employees - whether members of the union or not-fairly, in good faith, and without discrimination. This duty applies to virtually every action that a union may take in dealing with an employer as your representative, including collective bargaining, handling grievances, and operating exclusive hiring halls. For example, a union which represents you cannot refuse to process a grievance because you have criticized union officials or because you are not a member of the union. But the duty does not ordinarily apply to rights a worker can enforce independently - such as filing a workers' compensation claim - or to internal union affairs - such as the union's right to discipline members for violating its own rules."
Though certainly non-members should not be forced into bargaining units and in turn, unions for those bargaining units should not have to represent them. It would allow a lot more micro-unions, but eh.
That doesn't seem right. It was my understanding that everything was based on "bargaining units" which can be organized by similar workers, like job function or location-based and if you're in the bargaining unit, you're represented by the union regardless of whether you're a member or not, but if you're outside any unionized bargaining unit, then the union has no bearing on your contract.
That's exactly what I'm saying. That's the way the NLRB charters unions.
Now, in reality, companies will give more concessions to the non-union employees and withhold higher pay and other demands to the union for "negotiations. Naturally, this is a anti-union stance to show that if you play nicely and not unionize, the company will give you free concessions. Naturally, they wouldn't do that if no union was in play.
https://qz.com/starbucks-is-raising-pay-but-only-for-workers...
> That doesn't seem right.
I would 100% agree with that. Unions should never have to represent non-union employees during negotiations and bargaining. But the NLRB writes that every charter. Its law.
Again, I'm in IT, not law. But https://legalaidatwork.org/factsheet/labor-unions-duty-of-fa... also states the exact same thing about representation by a non-union employee:
------------
What if there is a union where I work, but I have chosen not to be a member. If I have a grievance, does the union have to represent me?
Yes. Legally, the union has the same obligation to represent you fairly as it does to represent union members. You can ask the union to file a grievance if you are fired or disciplined, even if you are not a member.
Yes that's the entire fucking point of collective action.
However, I'm not against it, ambivalent about it. What's more important to me is hypocricy of people who oppose the thing in one context and then support it in another, whereas it's exactly the same thing.
Why am I ambivalent about it? Well, it's a screenwriter who earn $120k and barely survive in LA against midwestern school teacher who earns $50k and whose pension fund invested in another fund who invested in a Disney. I don't think either side is morally superior to another.
These unions are in danger of becoming irrelevant.
The choice in this case eventually becomes one between paying or not paying at all which is a completely hilarious deal. You won't have to do any work tho, you will be working elsewhere
the skill of an actor is that they can act out different personalities as needed for the film, but if they create a database of whatever personalities you can think of, you only need to find a person to have that personality scan them and add to the database.
so anyone can do this job for a day. acting skills are no longer needed, much less acting experience.
that means anyone needing a bit of money will be game to be exploited like this. basically we can expect that anything but major roles will be replaced if this is allowed to go through.
the actors guild will have to negotiate to somehow disallow or limit the use of AI generated characters. however if you want to create scenes with thousands of people (like the battle scenes in lord of the rings or the hobbit, which were embellished with the help of AI) disallowing AI characters would be too limiting
If they can successfully map a thousand different emotions to the same A.I. model believably, then okay, but we are some distance from that yet, and it will be fought heavily when we get there, because a couple hundred thousand people aren't going to roll over and accept that their jobs don't exist anymore
i am not talking about speaking roles. we don't quite have the technology for those yet, but we are not that far either. we already have animated and computer generated 3d models of people that are getting more realistic by the day. just look at the final fantasy movies. they are still human controlled of course, but there are no more full actors. and the same is happening with voice actors too.
i fear this is where the industry is heading, and it's going to be hard to stop them.