Hacker News Reader

Comment by jauntywundrkind | Hacker News Reader

I generally agree, but the specific premise here is vile. Some megacorp gets rights to your digital puppet that they can exploit to their pleasure, while the actors get almost nothing? Yikes.

Even if we didn't need to justify our existence, a lot of actors would probably still like to & want to act.

View on HN

Oh, I agree. The concept of being capable of being coerced into signing away your likeness in perpetuity is absolutely vile. In a real sense it's the only thing you own that can't be separated from you. These contracts should be illegal just in the way signing a contract to endenture yourself is illegal.

I don't understand the likeness thing. We can reliably generate faces of all kinds. Why pay anyone for it when it can just be generated? Are they worried the generated one will look like a real person and open them to liability?

Well, they're not buying the 'likeness' in most cases as much as they're buying the actor's 'star power' - i.e. their ability to trade on their own name and performance independently of any one media product. That is, simply having their name attached to something makes that thing more likely to do well financially. This is what they're buying - and why casting "unknowns" in a "big budget" production is rather unusual. It's more risky than simply paying, say, Chris Pratt or Scarlett Johansson to perform. As you might imagine, investors don't like risk except the kind that guarantees them returns.

Not for background roles though. There are no stars in that world.

How do you think a lot of actors start their career?

Precisely this.

It could be quite useful/profitable for a Hollywood studio to acquire the rights-in-perpetuity to a young actor's image in 2023 for $200, if that same actor then goes on to become a superstar.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com