Sag-AFTRA won't budge as studios push to own actors' likenesses in perpetuity | Hacker News Reader

Sag-AFTRA won't budge as studios push to own actors' likenesses in perpetuity

theverge.com

58 pointsmjevans10 comments

The studios are negotiating in such bad faith here. It's hard to imagine that they think they will ever have the legal right to pay some flat sum and then own an actor's entire livelihood in perpetuity. I'd like to see legislation just take that "proposal" right off the table.

Good because that's some bullshit right there. This would be similar to a company saying that get to have the right to use code you write after stop working for them.

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.

Literally 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).

The 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.

I 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.

Your example is nothing like the scenario the article discusses.

A better example would be a company has rights to every bit of code you ever write, because you worked for them, at one time.

My plumber fixed my toiled 4 years ago. He came back today and asked for residuals because I was still getting use out of the pipes he was paid to fix. I felt sad so I signed a contract to give him a monthly residual based on my enjoyment of a functional toilet.

Wrong analogy. Dead actors did not sign a contract for use of their faces in any new media. They signed a contract for a single performance.

Right analogy would be this: you call your plumber saying that, in your new house, the toilet broke and he should come and fix it for free since he owes you a working toilet.

You're essentially saying that actors should give up their industries equivalent of equity when joining a startup.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com