All right...
At this point, I've read and reread an 18 page summary, 3 live Q&A's, 2 FAQ's, and the declarations of a handful of internet randos across three different platforms.
A lot of what's in the new contract are good gains, and good protections.
But I have three concerns.
(The full language of the MOA is still being finalized. Final definitions may alleviate some of these concerns, but for now, they're concerning.)
First concern:
OK, if an AI double of me is used instead of me, I get paid for the days I would've worked.
What happens to my wardrobe assistant then? What happens to my makeup artist? What happens to my hairstylist?
Maybe these are things for IATSE to fight for next summer, but I'm looking at them hard now.
Save up when you start going back to work, folks, because those picket lines do not need to be crossed.
Second concern:
Where does my likeness begin and end?
I'm getting into the habit of doing a lot of creature performing.
How much paint does it take before it's not my likeness anymore?
How many prosthetics before it's not my likeness anymore?
I have the right to give consent for my likeness to be used. But how is "likeness" defined and limited?
Third concern:
I have to give consent for a digital double to be made of me, and I have to renew my consent for each new project that uses that double.
This protects me and my fellow actors as scene partners.
This protects background actors.
This protects utility stunt performers.
But I don't see where it would protect my stunt double.
I can give consent to have my digital double made and used, but what if it's used for stunts and takes my STUNT double's job away?
And it's been confirmed that consenting to have a digital double made can be a condition of employment for an actor.
Again, I might be reading this wrong. And the full language of the MOA may clarify things.
But right now? It looks like the negcom threw stunt doubles on the grenade to save the rest of the platoon.
If I had to guess, I'd say stunt doubles on second units were particularly vulnerable to digital replacement.
There's a video I saw a while back of what I'm fairly sure is an AI Parkourist. The sequence looks dangerous, but doesn't cross the uncanny valley until the end. And even then, as a colleague put it, put him in a Spider-man suit and nobody in a general audience would notice.
One of the reasons we need AI protection as performers is because it's grown exponentially faster than CGI did.
We won't have a stage with Blade II and the fight in front of the arc lights that looks like a cartoon.
AI's already out of the uncanny valley.
I hope I'm wrong. And I hope the full MOA will alleviate some of these concerns.
But right now, this is what I'm seeing.
At this point, I've read and reread an 18 page summary, 3 live Q&A's, 2 FAQ's, and the declarations of a handful of internet randos across three different platforms.
A lot of what's in the new contract are good gains, and good protections.
But I have three concerns.
(The full language of the MOA is still being finalized. Final definitions may alleviate some of these concerns, but for now, they're concerning.)
First concern:
OK, if an AI double of me is used instead of me, I get paid for the days I would've worked.
What happens to my wardrobe assistant then? What happens to my makeup artist? What happens to my hairstylist?
Maybe these are things for IATSE to fight for next summer, but I'm looking at them hard now.
Save up when you start going back to work, folks, because those picket lines do not need to be crossed.
Second concern:
Where does my likeness begin and end?
I'm getting into the habit of doing a lot of creature performing.
How much paint does it take before it's not my likeness anymore?
How many prosthetics before it's not my likeness anymore?
I have the right to give consent for my likeness to be used. But how is "likeness" defined and limited?
Third concern:
I have to give consent for a digital double to be made of me, and I have to renew my consent for each new project that uses that double.
This protects me and my fellow actors as scene partners.
This protects background actors.
This protects utility stunt performers.
But I don't see where it would protect my stunt double.
I can give consent to have my digital double made and used, but what if it's used for stunts and takes my STUNT double's job away?
And it's been confirmed that consenting to have a digital double made can be a condition of employment for an actor.
Again, I might be reading this wrong. And the full language of the MOA may clarify things.
But right now? It looks like the negcom threw stunt doubles on the grenade to save the rest of the platoon.
If I had to guess, I'd say stunt doubles on second units were particularly vulnerable to digital replacement.
There's a video I saw a while back of what I'm fairly sure is an AI Parkourist. The sequence looks dangerous, but doesn't cross the uncanny valley until the end. And even then, as a colleague put it, put him in a Spider-man suit and nobody in a general audience would notice.
One of the reasons we need AI protection as performers is because it's grown exponentially faster than CGI did.
We won't have a stage with Blade II and the fight in front of the arc lights that looks like a cartoon.
AI's already out of the uncanny valley.
I hope I'm wrong. And I hope the full MOA will alleviate some of these concerns.
But right now, this is what I'm seeing.
RSS Feed
