Cool but probably not that interesting to the development of AI in Hollywood over the longer term. As the tech improves, at current rates, I expect we'll see something like VTubers on a mass scale. Companies creating their own virtual people - where they control the IP - and putting all their efforts behind promoting them instead of humans. It'll be cheaper and easier in the long run.
Same process as green screens or the rise of animation. There is a lot of pressure on the humans and once AIs crack acting they'll be much more consistently good than humans.
> I expect we'll see something like VTubers on a mass scale. Companies creating their own virtual people - where they control the IP - and putting all their efforts behind promoting them instead of humans
I'm reminded of the "failure" of Kizuna AI; the fully corporate vtuber whose human side is just a puppet operator who can be swapped, turns out not to be very appealing to audiences. The modern approach where a model is exactly synonymous with the person playing it, as an authentic human improvising, appeals more. The IP doesn't persist beyond the contract of that person with the company, and certainly can't be swapped with someone else. But in some cases the actor or actress has successfully maintained their career and fanbase under a different name following a fallout with their managers.
> once AIs crack acting
This is far beyond the turing test, and I don't think we're really ready for what happens with human-indistinguishable automated corporately owned doppelgangers.
> This is far beyond the turing test, and I don't think we're really ready for what happens with human-indistinguishable automated corporately owned doppelgangers.
We're already past the Turing test. If a corporation decides it wants an AI that passes the Turning test it can build one, no worries. I might cheerfully suggest that if AIs fail the Turing test right now it is because they are unrealistically supportive listeners and their wide knowledge across different topics and trivia is a giveaway.
They are already here with outfits such as Synthesia and heygen.
> Companies creating their own virtual people - where they control the IP - and putting all their efforts behind promoting them instead of humans
The 'killer app' will be a personal cast of virtual performers. Tailor made to appeal to you.
Not a great movie, but one part of "the Congress" was interesting: if a famous actor or actress gets older, they could choose to sell the rights to their likeness to an AI company.
> As the tech improves, at current rates
Aha! The "current rates" there does some very heavy lifting. Nobody knows how LLMs will develop. It would be naive to assume that you can just extrapolate linearly from here on out.
I'm extrapolating exponentially.
"Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter" [1].
The original source [2] is much clearer. It addresses the other comment's confusion: the laws extend "to protect anyone in California living or dead."
Also, the bills:
https://digitaldemocracy.calmatters.org/bills/ca_202320240ab...
https://digitaldemocracy.calmatters.org/bills/ca_202320240ab...
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[2] https://www.indiewire.com/news/breaking-news/using-ai-replac...
Just in California, right? What’s the prevent a studio elsewhere from doing this? Online distribution makes the legal borders meaningless here. So people in California will just need a VPN to watch future action movies?
You didn't read the article did you?
The first bill, AB 1836, “prohibits the use of a deceased person’s voice or likeness in digital replicas without the prior consent of their estate,” according to SAG-AFTRA. The second, AB 2602, “prohibits contractual provisions that would allow for the use of a digital replica of an individual’s voice or likeness in place of the individual’s actual services,” unless the individual gave their consent to a clear, specific description of how the AI would be used.
You just need consent or a proper contract. The bill only forbids them of doing this without consent, or having it forced onto standard contracts in Hollywood. Both of which were likely inevitable without this bill.
You can still do it, ignoring the clickbait title of this article.
How could one ever define a threshold in similarity between a living person and some AI resembling that living person?
Indeed. What happens if you license the AI likeness of a George Clooney impersonator?
I think that's fair and AI should create new actors, avatars, which then could fall into IP laws. I would love to see Agents of AI actors create strong and lasting actors for movies and market them
> Studios will also be prohibited from cloning deceased actors unless they have permission from their estates.
It'd be great to see people protected everywhere, but do estates for the dead always exist? Hopefully there's some exception carved out for the dead who don't really have anyone around to care if they're used or not. A lot of cool stuff could be done with AI historical figures or ancient performers.
I think it should always be legal to use the likeness of deceased people.
Could it be gross? Yes. But I'd rather have that than the absurdity of copyright be extended to beyond the grave for yet another case where it makes no sense. There is no theory of harm here, the person being impersonated is dead.
Could you damage the reputation of a living person by using the image of a dead one? Of course, but that's already illegal.
So you’re assuming consent unless there’s someone there to deny it? Gross.
I'm only saying that in the case where there is no one to deny it, that it should be allowed.
You don’t own the ip rights of my face unless I sign them over and you pay me royalties.
If it’s not legal to impersonate someone while they’re alive, why would it be okay when they’re dead?
Assumed consent is not okay, I’m pretty sure in some cultures even showing images of the dead is offensive, let alone impersonating them.
> If it’s not legal to impersonate someone while they’re alive, why would it be okay when they’re dead?
The point is it is legal to impersonate someone while they’re alive - if you ask their permission and they grant it.
Why should all future media be forbidden from ever portraying a famous or important person after there is no one left to give or deny that permission or even care if anyone did?
If you build a Time Machine, go back in time and ask them permission, then it would be legal? You can’t assume consent just because someone isn’t around to say no.
And AI impersonated imagery is not the same as someone who is clearly a different actor from portraying someone. If this is your hangup, use an actor and don’t use AI?
> You can’t assume consent just because someone isn’t around to say no.
The dead are devoid of a will to act against, so consent doesn't even meaningfully enter into it. There is respect for the still living family to be considered certainly, but when no one left alive cares, then what is the harm?
Why should it matter if it's a digital actor (AI) or a human one? Why does your idea of the "dead's consent" stop being relevant if a person is portraying them without asking vs using an AI without asking?
It seems like your issue has a lot more to do with an objection to AI conceptually than how the dead person feels about it.
> only saying that in the case where there is no one to deny it, that it should be allowed
I don’t see a compelling argument for this. Not for actors. (I could see a case when it comes to great thinkers.)
Is this supposed to include historical stage actors William Shakespeare (who was also well known as a poet and playwright)? He has certainly been portrayed in movies by plenty of human actors, so why not by AI? I'd think it should be covered by the usual likeness laws. If this new law is limited specifically to movie actors, it sounds like more Hollywood protectionism.
> has certainly been portrayed in movies by plenty of human actors, so why not by AI?
Portrayal isn't replication.
> If this new law is limited specifically to movie actors
The article addresses this.
I'm assuming state non-intervention if there is no victim. Hopelessly naive of me, I know.
Why just actors?
Quoted from the second paragraph:
> the new laws not only bolster those existing protections but extend them to everyone in California — not just to people working in front of a camera in Hollywood
> digital replica of an individual’s voice or likeness in place of the individual’s actual services,
That seems to indicate performers only. Not just anyone. Doesn't it, since it's taking about services.
The bill says
> ...between an individual and any other person for the performance of personal or professional services is unenforceable...
The bill then goes on to define "digital replica".
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
> Why just actors?
So far, they're the only one who signed a big enough check to the politicians.
Roughly, I'd assume that the Screen Actors Guild was looking out for their member's interests.
Current AI's don't seem much of a threat to firefighters or plumbers.
How about comic book artists or illustrators?
I think there is a significant difference between an AI "cloning" you versus an AI cloning your work. (I'm not saying that the latter is not a problem in need of regulation, just that it is different enough to warrant separate legislation -- which I expect to arrive soon-ish.)
Cloning your work is protected, that's just copyright. Similarly you should already be protected from people claiming a work is by you. This law is similar in that vein in that it protects the use of your image which implicitly assumes your involvement.
Using ideas of style in a work that can neither substitute an existing work nor claims to be the work of another is a different issue entirely.
Those people should have their unions fight for it like SAG would.
But this law covers everyone in CA
but they are a major threat for politicians/public figures. admittedly the bulk of these will come from China/Russia/Iran, so the law doesn't really matter.
As much as it might be shunned in some circles, organized people can still change things for the better.
> organized people can still change things for the better.
Which is exactly why it's aggressively shunned in some circles and why large amounts of time/money is spent to manipulate public opinion against the practice.
Outside of this orange bubble, you might be surprised how little effort is required to orient public opinion against removing humanity from art.
All the US social media posts were crapping on unions about lazy teachers earning a ton of money and film productions waiting till an electrician comes in and turns on a switch. I didnt realize the alternative was corporates having the unchecked power.
Why limit it to commercial works? I was originally optimistic this would help with e.g. deepfake attacks. Unfortunately it seems like it is mere protectionism.
without permission
easy to obtain permission
accelerates reason to generate new genAI humans with no meatspace counterpart
actors still don’t get paid
I agree with the impersonation bans but I'm disappointed that it took a viral Kamala Harris parody to get Gavin Newsom into action:
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/18/california-deepfake...
Politicians care about their own, not the general population.
The law was introduced in January and has been working its way up since then. Are you making the case that a video posted 6 months later is to be given credit?
Law history source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.x...
The video link with post date is in your link
...without permission.