I'm not sure what the capabilities are if using AI - but would it be possible to see new movies featuring stars that have already left this world? Or movies using the images of old stars when they were young?
New movies featuring Sean Connery as James Bond? A young (your favorite actress) as a seductive teen or pre-teen girl?
Technically it is possible... now the legality is a different question. I expect that it is not legal without the express permission of the actor/actress to use his/her image/likeness in a new work he/she hasn't contracted for
Technically it is possible... now the legality is a different question. I expect that it is not legal without the express permission of the actor/actress to use his/her image/likeness in a new work he/she hasn't contracted for
Or if they had already died, their estate.
That has been done many times, specifically in the remastered Superman II and The Flash. In both of them they brought back many dead actors, including Marlon Brando. And they could only do so because the arrangements they made with the estates of all those who had already died.
To be honest, I think about the only way I can think of to get out of that is if they were to resurrect some long dead star, who's primary works have fallen into the public domain. And even then, it has to be one where there is nobody looking out for their legacy and owns the rights to their image.
And some are already starting to question what will happen when the works of people such as Marilyn Monroe and Elvis become public domain. Both have companies that license their images, along with all 4 Beatles singly and as a group. Will public domain counter such ownership?
We know for created images it is a bit different. The earliest Disney catalogue for example is now public domain, but for example only the original Mickey Mouse as he was originally drawn. And as they have remastered the oldest cartoons, they still actually retain merchandising based even on that as essentially the remastering is a new version.
But unless somebody is willing to use an AI to create a version of somebody almost 100 years dead, I don't see this as being an issue to be honest.
If it has not been done already, porn video producers will do it first.
They tend to be early adopters of new tech and have a lot of the kinks (pardon the pun) worked out before mainstream producers are willing to take the financial risks.
If it has not been done already, porn video producers will do it first.
have a look at "deep fakes" at your favourite porn supplier.
Or movies using the images of old stars when they were young?
The latest Indiana Jones movie uses AI to make Harrison Ford's image and voice younger when it flashes back in time. (btw, don't see the movie)
The latest Indiana Jones movie uses AI to make Harrison Ford's image and voice younger when it flashes back in time.
There's a case for using AIs portraying actors' images to replace stunt doubles.
Actually, in the current NCIS Los Angeles series on UK Freeview, the double who does Deeks' running scenes clearly has a receding hairline and the double who does Hanna's fast walking through action scenes is about half his weight. Modern AI avatars would surely be more plausible to viewers.
AJ
There's ways to do this without AI, though. I understand why studios would want to -- it's faster and easier, therefore cheaper -- but I'm not sure the AI method is necessarily better than doing this the long way.
Way back in 1999 an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (s03e16, "Doppelgangland") used CG to replace a stunt double's face with the actress' so that the same character could be in the same frame as two separate (alternate realty) versions. It's not perfect, but neither is AI replication.
I have a neighbor who is an actor.
They (actors) are already very concerned about this. Why hire "nice looking unknown guy" when you can have a proven box-office superstar well past his best-by date for about the same price, without having to pay residuals?
Part of the concern here is that they're trying to make it part of the standard contract (especially for extras and new actors) that what you're selling is the right to any images and sounds collected during filming, including any later AI processing of those images and sounds. Act in one film, and you might find yourself in dozens of movies with no further compensation.
This is likely a very bad thing for many reasons.
I'm not sure what the capabilities are if using AI - but would it be possible to see new movies featuring stars that have already left this world
Technically, they were doing it way back in the early 90's. Brandon Lee's early demise in 'The Crow' was a forerunner, then there was the piss head who's name escapes me in 'Gladiator'.
As technology progresses, they will be able to do it faster and cheaper, it's already starting to become a problem with CP as LEA can't track down children who don't exist.
This is actually close to one of the protections that SAG-AFTRA was striking over.
The studios have allegedly floated a plan whereby they would replace extras with AI generated people. Specifically, they would pay actors a small fee to be 3D scanned and the studio would own the license.
What a lot of people don't realise is that many actors are people you've never heard of, have never had a speaking credit, but survive on day wages as extras, walk-ons, background, and so on. No one is getting rich doing it, but you can survive on $100 - $200 a day.
If the studios could pay a one-time fee and replace all extras with AI they'd save only a tiny percentage of overall costs, but they'd put tens of thousands of people out of full-time work.
That was part of the plot in https://storiesonline.net/s/65463/daze-in-the-valley (chapter 9 for example), posting started in 2010.
It's nice to see SAG finely grew a backbone. For a long time before they merged with AFTRA, AFTRA would always sabotage the contracts because they held half the votes on the negation team and for a long time every time SAG would try to get higher residuals AFTRA would block it because most of their shows didn't have them.
One thing most don't know is only about 15-20% of SAG make more than $15,000 a year. Most never qualify for Health & pension. For most members the best paying job is getting a commercial. You can make a lot of money on just one commercial job. I am talking $50,000 to $100,000 or more. The one thing they need to change is the unlimited use on cable rule.
Prior to the strike they were already asking background actors (extras) to sign agreements allowing use of their images in the future.
The problem with that is all they would get is a base 8 hour pay with no overtime not to mention any bumps in pay.
It doesn't matter how many hours up to 8 hours you work you get paid for 8 hours. Bumps are extra pay added for certain things like if there is smoke on the set, you bring up-scale cloths like a gown or tux. There even is a bump for facial hair called a beard bump. But only if they ask you to either grow some or not shave. If they know you already have hair and not going to shave they just don't ask.
FYI I haven't been a member since 2010 when I became disabled. Plus it is against union rules to use the word "Extra", "Props with legs" or any other name besides Background Actors when referring to their members.
You don't understand what I meant. They wanted consent to use the image for computer generation of a image in other, future projects. You could be fake talking and eating in a hundred different projects without any addtional compensation.
As to pay, that's not correct for non-union. I've been a non-union extra and, at least in NY, you get a flat payment for 12 hours at minimum wage - it adds up to 8 hours at the minumum wage, plus 4 at time and a half. If you go over 12, you get additional payment at 1.5.
You don't understand what I meant. They wanted consent to use the image for computer generation of a image in other, future projects. You could be fake talking and eating in a hundred different projects without any addtional compensation.
SAG would never allow that. And I don't know any member who would agree to that. They have the last say after all. Even if it is just a photo of you they only get to use it one time if used in a show. I know this because that's what I had.
As to pay, that's not correct for non-union. I've been a non-union extra and, at least in NY, you get a flat payment for 12 hours at minimum wage - it adds up to 8 hours at the minumum wage, plus 4 at time and a half. If you go over 12, you get additional payment at 1.5.
I wasn't talking about NU BG. And it is different in LA where NU only get 8 hour base with no bumps. But when it comes to union BG that is because in NY SAG always covered union BG where in LA up until the 70's SEG covered union BG. NY BG have it much better than those in LA.
SAG would never allow that. And I don't know any member who would agree to that. They have the last say after all. Even if it is just a photo of you they only get to use it one time if used in a show. I know this because that's what I had.
They might not have been asking the union extras, but they were asking the non-union.
As to union vs. non-union: for a few years my daughter did a lot of extra work. She had two union vouchers, but refused a third one when it was offered a couple of times because she didn't want to become a must join. A better rate of pay as a union member, but a lot less projects.
They might not have been asking the union extras, but they were asking the non-union.
They already do something like that to NU in commercials when they have a clause in the contract that have a life-long conflict in it without paying the conflict fee.
As to union vs. non-union: for a few years my daughter did a lot of extra work. She had two union vouchers, but refused a third one when it was offered a couple of times because she didn't want to become a must join. A better rate of pay as a union member, but a lot less projects.
The only way a third voucher would make her a "Must Jion" is that she would no longer be able to get another union voucher without causing production getting a fine. Then can't force you to join the union. I knew people with a number of union vouchers and never join. I myself was a must join when I was offered another voucher on a show I was a regular on and when I turned it down the AD was shocked and said they didn't care. I just told her to give it to someone who could use it.
The new SAG-AFTRA contract seems to protect actors' images from being used without compensation. So, likely no movies with an AI generated Brad Pitt.
you get a flat payment for 12 hours at minimum wage - it adds up to 8 hours at the minumum wage, plus 4 at time and a half.
That doesn't make sense. If you have a flat payment for twelve hours at minimum wage, then its just that, a flat payment for minimum wage at twelve hours. For example if you are getting a flat wage of $7.25 for 12 hours, then its 7.25 X 12. You don't get paid four hours at an increased rate, because then it wouldn't be a flat rate...
I said "flat payment," not "flat rate."
You get x dollars for 12 hours. I don't care how you divide it, the payment equals 8 at minimum, plus 4 at 1.5. If you want to look at it as 1.166 x minimum per hour for 12 hours, fine.
Another way to look at it, and probably what it's based on, is that they get paid X dollars a day regardless of how long your working day is.
Of course, 12 hours on set isn't necessarily 12 hours of work. You have to be ready to do what the director wants at a moment's notice, but it's not like they can use you as a PA when you're not being filmed.
Day workers used to be the norm back in the big studio days.
Of course, 12 hours on set isn't necessarily 12 hours of work. You have to be ready to do what the director wants at a moment's notice, but it's not like they can use you as a PA when you're not being filmed.
Except for crowd scenes, it's a long time for wardrobe and make-up, a long time sitting around in holding, eating a meal, finally getting on set. Then a few hours, interspersed with time to hit craft services for snacks,for a five or ten minute scene.
My daughter did a film. They were there 20 hours. The entire scene in the final film was ten minutes.
My daughter did a film. They were there 20 hours. The entire scene in the final film was ten minutes.
That must have been a nice pay day with 4 hours golden time.
In the opening scene of The Scorpion King in the Barbarian cave, which lasted less than 10 minutes on screen took 2 day of 14 hours and one day for 17 hours. One reason was the actor could not get his lines right, lots of hard to pronounce names. And then all the stunts being done.
One of the things I hated was when they knew I was only needed for the first scene which took only one hour, and I could not work in any other but kept me there for all 8 hours.
It was a nightclub scene. They were going to break around 4 or 5 in the morning and my daughter asked me to pick her up.
The shoot was in a office building with a club on the top floor.
I'll always remember the scene when I got there. About 100 eighteen to twenty somethings in club clothes - almost all passed out sleeping on the couches and benches around the room.
It was a foreign film starring a very famous person. Everybody was paid on the way out from the stack of $100s on the PA's table.
The biggest crowd scene I did was 4,000 people and most were hired from "Be in a Movie.com" and working for free so it was a nightmare for the PA's. All NU BG got a box lunch of a sub chips and a soda and no craft service.
working for free so it was a nightmare for the PA's.
It always amuses me when people think there is some magic to getting to be an extra. They're surprised when I tell them how easy it is to get work and paid something for the day. They are then surprised how boring most of the day is.
I always tell people that anyone can do it but it is not for everyone. First and foremost you have to be ok with being bored 80% of the time, 20% you get to be part of the magic.
That must have been a nice pay day with 4 hours golden time.
Naw, it's a set rate. I want to say in around 2000 it was around $100 bucks a day, plus "bumps".
Bumps are extra pay when something extra is needed that is not in a usual shoot. Overnight, bringing your own wardrobe, even smoking can be a bump. But it is all set to a union chart and they all pretty much pay the same.
And yep, they will keep you there the entire time of the shoot. One of my first was "War and Remembrance", where they needed us for the FDR funeral scene. They kept us there all day long, even though we were only involved in maybe 30 seconds of screen footage that took maybe 2 hours to film.
It may depend were you are, but in NY and NJ you get 1.5 time for over 10 hours or 12 depending on the project.
This is from a casting notice before the strike:
#gwciseeking people to portray various early #1960s types for the feature film "Wurtzle Brothers". Everyone must be ok getting a period appropriate haircut and be ok working around smoke. Must attend costume fitting prior to shoot date in NJ. Exterior and interior scenes. Filming in New Jersey. SAG-AFTRA pay: $187/8hrs Fitting: $46.75/2hrs (subject to change with contract renewal) / NonSAG pay: $165/10hrs Fitting: $41.25/2.5hrs #casting #castingcall #newjersey
Naw, it's a set rate. I want to say in around 2000 it was around $100 bucks a day, plus "bumps".
In Ca. OT starts after 8 hours, 8-12 is time and a half, 12-16 is double time and after 16 is triple time. The only set rate is up to 8 hours and anything after is OT. Unless the set rate pays more then minimum wage plus OT.
In Ca. OT starts after 8 hours, 8-12 is time and a half, 12-16 is double time and after 16 is triple time. The only set rate is up to 8 hours and anything after is OT. Unless the set rate pays more then minimum wage plus OT.
Yes, but that can also change. Especially if you are not paid per hour, or the schedule is in the contract. That is why some companies do four 10 hour days and do not pay overtime. If you agree to a 10 hour shoot day for $200, then you are getting $200 for 10 hours. Remember, the actual law is 40 hours a week. And pretty much all of Hollywood works on the AWS system because of the often long hours involved.
The 4/10 only applies if you are working for the week as it has a tradeoff of having an extra day off. It does not apply to day workers which BG are. Each day you sign a new contract.
The only time I worked on a set where we got a set pay was on music videos and we were paid more than what minimum wage plus OT would have paid.
My daughter did a film. They were there 20 hours. The entire scene in the final film was ten minutes.
Did you ever wonder how the Academy votes for Best Editor? I don't think they see the before and after version of the film, so how do they know how the editor contributed?
It's more about how seamless the scene translons are. Just look at The 5th Element movie and how great the timing is on the cuts.
Except for crowd scenes, it's a long time for wardrobe and make-up, a long time sitting around in holding, eating a meal, finally getting on set. Then a few hours, interspersed with time to hit craft services for snacks,for a five or ten minute scene.
My daughter did a film. They were there 20 hours. The entire scene in the final film was ten minutes.
That is not far off from how it actually is.
I worked as an extra for many years, and one that still stands out is "Oh Brother, Where Are Thou?" I was one of the Klansmen in the big sequence towards the end, and that was literally 3 nights of rehearsals, then 3 nights of overnight shoots. All of that for not even 10 minutes of footage to appear in the movie.
That was over 2 decades ago, and I can still do that stupid march they had us do over and over and over again.
If the movie industry really tries to do this big style they would open a whole can of worms.
Creating an avatar of a living or deceased person and letting it perform naturally in a movie may even technically be more complicated than you think.
These problems aside, lets us with the legal questions, enough for a plethora of lawsuits. Apple was able to protect the "look-alike" for more than a decade.
So they need the explicit permission of the star or the heirs to avoid possible delays caused by court orders.
A social problem can arise by using proved box-office superstars images instead of new young actors. Apart from the problems this will cause for the many existing – but widely unknown – actors, who want to become an actor?
How will the public, the movie viewers finally react to see always the same known faces?
Changing the look of the avatars may cause claims of doppelgangers for unsolicited use of their image.
If the technology becomes cheaper the possibility to create "home-made" movies using your own image and that of a star or of the – unknowing – stunner in your neighborhood may finally destroy the movie industry. Why pay for a "new" movie when I can create my own version of Casablanca with me as the star and any celebrity of my choosing doing things never showable in commercial movies (and with a change in the ending)? I wouldn't be limited in the image of the avatars, no problem for my avatar to have a 12" dick or a well defined body.
Thousands of existing movies to select from for plot and change or combine them for my next home-made movie.
HM.
If the technology becomes cheaper the possibility to create "home-made" movies using your own image and that of a star or of the – unknowing – stunner in your neighborhood may finally destroy the movie industry. Why pay for a "new" movie when I can create my own version of Casablanca with me as the star and any celebrity of my choosing doing things never showable in commercial movies (and with a change in the ending)? I wouldn't be limited in the image of the avatars, no problem for my avatar to have a 12" dick or a well defined body.
Thousands of existing movies to select from for plot and change or combine them for my next home-made movie.
Give it a 3 to 5 years and we will technically be there, I believe, at current pace. Perhaps you will have to get new @2030 gear in $5,000+ range, and have a bit of hobby wherewithal and how tow, and likely have no right to legally share the results.
Recasting an existing video with new faces,
clothing, bodies, seamless editing of assorted fragments together, such must be easy and are very near current capabilities. Would be only really limited by how much processing power you can allocate if current user grade models haven't great difficulty with consistency between frames.
Completely new generation, I won't be quite that optimistic, although won't be surprised either. But porn is hard on AI, it's complex and complicated unique movements that require training entirely new models most likely. But even that mostly hinges on someone having balls to do just that, more than technology.
This AI Tech has already been shown on "America got Talent", a unknown (cheap?) actor performing as Elvis which is than Transformed into a realtime Deep Fake of Elvis Presley
https://youtu.be/Jr8yEgu7sHU?si=IYcVhf_IrcC8nnZp
The Result is scary impressive
I have problems with the acts that are just computer generated. The show is not called America got Nerds.
The Act isnt the relevant part for this Thread, the AI Technology Showcased is a glimpse of what is to come
It is if the act is all just computer programing like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s48RhfvpL4I&t=105s
It is if the act is all just computer programing like this.
That level of computer programing is a legitimate talent.
Don't worry about singing acts that are computer generated - you're old enough to know that the real Elvis is dead.
Worry, instead, about those who won't realise it's a fake when they see a computer generated political leader (coming to your TV any day now).
Already on Facebook and elsewhere. There have been deepfakes of a number of political leaders out there. Some are pretty convincing.
We're likely going to go through a bad patch before people build new filters around 'don't believe what you see'. It happened with advertising way back when - in the early days of advertising, people trusted that whatever they saw on TV was true. They know better now, but that won't transfer to seeing Candidate X or Leader Y apparently saying or doing something awful.
One day, it'll have to, or we're doomed, pretty much.
Of course, Candidate X or Leader Y may feel free to actually say or do awful things and then blame it on 'deepfakes'. That's yet another problem...
The very first examples of deep fakes were released to the public the day after claims circulated on the internet that a video existed of a senior politician having sex with a child. The tech obviously existed for some time prior to that point.
One thing deep fakes are certain to do is reduce demand for body doubles. Over the years I've seen two Bidens, two Bill Gates, three Trumps, three Hillary's (who believes that was really her signing her book in Costco?) Half a dozen Putins, 2 Prince Harrys & Two Megan Markles. Only one Obama for some reason.
They will still be needed for meet & greets, but footage for news B roll of 'important people out doing normal things'that previously required shutting down a shopping district and replacing everyone with agents can now be completely CGIed.
As an example, a presidential visit to a town when Reagan was prez had a 2,000 page action plan, starting three months in advance. Who thinks Reagan & Gorbie just stopped their motorcade to wander through a supermarket in gun happy Texas on a whim?
The politicians love deep fakes, it makes it so much easier to claim "Fake News!!" when shown proof of them saying or doing something.
It'll be a love/hate relationship.
Sure, it's easy to shift blame, but it's even easier to cast aspersions, and we live in a society where people believe many, many things that are provably wrong to a near certainty.
Any given politician might use 'deepfakes' to try to get out of something they actually did a time or two (or not at all). But they'll likely be accused of doing things they didn't actually do dozens, possibly hundreds of times, and many people will believe that they actually did those things no matter how much proof of their innocence is provided.
Indeed, one of the depressing conclusions of a great deal of psychological research is that the more one demonstrates that a false claim is in fact false, the more strongly people who are emotionally sympathetic to that false claim will believe it to be true. The consequences of that for society, combined with easily faked video evidence, are very bad.
My hope is that, once it starts happening to everyone, all the time, people will develop new filters. But that's a hope; there's no direct evidence that it will happen, though there are anecdotal reasons to believe it's entirely possible.
The first examples of deepfakes were from Computer Science research and came out in 1997, unrelated to any political claims. There were dozens of research examples following that, again unrelated to any scandals.
The term itself originated on Reddit, where a user with the name 'deepfakes' created porn face-swap videos.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I'm unable to find any instance of either 1) examples being released to the public in conjunction with any claims about a politician, or 2) any politician (so far) with such a video actually existing, deepfaked or not.
Googling the terms 'deepfake' 'sex with a child' and 'politician' turns up lots of worries about deepfake-generated CSAM (which will be an enormous problem - for different reasons in different countries) and finds nothing related to the story you're describing.
The tech existed in end-user hands by 2017 (when 'deepfakes' arose), and there were commercial products by early 2018.
Pretty much everything up to and including current technology can be technically 'debunked' - no (publicly known, at least) deepfake technology is sufficiently good to be immune to forensic detection - but since we as a society cannot even 'debunk' claims about faked moon landings or the Earth being flat, much less hundreds of politically sensitive claims, technical debunking is useless in terms of public opinion.
I'm not going to name the individual. It was in 2017 and I suspect it was a false claim to promote the technology that was already available but not widely known about. MSM and forums started talking about the tech with MSM carefully avoiding why it was a trending topic. Viral marketing through a sex & power scandal. CGI has existed for years, photorealistic digital morphing of video in real time was not widely known of at that point.
I suspect the constant churn of news stories, real, fake and real but manufactured it to prevent the electorate from being able to think about, discuss and create their own concensus about any political topic. In the end they just dismiss everything and try and live their own lives as best they can. It creates a numb electorate, just as the miseducation department creates a dumb electorate.
I have to say I'm rather amused at how much discussion there is about pay rates, when the question was about dead actors.
If you are replaced by a dead actor, your pay is around zero dollars an hour.
The dead actor's grandchildren get the check.
