I chuckle at the same people that didn't care about software and music piracy now somehow want us to care about AI companies essentially pirating your work.
Scale matters. Stealing all humanity's collective output and stealing one movie to watch one time are very different. Knocking down one hornets nest and spraying a whole city with DDT are very different. Cutting a tree and clear cutting are very different.
Take a moment and try to understand before you construct such obviously silly and banal statements.
Assuming they are the "same people" sounds an awful lot like the Goomba fallacy. There are plenty of people who are consistently against the concept of intellectual property.
The article is light on details but crux mostly on Cage not being an “ai-friendly actor”. Not sure if the film would use extensive ai elements or what.
On a side note never heard a movie tout its “minutes viewed” by audience.
Spider-Noir is a series. Minutes viewed is a very good metric for a series because viewers frequently drop off part of the way in. Combine that with viewership, and you can see whether people are giving up after one episode, many episodes, or finishing the whole thing.
It’s not clear to me what this waiver covers? Everyone seems to be assuming his likeness, but it may be anything “AI” - which might include Photoshop (due to it’s editing capability) or any number of de-aging systems, which work far better with AI then other approaches.
I wish the article covered what is actually in the waiver, but I can hazard a pretty good guess.
The current rules that SAG-AFTRA negotiated with the studios already allow the studios to use AI for "fix it in post" type stuff that doesn't alter an actor's performance, such as extending a scene or modifying the environment around an actor.
If they want to use AI to modify an actor's performance or generate new footage of an actor (the so-called "digital replica") they need to get the actor's consent in advance and compensate them based on the number of days the actor would have worked to produce the generated footage.
Unfortunately I couldn't find anything to confirm this, but it seems likely that Amazon is asking actors for a blanket waiver so they can use AI however they want. If that is the case it is understandable why Cage wouldn't want to work with them.
- Whatever Matthew McConaughey did to protect himself legally against AI-generated use of his likeness
- Whatever Michael Jackson's and Tupac's estates did to handle postmortem work. (Namely, MJ's album Xscape and Tupac's 2012 Coachella hologram).
- Whatever legal and economic shackles were placed on Britney Spears during her conservatorship.
- Terms of "360 deals" in the record industry.
- How SAG-AFTRA handled the introduction of CGI. Tl;dr: there's a distinction between "active performance capture" (e.g. live motion capture) vs. "passive capture" (e.g. photogrammetry scan of a face + CGI to animate it).
On another note: I remember watching BTS for National Treasure (where the treasure room scene in particular was somewhat new technology to be able to render that many reflective objects in one scene through CG alone). I know that Nicolas Cage has also done several CG-heavy films since then. Also, Nicolas Cage is a Coppola.
Overall, I imagine that the man has had enough exposure to the fiddly details of film contracts to know the difference between "the introduction of a new technology" vs. "somebody trying to screw him over".
And my 2c is that it sounds like the studio tried to screw him over.
I mean this is just cope. Ai is clearly the future... (whether its at that level currently is maybe a different conversation but your implying it won't be)
Spider Noir was horrible. Bad coloring, idiotic base idea, brrrrr.
Nic Cage is a great actor, let's hope he would have more roles like Moonstruck, not these horrible abominations that are nowadays offered to older actors. Look at Mobland housing Helen Mirren and Pierce Brosnan.
35 comments
[ 0.27 ms ] story [ 66.8 ms ] threadhttps://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/netflix-nicolas-cage-s...
And of course there is no difference when people pirate a movie for their friends and $2 trillion companies stealing everyone's work. None at all!
Take a moment and try to understand before you construct such obviously silly and banal statements.
Now I'm returning the favor.
Nobody would listen to me then. Maybe they will, whilenbegging for a job now.
I play the long game and always win.
The current rules that SAG-AFTRA negotiated with the studios already allow the studios to use AI for "fix it in post" type stuff that doesn't alter an actor's performance, such as extending a scene or modifying the environment around an actor.
If they want to use AI to modify an actor's performance or generate new footage of an actor (the so-called "digital replica") they need to get the actor's consent in advance and compensate them based on the number of days the actor would have worked to produce the generated footage.
Unfortunately I couldn't find anything to confirm this, but it seems likely that Amazon is asking actors for a blanket waiver so they can use AI however they want. If that is the case it is understandable why Cage wouldn't want to work with them.
I see. So if they want to put a giant phallic object behind the actor, that's covered.
Not a fan some of Cage's acting (Con Air was terrible, Lord of War was good) but I admire him for doing this.
I liked when he was a normal guy being chased through an out-of-control situation.
But I think this happens with a lot of actors when they get really popular. The studios hire popular actors for super-alpha-male-top-dog roles.
Maybe he wants the roles that chuck norris/schwarzenegger would normally get, but in my mind he doesn't fit those roles.
Amusingly it goes the other way quite easily - schwarzenegger can actually do well in a kindergarten classroom.
- Adaptation
- The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent
- Dream Scenario
- Mandy
They could do that with green screen, so that's not relevant. Of course, now they can put the phallus anywhere else, and that's more of a problem.
- Whatever Matthew McConaughey did to protect himself legally against AI-generated use of his likeness
- Whatever Michael Jackson's and Tupac's estates did to handle postmortem work. (Namely, MJ's album Xscape and Tupac's 2012 Coachella hologram).
- Whatever legal and economic shackles were placed on Britney Spears during her conservatorship.
- Terms of "360 deals" in the record industry.
- How SAG-AFTRA handled the introduction of CGI. Tl;dr: there's a distinction between "active performance capture" (e.g. live motion capture) vs. "passive capture" (e.g. photogrammetry scan of a face + CGI to animate it).
On another note: I remember watching BTS for National Treasure (where the treasure room scene in particular was somewhat new technology to be able to render that many reflective objects in one scene through CG alone). I know that Nicolas Cage has also done several CG-heavy films since then. Also, Nicolas Cage is a Coppola.
Overall, I imagine that the man has had enough exposure to the fiddly details of film contracts to know the difference between "the introduction of a new technology" vs. "somebody trying to screw him over".
And my 2c is that it sounds like the studio tried to screw him over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Headroom_signal_hijackings
Nic Cage is a great actor, let's hope he would have more roles like Moonstruck, not these horrible abominations that are nowadays offered to older actors. Look at Mobland housing Helen Mirren and Pierce Brosnan.
The studio must've done something worse than introduce new technology, because they found a way to get Nic Cage to turn down a role.