Robert Downey Jr. Threatens To Sue Over AI Recreations of His Likeness (variety.com) 62
Oscar winner Robert Downey Jr. has threatened legal action against future studio executives who attempt to recreate his likeness using AI. "I intend to sue all future executives just on spec," Downey said when asked about potential AI recreations of his performances. He dismissed concerns about Marvel Studios using his likeness without permission, citing trust in their leadership. During the interview, he criticized tech executives who position themselves as AI gatekeepers, calling it "a massive fucking error."
Too late (Score:3)
You can't undo what's been done... Not saying I'm in favor of it... But trying to sue your way to success will just make you the next Barbra Streisand.
Re: Too late (Score:2)
But the AIs should at least try to assign the right likeness. Not give me Robert Downey when I ask for Charles Bronson.
Are we sure it was really him (Score:3)
Just saying...
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you can. Happens all the time. Someone does copyright infringement, the copyright owner takes them to court, the copying party loses and has to delete the material and pay compensation.
Re: (Score:2)
It begs the question.... ....what if someone that naturally looked like Rob, auditioned for a part in a movie, could Rob sue that person for looking like him? Could he sue the company that hires that person for using someone that looks like him?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But trying to sue your way to success will just make you the next Barbra Streisand.
I'm not sure that the Streisand Effect is applicable in this case.
A famous actor or actress owns the rights to their likeness by default, and they make a lot of money by licensing that likeness. It's not just about being hired to act in a movie, but their are sponsorship and advertising deals etc.
In this context, the more famous the actor is (the more people know their face), the better for them.
Whereas Barbara Streisand was worried about privacy when she tried to suppress images of her house... which backf
Re: (Score:1)
>A famous actor or actress owns the rights to their likeness by default,
What if I make a movie using the image of some unknown who just happens to look almost exactly like a famous actor or actress?
Re:Too late (Score:5, Informative)
It was tried in Back to the Future 2
https://www.hollywoodreporter.... [hollywoodreporter.com]
Long story short, Universal settled ($760k) with Crispin Glover for using his likeness without his permission. Glover made an argument during the ordeal that in the future when computers got good enough, copying someones likeness could end up indistinguishable from the copied actor. So he wasn't wrong. He warned about this potential scenario
Re: (Score:2)
1) Personality Rights [wikipedia.org] generally prohibit someone from using your identity in some way.
2) A deriviation of the above, called Right of p [higgslaw.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't undo what's been done... Not saying I'm in favor of it... But trying to sue your way to success will just make you the next Barbra Streisand.
Uh, no. He isn't aiming at you or I he's aiming at large movie studios and yes he could be successful against them.
As long as everyone's unhappy. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Other than the pile of cash he has that likely dwarfs mine, I kind of feel for Shore. He leaned into his typecasting to have a career, but it was a very limiting move. He can actually act reasonably well, but everyone expects 'Pauly Shore' and isn't interested while there aren't enough fans of that character to keep a decent career going.
Must be frustrating for a performer to dead end like that. Reinvention doesn't work very often.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, Leonard Nimoy found that out the hard way: "I am not Spock" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Not_Spock
and "I am Spock" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Spock
I liked Nimoy in "Brave New World" though, probably as far from Spock as he could get.
I wonder how this is all going to workout with dead actors.
Re: (Score:3)
Nimoy got a lot more out of Spock, and defined a cultural touchstone that is being kept alive by another generation of actors.
Shore is already more or less forgotten except as a joke.
Plus, Nimoy made a second career out of getting attractive young women to take their clothes off for him as 'art'. What's Shore doing these days? I mean, he's better at breathing than Nimoy, but eventually that'll even out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nimoy also hosted a few "sci-fi" and predictive science programs (like the one about the coming ice age). Maybe Shore could host a show where they check in with type-cast actors who hit rock bottom.
That would be 'In Search Of...', which was a pretty good show, which aired before the movie 'Star Trek III: The Search for Spock' was released. There were a few jokes about the title, that it should have been called 'In Search Of... Spock' :)
Nimoy was also in the 70s remake of 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' which was a decent movie, and he did a good job. In addition, he was in several movies and played character parts in a LOT of tv shows prior to Star Trek. He had a pretty varied and diverse career
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My god, a movie with both Richard Kind and Pauly Shore as main characters would be like Hollywood to the Hollywood power, buuuuuuuuh huuuuudy.
Two generations (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Correction: Within half a generation almost all of them will be unemployed entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Two generations (Score:5, Funny)
Just create an AI-generated character from scratch and make them famous.
They already did that. Tom Cruise isn't an actual person. His character does fine in films, but his off-screen AI isn't very believable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely the point, and more important, the specific goal.
(But algorithms can't sign autographs. That' the one advantage live actors will have for the foreseeable future.)
Not forwarding Thinking Enough (Score:3)
Within two generations of actors it will be part of standard contracts for new talent to grant the right to reproduce their image in perpetuity.
Really? Why bother with a human at all? AI can already generate new human faces that do not belong to anyone and AI can already add simple animations. As I see it within two generations there may be no actors needed for films and TV at all, just for live theatrical productions. After all with no human involved you can't have someone behaving badly and getting flims "cancelled" or otherwise in the news for all the wrong reasons.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Within two generations of actors it will be part of standard contracts for new talent to grant the right to reproduce their image in perpetuity. People who refuse to sign won't be working in Hollywood, at least not in front of a camera.
Unlikely, that's why actors have a union. It's not like a factory where you can bring in some scabs and no one will notice. You can't make a movie or show that people will watch without SAG talent, and the SAG won't consent to putting themselves out of a job.
Now, a right to reproduce their image/likeness with compensation, now that's something that might become standard.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unlikely, that's why actors have a union. It's not like a factory where you can bring in some scabs and no one will notice. You can't make a movie or show that people will watch without SAG talent, and the SAG won't consent to putting themselves out of a job.
When AI can cross the Uncanny Valley, SAG will not longer be consulted. When the entire case can be AI generated, there's no need for any actual actors. And make no mistake, that is the specific goal of the technology.
In the short term, SAG will have the support of the other unions - you can't make a movie without camera operators, gaffers, etc. But if you do away with live actors, you don't need any of the rest of those unions either.
In the long run, everything will be automated. They'll feed a(n AI writte
Re: (Score:3)
The tech companies will supplant the studios as the source of visual entertainment. Tell the AI "show me a movie about a guy who is kidnapped by aliens because he's the Chosen One who will save the universe," and by the time the microwave popcorn is ready, so is the movie. (There will, of course, be a selection of classics available - for a modest cost - and undoubtedly a niche market for new scripts written by respected script writers.)
The next step after that will be for that software to be open source, and the tech companies will be doomed by their own creation.
The video game industry already brings in more revenue than movies, TV, and music combined.
Re: (Score:3)
Unlikely, that's why actors have a union. It's not like a factory where you can bring in some scabs and no one will notice. You can't make a movie or show that people will watch without SAG talent, and the SAG won't consent to putting themselves out of a job.
When AI can cross the Uncanny Valley, SAG will not longer be consulted. When the entire case can be AI generated, there's no need for any actual actors. And make no mistake, that is the specific goal of the technology.
In the short term, SAG will have the support of the other unions - you can't make a movie without camera operators, gaffers, etc. But if you do away with live actors, you don't need any of the rest of those unions either.
In the long run, everything will be automated. They'll feed a(n AI written) script into a computer, pick (virtual) actors from a list available (DLC for each one, at a modest cost), and produce a movie. All with only one person involved, the person who owns that computer. Sure the movie will suck, but probably not much more than all movies suck now.
In the longer run, of course, the studios are doomed by their own creation. As computers get more and more powerful, you don't need a rendering farm to do the above, you'll be able to do it on your home computer in real time. The tech companies will supplant the studios as the source of visual entertainment. Tell the AI "show me a movie about a guy who is kidnapped by aliens because he's the Chosen One who will save the universe," and by the time the microwave popcorn is ready, so is the movie. (There will, of course, be a selection of classics available - for a modest cost - and undoubtedly a niche market for new scripts written by respected script writers.)
The next step after that will be for that software to be open source, and the tech companies will be doomed by their own creation.
Art is about the personal connection. You can have some level of fictional stars (ie, animated characters) but audiences won't go for AI across the board. Which means the same thing as we've seen several times before, a strike where all production stops until the studios give in.
And audiences will be interested in one or two AI movies for the novelty, but they'll wholly reject it as an industry. Plus the studios will fight it tooth and nail as well, because if all you need is a computer then you don't need
Re: (Score:3)
The audience gobbles down whatever dreck Hollywood spews out, and has for decades. It will continue to do so.
And the studios won't see the end game before it bites them in the ass. They see a reduction in costs by eliminating as many people as possible, which is all of them, but they won't see the inevitability of continued improvement of the technology until it's an appliance on top of the TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Within two generations of actors it will be part of standard contracts for new talent to grant the right to reproduce their image in perpetuity. People who refuse to sign won't be working in Hollywood, at least not in front of a camera.
Unlikely, that's why actors have a union. It's not like a factory where you can bring in some scabs and no one will notice. You can't make a movie or show that people will watch without SAG talent, and the SAG won't consent to putting themselves out of a job.
Now, a right to reproduce their image/likeness with compensation, now that's something that might become standard.
Well of course, they've built an empire based on scarcity of talent and total control of the medium. That control has been slipping away and AI may be the final piece. 50 years ago a video camera was prohibitively expensive for most people and now everyone carries one in their pockets. In 15 to 20 years kids may be able to make movies live Avatar with consumer grade equipment and software at home. Then all you need is someone who can write a half decent screenplay.
Re: (Score:2)
Within two generations of actors it will be part of standard contracts for new talent to grant the right to reproduce their image in perpetuity. People who refuse to sign won't be working in Hollywood, at least not in front of a camera.
Unlikely, that's why actors have a union. It's not like a factory where you can bring in some scabs and no one will notice. You can't make a movie or show that people will watch without SAG talent, and the SAG won't consent to putting themselves out of a job.
Now, a right to reproduce their image/likeness with compensation, now that's something that might become standard.
Well of course, they've built an empire based on scarcity of talent and total control of the medium. That control has been slipping away and AI may be the final piece. 50 years ago a video camera was prohibitively expensive for most people and now everyone carries one in their pockets. In 15 to 20 years kids may be able to make movies live Avatar with consumer grade equipment and software at home. Then all you need is someone who can write a half decent screenplay.
The thing with talent is it's a moving standard. Have you ever watched older movies? Some of them hold up well, but a lot of them just suck. The effects and camera quality you'd expect of course, but acting is kinda wooden and the scripts are terribly paced.
Maybe you can make something that looks like Avatar just like a student could make something that looks like Terminator. But the standard for good effects will by that much higher, as will the bar for good writing and acting.
The only question is how will
Re: (Score:3)
Pacing changes over time with the culture which also changes too. Movies now are paced for short attention spans, low functional IQ in that context, low imagination, more ignorance... etc. often appealing to the most broad base lowest common denominator possible -- which when made multinational is even worse as they try to make everything universally translatable; at least some re-edit and change scripts a bit for different markets.
I like old movies and they are not all great because we preserve them all no
Re: (Score:3)
Pacing changes over time with the culture which also changes too. Movies now are paced for short attention spans, low functional IQ in that context, low imagination, more ignorance... etc. often appealing to the most broad base lowest common denominator possible
Your elitism is showing.
Sure attention spans have changed, though "functional IQ" has not, and the art of pacing has also improved, as have many other things.
You think modern movies are LCD? In the past everything was LCD. That's the big complaint people have about media nowadays, you no longer have common culture where everyone watched the same stuff.
And just like modern audiences can't grasp all the subtly and references of Shakespeare, older audiences would have trouble following modern films. Plots and
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Pacing changes over time with the culture which also changes too. Movies now are paced for short attention spans...
TL;DR
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely. Unlike most of America where people are fucked over on the regular actors have a relatively strong union backing - SAG-AFTRA and their collective bargaining has forced concessions out of movie and TV studios frequently.
This isn't some theoretical either, SAG-AFTRA has already fought a battle about AI and won concessions from studios.
Re: (Score:2)
Within two generations of actors it will be part of standard contracts for new talent to grant the right to reproduce their image in perpetuity. People who refuse to sign won't be working in Hollywood, at least not in front of a camera.
Two generations and part of the contract? I would expect that "stars" will be people that spend a couple hours having their likeness captured from every possible angle, doing a few voice-overs in various states of emotional response, get a check for a few grand, and that will be the end of their "career." That's in two generations. In four? They won't even bother with that. They'll just rando capture folks on the street, blend traits a bit to not resemble them too much, and those will be our "actors."
I expe
"just on spec" (Score:2)
What does that mean?
Re:"just on spec" (Score:4, Informative)
"On spec", short for "on speculation", is a movie-industry term for authoring creative work, usually a movie script, that no buyer has negotiated for beforehand, with the idea that the author then sends the finished work "around" to see if anyone is interested in paying for it.
Downey is using it here, seemingly slightly inaccurately, to mean that he will sue, not just the specific studios that he's worked with before, but ANYone who attempts to use his likeness without specifically negotiating with him beforehand./p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Alien (Score:2)
Based on the hot pile of shit they tried to pass off as Ian Holm in the new Alien movie I don't think he's got much to worry about at the moment. That shit ruined the movie for me. It looked awful for Princess Leia too.
Re: (Score:2)
They're getting close though. Almost out of the uncanny valley effect.
Re: (Score:2)
You must have saw a different movie than I did, It was not even close.
Re: (Score:2)
bla bla bla dei bla bla bla (Score:2)
Movies, game and TV shows have these DEI actresses, wuh wuhhh wuh (wuuuh wuuuh). Wuuh wuhh. WU wuh wuuuuuuuuh wuhh wuh wuuuh wuuh wuuuh wuuh, wuhhhh wuhhhhhh. WU wuuh wuh wuuuh wuuh wuuuuuuuuh wuh wu wuh wuuh wuuh wuh wuuuuuuh wu wuuuuuh wu wuuh wuuuuuh DEI woke wuuuuuuh. Disney Star Wars wuuuh wuh u wuuh wu wuuuh. Wuh wuh anti-family wuuuh, wuuh Agatha All Along, wuuuuuh wuuh wuuh.
Dangerous (Score:4, Funny)
Without control somebody might use his likeness to make a blackface character who calls people "retarded".
It might be hilarious but it could potentially sully his image.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't he already do that himself (in the great movie Tropic Thunder)? or were you being ironic?
This article should have been combined 'McNeal' (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
He is a massively overrated actor and now has the ego to match it. He was a B tier actor until Iron Man- in which he turned in a performance that frankly any halfway competent male lead in the same role could have done.
Still not clear what likeness is (Score:1)
Looker (1981) is almost here (Score:2)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0... [imdb.com]
No problem (Score:2)
They'll find a lookalike and make a digital copy of that one.
With a read helmet over his face, nobody will know the difference anyway.