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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> Stealing software and music put all the independent software conpanies and musicians out of business.
What are you talking about? Itch.io still exists, indie game studios still exist, FOSS software still exists, Bandcamp still exists, indie musicians still exist, etc.
The only thing I can think of that went out of business are platforms like Grooveshark (which was supported by “piracy”) which was litigated out business by the music industry. Spotify, the music industry main stay, is the one not paying artists.
Many small software companies have gone out of business due to piracy. I've seen this countless times in my career.
Before rampant piracy, independent musicians could tour small clubs and sell music. I knew many artists that basically lost their entire business due to piracy within a year.
Nobody was willing to pay for music online, but sharing it for free was fine.
I have the same reaction now that many here and in the tech industry have had over the last decade or two:
Times change and you aren't owed a living. If you can't make money with the new AI landscape, I guess you should be going into a different industry.
FOSS licensing won't matter much anymore when you can use LLMs that make changes to a code base and it looks nothing like the original.
We needed protections 25 years ago, but too many in the industry didn't want to give up the free games, movies, music, and software.
Now that it's hitting their bottom line, there's talks of unions and protections from the government.
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.
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.
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.
All streaming shows primarily judge themselves by minutes view.
I guess he didn't read the terms of usage for Amazon prime folks
Anti-AI sentiment - very hot right now!
God forbid a professional cares about his job!
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.
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.
No fallacy here. I've seen it here on HN pretty consistently.
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.
It does. Stealing software and music put all the independent software conpanies and musicians out of business.
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.
Modified Grok bot?
> Stealing software and music put all the independent software conpanies and musicians out of business.
What are you talking about? Itch.io still exists, indie game studios still exist, FOSS software still exists, Bandcamp still exists, indie musicians still exist, etc.
The only thing I can think of that went out of business are platforms like Grooveshark (which was supported by “piracy”) which was litigated out business by the music industry. Spotify, the music industry main stay, is the one not paying artists.
Many small software companies have gone out of business due to piracy. I've seen this countless times in my career.
Before rampant piracy, independent musicians could tour small clubs and sell music. I knew many artists that basically lost their entire business due to piracy within a year.
Nobody was willing to pay for music online, but sharing it for free was fine.
I have the same reaction now that many here and in the tech industry have had over the last decade or two:
Times change and you aren't owed a living. If you can't make money with the new AI landscape, I guess you should be going into a different industry.
FOSS licensing won't matter much anymore when you can use LLMs that make changes to a code base and it looks nothing like the original.
We needed protections 25 years ago, but too many in the industry didn't want to give up the free games, movies, music, and software.
Now that it's hitting their bottom line, there's talks of unions and protections from the government.
I'm pretty tired of the hypocrisy.
Why should I care now?
You mean these people?
https://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!
Who is that supposed to be?