Editor’s note: This article was written before SAG-AFTRA and studios reached a tentative agreement to end the actors strike.
SAG-AFTRA and studios met again on Monday to negotiate on contracts regarding actor residual payments and the use of AI to recreate actor likeness in future productions. As always, the biggest point of discussion has been the studios’ desire to use AI.
Big studios proposed their “last, best and final offer” to reuse AI scans of deceased actors without needing to ask for the consent of the actors guild or the deceased actors’ estates. The studios also proposed to pay a one-time fee to secure AI scans of living actors who make more than the minimum earnings in the guild; however, SAG demands that studios compensate these actors for every use of their likenesses.
Actors will not agree to the use of AI as currently proposed by the studios, and the strike will continue until studios agree to the union’s demands. And why exactly should they stop?
Let’s break this down a bit more: Big studio companies (Disney, WarnerBros, NBCUniversal, etc.) are asking to scan the likenesses of higher-earning guild actors (those who make a minimum of $32,000 per television episode or $60,000 in feature films) and then reuse those scans in all future projects without paying these actors for subsequent usage.
This goes back to one of the main reasons the strikes began in the first place: a lack of adequate pay for the work of actors. By reusing the same scan, big companies only need to make a one-time payment to the actors involved and will not need their consent again after the initial scanning. Similar to a lack of residuals, this creates a system where an actor does not get their rightful dues for their work, or more plainly the use of their face. This especially concerns guild actors who make more money because they are more likely to be the faces for which the public tunes into movies and TV shows. So if the studios are bringing in audience members (and as a result, money), the actors deserve to be paid for their labor.
Additionally, scanning the likeness of deceased actors to be used in the future is a thin line to walk. By not asking permission from a deceased actor’s estate or from SAG, studios stumble into possibly disrespecting the actors and their beliefs. In this sense, without permission, the deceased’s image may be used in films and productions they would not have agreed to star in. An actor’s decision to choose to be involved in a specific project is one they must make with their best interests at heart, and going above this can damage the legacy and name of the actor.
AI is not a light subject, and the power it holds in the film industry can completely change the trajectory of how films are made. The potential risks AI poses to the rights of the actors involved makes it a delicate situation that big studios must better respect in order to secure the actors’ future cooperation and respective well-beings.
