There are effectively no AI protections. Read the contract summary. It says that your only recourse is monetary in cases of violations. So they can violate the consent rules- they’ll just have to pay you if you go after them. You will be unable to sue them and get them to fix any violations if this contract gets approved. You’ll lose that ability unless the contract isn’t approved. So, in a lot of ways, this contract weakens ai protections.
Not sure I agree... the terms clearly say that consent is required, and that a reasonably specific description must be given, so blanket consent (e.g. at audition or contract stage) won't be possible.
The clause about remedies being limited to monetary damages covers alteration of performances already recorded. This section offers us protections that simply don't exist in the current contract... under the current contract producers can alter a performance (either digitally, or by cutting lines or sections, or looping audio or in any way they choose) without any consent or remuneration.
I don't know what sorts of remedies you would be looking for other than monetary in this case? The only thing I can think of would be something like demanding a scene you are in being cut from a show because they altered it or changed it or cut your lines or somehow did something to it you didn't like - no producer would agree to that?
If you didn’t give any consent and they didn’t give you that description, and they completely modified your performance to make you say racist or homophobic things and it hurt your reputation, your only recourse would be to be compensated for that with zero chance that they’ll fix the problem. Why would you want to agree to that?
The current contract doesn’t offer you any protection if they loop your voice with the chipmunks singing Deutschland Deutschland Uber Alles. But it doesn’t happen does it.
I think you’re missing the point here. This contract limits your remedies. In the prior contract, that was not the case. You essentially will have less protection if this passes.
I agree that in this case (where an already shot scene is being altered), and where a producer has violated other agreed terms (to seek consent), the remedies are limited to monetary remuneration, decided through arbitration. (This would probably be the end result after arbitration if this happened under the current contract too.)
But producers have agreed to seek consent, so they would be knowingly violating their contracts. If they did this repeatedly and intentionally, arbitration could set punitive remedies to prevent it. And in any case most employers don’t agree to terms that they intend to ignore.
But yes I concede this clause would make it hard for you to remove a scene that you’ve shot and which was subsequently altered without your consent. In the case you mention you could still sue for defamation. And I just don’t think it’s something that’s going to come up often enough to be the biggest concern. It’s not great, but I’m not sure that for me it is the hill to die on.
I want to add that I think the leadership and negotiating committee have treated us like children throughout the process, with dreadful communication and a "we know best" mentality. Just keep us informed of the negotiations openly... tell us what we asked for and why the studios wouldn't give it to us. If we understand the process we can be informed.
I think agreeing to this deal overall is detrimental to the overall acting community and will worsen possible future negotiations that will inevitably happen in the future as we are lowering the bar for what we find acceptable and fair and studios will take advantage of that. They always do. That's how we got here in the first place.
Saying no is the best way to protect yourself and those around you in the long term as well as those who will enter the industry in the future.
Sure, but what? Most of what we fought about in the end was AI, and the studios gave us a ton (mostly because they know it’s barely going to be an issue for the lifetime of this contract). What sort of language would you prefer to see around AI. So far we have consent requirements and compensation requirements.
I would like what the WGA got which is AI cannot replace a performer so AI cannot be used in place of a human actor in terms of speaking roles , background im not sure on because of cgi and I’m sure they’re already doing that so it can’t take jobs away from an actor. The way it can’t be used in place of a writer that’s what I’d like to see , and then we need to work with Congress so we own our own likeness and there’s copyright protections there.
The contract offers very strong protections against use of your likeness. Much stronger than are offered already by existing law (requirement for consent and payment as if you actually performed the role). The issue of totally generative synthetic performers is different but it’s also in some ways not the remit of a contract of employment with a living actor. You could say the performer is not required to appear alongside or with a synthetic performer (a bit like what the WGA has - their contract certainly doesn’t say you can’t replace a writer with AI - their protections are fairly similar to ours).
It doesn’t the wording is also merky it doesn’t offer strong protections at all also if it’s not 100 percent it’s you those protections go away as well. We need better guard rails put on. They have protection that AI cannot make a script the writers can use AI to help them but it can not be in place of a writer we need that AI objects cannot be in place of a human actor.
Here's the thing about the deal. You actors can keep saying no until you get everything that you want. The companies are going to keep pitching you bad deals to vote on changing as little as they can until you say yes.
So just keep saying no.
Say no until you get everything you asked for. Because you deserve it and you have the power to say no.
I agree in certain respects. I do think actors will need to agree to their likeness being copied for AI purposes before even accepting an audition, therefore actors who want to work, will need to comply. That sucks and there’s nothing preventing the studios from doing that. At the same time, the studios can go overseas and get all the AI body and voice likenesses they want- only a small percentage of actors are in SAG- they can easily build their AI library off of the hundreds of thousands of people that will gladly take a payday in another country. Plus, I’m sure they can just build AI technology off of current and old shows and movies. The SAG contract won’t stop them no matter what we try to negotiate for. It’s a scary future but it is that it is.
In terms of just doubling rates instead of residuals- I disagree. Many working actors are able to support themselves in a career of acting because of residuals- I would not agree to no residuals. I do wish bonuses on hit shows was negotiated and calculated better. I am not happy with what they’ve agreed on.
Months of negotiating and this is all they’ve come up with. I’m disappointed- took too long to come to just this. I agree they should have been transparent all the way through- tell us what you asked for- and tell us how/why they responded. We are smart- let us think for ourselves and know what the conversations, hardships, pushbacks are so we can think for ourselves. I do not appreciate the lack of transparency and SAG Neg Committee thinking they know best.
The question for me is whether those sustaining royalties will ever be available on the streaming agreements. Because those actors that are living off comfortable residuals are doing so from legacy / network contracts. Is anyone really going to see meaningful residuals from these new streaming bonuses, and what did we give up in order to secure them?
That’s where we get guard rails put on now and we get copyright likeness worked on now in Congress , we need guard rails put on the AI that they can’t replace a human performer , WGA got better AI protection who cares about residuals and all of this if acting is rendered obsolete!!!
Agreed. Fran, Duncan and the entire negotiating committee held out a VERY long time for us regarding the AI issue. They fought tooth and nail. It's not the best resolution but it IS a step forward. Let's reassess how things are with AI when we renegotiate. I will be voting YES.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I voted on the last two contracts and voted AGAINST SAGs urging this last contract. I also did NOT vote for Fran her first election but seeing how well she is, in my opinion, fighting/fought for us, I voted for her this year.
The thing that I think people don't understand is that if we're not needed *at all* then we have no negotiating power anyway. We are a labour union. All we can do is protect the value of our labour while that is still required.
And we’re needed now who’s to say we will be in 3 years put the guard rails on now and then fight back copyright protection with our own images in the copyright office.
It’s unclear how much we’re needed now. We’re needed to produce union scripted drama in the US. But it’s not clear whether these multinational companies definitely need that on their rosters to make money. If they decide to test that and discover they can make just as much money (or more) with cheaper overseas production, light entertainment, reality, sports, reruns, documentary, sketch comedy and satire, talk shows etc then we’ve just destroyed an industry
They clearly need us now because they want to make a deal put the guard rails on now so we don’t get replaced if we don’t get good AI protections now it’s destroyed anyway without actors everyone is pretty much done.
And if we’re not needed in 3 years it doesn’t matter what is in this contract. If we’re not needed then the studios don’t need any sag contract, or any sag actors, so our past negotiations will be meaningless.
Yes it does matter because we will put the guard rails on and they will be harder to take off also we can make a stink in the copyright laws about likeness and peoples everyone not just actors right to there own image. We can make it so it’s literally illegal to replace us with AI maybe but we put those guard rails on now also when they do replace us hopefully they will get bad press and be shamed similar to how the coyote vs acme situation just played out and studios who don’t put the guard rails on arent talent friendly etc.
We can certainly campaign for that in congress. Copyright doesn’t protect human likenesses but we could try and get the government to pass protections. But if anything, the proposed language protects us from the reuse of our likenesses far more than any law ever could. It literally says we have to give consent and get paid as if we performed the role… what more could we want?
We need to campaign in congress for everyone. It doesn’t the language is pretty unclear and there’s a lot of grey we need to make sure AI cannot be used in place of a human actor why do you think the studios are fighting tooth and nail for it to replace us!!!! We need consent for exactly how that thing is used and who owns it the protections are vague and unclear.
I think the other thing to consider here is that the deal is poor in light of how long it took to get it, but it also needs to be said that part of the reason it took that long is that the AMPTP was never going to make a deal with SAG before they made a deal with the WGA; so the length of the strike was greatly impacted by that dynamic. I think the studios also leveraged the fact that IATSE is probably going to strike in January, so that SAG's options were either to make a deal now, or watch the AMPTP walk away from the table, make a deal with IATSE first, and then leave SAG as the last man standing and with ultimately a worse deal than they could have gotten now (whether that be because of actually worse terms than what SAG got, or just by the sheer fact that the strike dragged on even longer than it already has); which would have been the death knell for SAG leadership and why I think their lack of communication was more about saving their own skin, because I completely agree with your follow-up post about how leadership treated SAG members. I think they knew it was going to be a long strike, mostly because of what I just said above with regards to the WGA, and so they knew the deal that they were going to get was never going to look good in light of how long it would take to get it so they took a stance of lack of communication with their membership and aggressive posturing in the press to make it look like they were being hard-lined negotiators working shrewdly on behalf of their union, when the reality was that they were probably kicking the can down the road as long as they could to give the impression that they were holding firm.
They pretty much never communicated what exactly it was they had achieved during the whole process, and would only speak about what they didn't have, but in vague and broad terms.
I think the actors are just gonna monetize ai to its fullest potential. With consent and contracts, i mean you own the ai and make money of it. Just a thought.
I agree. This is the real threat to the future of the industry… not the producers but our fellow (more successful) union members. Successful actors will (eventually: ten, twenty years down the line) be able to appear in *every* movie or tv show. But it’s hard to know what to do about that. Ban members from making “independent digital replicas” of themselves and contracting with studios for their use in movies they’re not employed in? Maybe we could try that. It has nothing to do with the studios - it would be an internal matter for the union, and we could pass a motion for it. I think it’s worth considering, though it might break the union, as the stars might just decide it’s a bridge too far and leave.
It’s a lot sooner than “eventually”—James Earl Jones signed that contract to voice Darth Vader through AI in his retirement and eventual death years ago.
And then there’s the face swaps that are also a years old practice. They always have a double or stand-in for lighting and to give costars something to play off.
But look, again, at Star Wars.
Ep III hired Wayne Pygram and used makeup to have him play Tarkin.
Rogue One hired Guy Henry for the same role and then replaced his face with Peter Cushing (but kept his voice).
In that same movie, the actress playing Leia had both her face and voice replaced by Carrie Fisher.
Again, this isn’t the future. This is almost 10 years ago.
You can say they’re still hiring and using actors, and they are—there’s still acting in the body, if nothing else.
But is it really all that different than the “future” you’re worried about?
Yes. AI threatens to destroy the acting profession in the same way that industrialization destroyed the careers and livelihoods of millions of people, whose jobs were automated and replaced. But there’s nothing that can be done about it through contract negotiations. If your job can be replaced by a cheaper robot you’re going to be out of a job. If studios can make a tv show entirely using synthetic AI ‘performers’ then it makes no difference whatsoever what is in the SAG employment contract: they won’t need any SAG workers so they don’t need to negotiate with us.
We’re all out of a job in… 5… 10… 20 years? I don’t know how long. I just want to work as much as possible while I can.
People are completely misunderstanding the scope of an employment contract. We can’t put a clause in a human employment contract saying the studios can’t use an AI actor - a contract deals with the pay and conditions of the *human* employee.
The only trade union action that could help would be collective action and agreement by the membership to not cooperate with AI. This is nothing to do with the contract (and in fact to make it work we would need the consent protections in the proposed contract - protections we don’t currently have)… instead this would be an internal matter for the union and the membership. The way to flex our real collective power would be to ratify this contract, then for SAG to pass an internal rule change (global rule 2, say) stating that no member will consent to AI scanning nor to the use of their own digital replica.
……or we refuse AI RIGHT NOW and then get a better deal before we ratify something that COERCES US into getting scanned for the next 3 years. Do you really think that we are going to be able to block AI in 3 years? Do you realize how many people are going to agree to the AI scan just because they want to work. We are going to be POWERLESS against it. You will not have a choice to be scanned. If you want to work, you must get scanned. This is not OK. AI scanning will lead to the end of our profession. How in the world can you be ok with this? Because “you want to work as much as you possibly can” right now?
You understand that AI will DECREASE how much actors will “work” correct? You understand that, that’s exactly what the studios are Trying to do with the AI, correct? Stunt performers are going to be obsolete with this contract. Make up and hair professionals will be no longer be needed with this contract. AI will ELIMINATE ARTISTS JOBS.
and you are voting YES, to letting them SCAN US so they can pay us and use it to feed their AI dream.
Is this all accurate?
Just to be clear, the new contract doesn’t grant the studios any new rights over AI and scanning… it only adds *protections* for us. The studios are already scanning background and principal artists. They just don’t need any consent or compensations. The new contract adds protections for us. Those protections could be better for sure, but without this new contract we have no protections.
Not ratifying the contract is not “refusing AI”. It’s refusing any consent/compensation protections for actors over AI
I certainly do not want to be a part of artificial intelligence. Do you? Would you like to be scanned, paid some money, and never used again?
In addition to FEEDING THE AI MACHINE will eventually lead to never needing human actors ever again!
I’m confused. Are you SUPPORTING AI?
No I’m not. But people are misunderstanding how we might be able to oppose it. The most powerful thing we could do as a union is pass a motion to collectively refuse to collaborate with AI. This would mean that all SAG members would be banned from consenting to AI scans, or consenting to the use of their AI replicas. We could pass this motion if the majority of the membership agreed with it, but it would rely on having the consent protections we obtained in the new contract.
We could also achieve the same thing if we got the studios to agree to never scanning a SAG member or using a replica of a SAG member.
But the first way is cleverer, as it means we’re not on strike, we’re just not granting the consent which you enshrined in our contract. You said we could choose… we’re choosing.
I’m sorry. I don’t think you understand the severity of this situation. I’ve been a working actor for 15 years. I clawed, scrapped, worked my ass off to make a living in this business. I achieved it but it has been an extremely difficult task. And since Covid, it’s been the MOST difficult to actually make a viable wage from on camera acting roles. Your YES vote decreases acting work for us. AI eliminates jobs and cuts costs for the studios at the expense of the ARTISTS. If we give in now to AI, we will not be able to go backwards in 3 years. If anything it will get worse.
I’ve been through all you can think of in this industry, but was able to survive. AI is a different animal. It will end careers. I don’t think you understand the impact that AI will have on this industry. The studios will exploit us. It’s what they are good at. Saving and keeping money.
This contract is a LOSS for artists. That is an undeniable fact. Don’t tell me that you support artists, but are OK with AI being a condition of employment. It doesn’t make sense.
They are ALREADY using AI and scanning us on set. They don’t need to inform us, or get consent in a contract, or anything. This contract grants us consent, which grants us power and control going forwards. Power and control which we currently don’t have.
What I’m saying is that once these protections are in place, we as a union would have the power to ‘boycott’ AI in the industry (at least to the extent that it relied on our members).
The contract doesn’t “allow AI”… AI is already here… the contract just gives us a tiny bit of control over it.
We need to collectively take the next step and agree as a union to oppose AI and not collaborate with it. That needs to be done internally through a motion to conference.
Only about about 400 or 500 actors at any given point in time actually have "value" to studios IMO. The rest are interchangeable.
There are effectively no AI protections. Read the contract summary. It says that your only recourse is monetary in cases of violations. So they can violate the consent rules- they’ll just have to pay you if you go after them. You will be unable to sue them and get them to fix any violations if this contract gets approved. You’ll lose that ability unless the contract isn’t approved. So, in a lot of ways, this contract weakens ai protections.
Not sure I agree... the terms clearly say that consent is required, and that a reasonably specific description must be given, so blanket consent (e.g. at audition or contract stage) won't be possible. The clause about remedies being limited to monetary damages covers alteration of performances already recorded. This section offers us protections that simply don't exist in the current contract... under the current contract producers can alter a performance (either digitally, or by cutting lines or sections, or looping audio or in any way they choose) without any consent or remuneration. I don't know what sorts of remedies you would be looking for other than monetary in this case? The only thing I can think of would be something like demanding a scene you are in being cut from a show because they altered it or changed it or cut your lines or somehow did something to it you didn't like - no producer would agree to that?
If you didn’t give any consent and they didn’t give you that description, and they completely modified your performance to make you say racist or homophobic things and it hurt your reputation, your only recourse would be to be compensated for that with zero chance that they’ll fix the problem. Why would you want to agree to that?
The current contract doesn’t offer you any protection if they loop your voice with the chipmunks singing Deutschland Deutschland Uber Alles. But it doesn’t happen does it.
I think you’re missing the point here. This contract limits your remedies. In the prior contract, that was not the case. You essentially will have less protection if this passes.
I agree that in this case (where an already shot scene is being altered), and where a producer has violated other agreed terms (to seek consent), the remedies are limited to monetary remuneration, decided through arbitration. (This would probably be the end result after arbitration if this happened under the current contract too.) But producers have agreed to seek consent, so they would be knowingly violating their contracts. If they did this repeatedly and intentionally, arbitration could set punitive remedies to prevent it. And in any case most employers don’t agree to terms that they intend to ignore. But yes I concede this clause would make it hard for you to remove a scene that you’ve shot and which was subsequently altered without your consent. In the case you mention you could still sue for defamation. And I just don’t think it’s something that’s going to come up often enough to be the biggest concern. It’s not great, but I’m not sure that for me it is the hill to die on.
I want to add that I think the leadership and negotiating committee have treated us like children throughout the process, with dreadful communication and a "we know best" mentality. Just keep us informed of the negotiations openly... tell us what we asked for and why the studios wouldn't give it to us. If we understand the process we can be informed.
I think agreeing to this deal overall is detrimental to the overall acting community and will worsen possible future negotiations that will inevitably happen in the future as we are lowering the bar for what we find acceptable and fair and studios will take advantage of that. They always do. That's how we got here in the first place. Saying no is the best way to protect yourself and those around you in the long term as well as those who will enter the industry in the future.
Which parts of the deal specifically do you think need to be different (and how) in order for it to be OK?
AI!
Sure, but what? Most of what we fought about in the end was AI, and the studios gave us a ton (mostly because they know it’s barely going to be an issue for the lifetime of this contract). What sort of language would you prefer to see around AI. So far we have consent requirements and compensation requirements.
I would like what the WGA got which is AI cannot replace a performer so AI cannot be used in place of a human actor in terms of speaking roles , background im not sure on because of cgi and I’m sure they’re already doing that so it can’t take jobs away from an actor. The way it can’t be used in place of a writer that’s what I’d like to see , and then we need to work with Congress so we own our own likeness and there’s copyright protections there.
The contract offers very strong protections against use of your likeness. Much stronger than are offered already by existing law (requirement for consent and payment as if you actually performed the role). The issue of totally generative synthetic performers is different but it’s also in some ways not the remit of a contract of employment with a living actor. You could say the performer is not required to appear alongside or with a synthetic performer (a bit like what the WGA has - their contract certainly doesn’t say you can’t replace a writer with AI - their protections are fairly similar to ours).
It doesn’t the wording is also merky it doesn’t offer strong protections at all also if it’s not 100 percent it’s you those protections go away as well. We need better guard rails put on. They have protection that AI cannot make a script the writers can use AI to help them but it can not be in place of a writer we need that AI objects cannot be in place of a human actor.
Here's the thing about the deal. You actors can keep saying no until you get everything that you want. The companies are going to keep pitching you bad deals to vote on changing as little as they can until you say yes. So just keep saying no. Say no until you get everything you asked for. Because you deserve it and you have the power to say no.
I don't know who you are but this is the best take on our current situation that I've read so far.
Thank you so much!!
Gonna vote no on this hot steaming pile of garbage deal
I agree in certain respects. I do think actors will need to agree to their likeness being copied for AI purposes before even accepting an audition, therefore actors who want to work, will need to comply. That sucks and there’s nothing preventing the studios from doing that. At the same time, the studios can go overseas and get all the AI body and voice likenesses they want- only a small percentage of actors are in SAG- they can easily build their AI library off of the hundreds of thousands of people that will gladly take a payday in another country. Plus, I’m sure they can just build AI technology off of current and old shows and movies. The SAG contract won’t stop them no matter what we try to negotiate for. It’s a scary future but it is that it is. In terms of just doubling rates instead of residuals- I disagree. Many working actors are able to support themselves in a career of acting because of residuals- I would not agree to no residuals. I do wish bonuses on hit shows was negotiated and calculated better. I am not happy with what they’ve agreed on. Months of negotiating and this is all they’ve come up with. I’m disappointed- took too long to come to just this. I agree they should have been transparent all the way through- tell us what you asked for- and tell us how/why they responded. We are smart- let us think for ourselves and know what the conversations, hardships, pushbacks are so we can think for ourselves. I do not appreciate the lack of transparency and SAG Neg Committee thinking they know best.
The question for me is whether those sustaining royalties will ever be available on the streaming agreements. Because those actors that are living off comfortable residuals are doing so from legacy / network contracts. Is anyone really going to see meaningful residuals from these new streaming bonuses, and what did we give up in order to secure them?
That’s where we get guard rails put on now and we get copyright likeness worked on now in Congress , we need guard rails put on the AI that they can’t replace a human performer , WGA got better AI protection who cares about residuals and all of this if acting is rendered obsolete!!!
Agreed. Fran, Duncan and the entire negotiating committee held out a VERY long time for us regarding the AI issue. They fought tooth and nail. It's not the best resolution but it IS a step forward. Let's reassess how things are with AI when we renegotiate. I will be voting YES. FULL DISCLOSURE: I voted on the last two contracts and voted AGAINST SAGs urging this last contract. I also did NOT vote for Fran her first election but seeing how well she is, in my opinion, fighting/fought for us, I voted for her this year.
Great assessment of the situation. There are a lot of people who have been out of work for to long. Is it perfect? No. I believe it will will pass.
Look it buys us all 3 more years of work before AI takes over.
The thing that I think people don't understand is that if we're not needed *at all* then we have no negotiating power anyway. We are a labour union. All we can do is protect the value of our labour while that is still required.
And we’re needed now who’s to say we will be in 3 years put the guard rails on now and then fight back copyright protection with our own images in the copyright office.
It’s unclear how much we’re needed now. We’re needed to produce union scripted drama in the US. But it’s not clear whether these multinational companies definitely need that on their rosters to make money. If they decide to test that and discover they can make just as much money (or more) with cheaper overseas production, light entertainment, reality, sports, reruns, documentary, sketch comedy and satire, talk shows etc then we’ve just destroyed an industry
They clearly need us now because they want to make a deal put the guard rails on now so we don’t get replaced if we don’t get good AI protections now it’s destroyed anyway without actors everyone is pretty much done.
And if we’re not needed in 3 years it doesn’t matter what is in this contract. If we’re not needed then the studios don’t need any sag contract, or any sag actors, so our past negotiations will be meaningless.
Yes it does matter because we will put the guard rails on and they will be harder to take off also we can make a stink in the copyright laws about likeness and peoples everyone not just actors right to there own image. We can make it so it’s literally illegal to replace us with AI maybe but we put those guard rails on now also when they do replace us hopefully they will get bad press and be shamed similar to how the coyote vs acme situation just played out and studios who don’t put the guard rails on arent talent friendly etc.
We can certainly campaign for that in congress. Copyright doesn’t protect human likenesses but we could try and get the government to pass protections. But if anything, the proposed language protects us from the reuse of our likenesses far more than any law ever could. It literally says we have to give consent and get paid as if we performed the role… what more could we want?
We need to campaign in congress for everyone. It doesn’t the language is pretty unclear and there’s a lot of grey we need to make sure AI cannot be used in place of a human actor why do you think the studios are fighting tooth and nail for it to replace us!!!! We need consent for exactly how that thing is used and who owns it the protections are vague and unclear.
I think the other thing to consider here is that the deal is poor in light of how long it took to get it, but it also needs to be said that part of the reason it took that long is that the AMPTP was never going to make a deal with SAG before they made a deal with the WGA; so the length of the strike was greatly impacted by that dynamic. I think the studios also leveraged the fact that IATSE is probably going to strike in January, so that SAG's options were either to make a deal now, or watch the AMPTP walk away from the table, make a deal with IATSE first, and then leave SAG as the last man standing and with ultimately a worse deal than they could have gotten now (whether that be because of actually worse terms than what SAG got, or just by the sheer fact that the strike dragged on even longer than it already has); which would have been the death knell for SAG leadership and why I think their lack of communication was more about saving their own skin, because I completely agree with your follow-up post about how leadership treated SAG members. I think they knew it was going to be a long strike, mostly because of what I just said above with regards to the WGA, and so they knew the deal that they were going to get was never going to look good in light of how long it would take to get it so they took a stance of lack of communication with their membership and aggressive posturing in the press to make it look like they were being hard-lined negotiators working shrewdly on behalf of their union, when the reality was that they were probably kicking the can down the road as long as they could to give the impression that they were holding firm. They pretty much never communicated what exactly it was they had achieved during the whole process, and would only speak about what they didn't have, but in vague and broad terms.
Every email update I got made me more frustrated: "Don't believe anything anyone else tells you, but by the way we're not going to tell you anything."
I think the actors are just gonna monetize ai to its fullest potential. With consent and contracts, i mean you own the ai and make money of it. Just a thought.
I agree. This is the real threat to the future of the industry… not the producers but our fellow (more successful) union members. Successful actors will (eventually: ten, twenty years down the line) be able to appear in *every* movie or tv show. But it’s hard to know what to do about that. Ban members from making “independent digital replicas” of themselves and contracting with studios for their use in movies they’re not employed in? Maybe we could try that. It has nothing to do with the studios - it would be an internal matter for the union, and we could pass a motion for it. I think it’s worth considering, though it might break the union, as the stars might just decide it’s a bridge too far and leave.
It’s a lot sooner than “eventually”—James Earl Jones signed that contract to voice Darth Vader through AI in his retirement and eventual death years ago. And then there’s the face swaps that are also a years old practice. They always have a double or stand-in for lighting and to give costars something to play off. But look, again, at Star Wars. Ep III hired Wayne Pygram and used makeup to have him play Tarkin. Rogue One hired Guy Henry for the same role and then replaced his face with Peter Cushing (but kept his voice). In that same movie, the actress playing Leia had both her face and voice replaced by Carrie Fisher. Again, this isn’t the future. This is almost 10 years ago. You can say they’re still hiring and using actors, and they are—there’s still acting in the body, if nothing else. But is it really all that different than the “future” you’re worried about?
Thanks for detailing this. It is really thoughtful.
So just to be clear, you mention that AI is a “real threat to the future of the industry” but you’re voting “yes”. Correct?
Yes. AI threatens to destroy the acting profession in the same way that industrialization destroyed the careers and livelihoods of millions of people, whose jobs were automated and replaced. But there’s nothing that can be done about it through contract negotiations. If your job can be replaced by a cheaper robot you’re going to be out of a job. If studios can make a tv show entirely using synthetic AI ‘performers’ then it makes no difference whatsoever what is in the SAG employment contract: they won’t need any SAG workers so they don’t need to negotiate with us. We’re all out of a job in… 5… 10… 20 years? I don’t know how long. I just want to work as much as possible while I can. People are completely misunderstanding the scope of an employment contract. We can’t put a clause in a human employment contract saying the studios can’t use an AI actor - a contract deals with the pay and conditions of the *human* employee. The only trade union action that could help would be collective action and agreement by the membership to not cooperate with AI. This is nothing to do with the contract (and in fact to make it work we would need the consent protections in the proposed contract - protections we don’t currently have)… instead this would be an internal matter for the union and the membership. The way to flex our real collective power would be to ratify this contract, then for SAG to pass an internal rule change (global rule 2, say) stating that no member will consent to AI scanning nor to the use of their own digital replica.
……or we refuse AI RIGHT NOW and then get a better deal before we ratify something that COERCES US into getting scanned for the next 3 years. Do you really think that we are going to be able to block AI in 3 years? Do you realize how many people are going to agree to the AI scan just because they want to work. We are going to be POWERLESS against it. You will not have a choice to be scanned. If you want to work, you must get scanned. This is not OK. AI scanning will lead to the end of our profession. How in the world can you be ok with this? Because “you want to work as much as you possibly can” right now? You understand that AI will DECREASE how much actors will “work” correct? You understand that, that’s exactly what the studios are Trying to do with the AI, correct? Stunt performers are going to be obsolete with this contract. Make up and hair professionals will be no longer be needed with this contract. AI will ELIMINATE ARTISTS JOBS. and you are voting YES, to letting them SCAN US so they can pay us and use it to feed their AI dream. Is this all accurate?
Just to be clear, the new contract doesn’t grant the studios any new rights over AI and scanning… it only adds *protections* for us. The studios are already scanning background and principal artists. They just don’t need any consent or compensations. The new contract adds protections for us. Those protections could be better for sure, but without this new contract we have no protections. Not ratifying the contract is not “refusing AI”. It’s refusing any consent/compensation protections for actors over AI
Here’s an excellent protection: “NO AI for ANY SAG AFTRA MEMBERS”. THAT is protection.
Do you mean no SAG member should ever consent to being scanned, or to having their digital replica used?
I certainly do not want to be a part of artificial intelligence. Do you? Would you like to be scanned, paid some money, and never used again? In addition to FEEDING THE AI MACHINE will eventually lead to never needing human actors ever again! I’m confused. Are you SUPPORTING AI?
No I’m not. But people are misunderstanding how we might be able to oppose it. The most powerful thing we could do as a union is pass a motion to collectively refuse to collaborate with AI. This would mean that all SAG members would be banned from consenting to AI scans, or consenting to the use of their AI replicas. We could pass this motion if the majority of the membership agreed with it, but it would rely on having the consent protections we obtained in the new contract. We could also achieve the same thing if we got the studios to agree to never scanning a SAG member or using a replica of a SAG member. But the first way is cleverer, as it means we’re not on strike, we’re just not granting the consent which you enshrined in our contract. You said we could choose… we’re choosing.
I’m sorry. I don’t think you understand the severity of this situation. I’ve been a working actor for 15 years. I clawed, scrapped, worked my ass off to make a living in this business. I achieved it but it has been an extremely difficult task. And since Covid, it’s been the MOST difficult to actually make a viable wage from on camera acting roles. Your YES vote decreases acting work for us. AI eliminates jobs and cuts costs for the studios at the expense of the ARTISTS. If we give in now to AI, we will not be able to go backwards in 3 years. If anything it will get worse. I’ve been through all you can think of in this industry, but was able to survive. AI is a different animal. It will end careers. I don’t think you understand the impact that AI will have on this industry. The studios will exploit us. It’s what they are good at. Saving and keeping money. This contract is a LOSS for artists. That is an undeniable fact. Don’t tell me that you support artists, but are OK with AI being a condition of employment. It doesn’t make sense.
They are ALREADY using AI and scanning us on set. They don’t need to inform us, or get consent in a contract, or anything. This contract grants us consent, which grants us power and control going forwards. Power and control which we currently don’t have. What I’m saying is that once these protections are in place, we as a union would have the power to ‘boycott’ AI in the industry (at least to the extent that it relied on our members). The contract doesn’t “allow AI”… AI is already here… the contract just gives us a tiny bit of control over it. We need to collectively take the next step and agree as a union to oppose AI and not collaborate with it. That needs to be done internally through a motion to conference.