[rowanG077]

I don't see how that is a problem. If a computer can do an equal or better job then it makes little sense to keep such a heap of actors around. "real" actors in movies should then just become a curiosity just like still see horse carriages around as curiosity.

[bseidensticker]

It's a problem if you are an actor.

[rowanG077]

Then they have to find something else to do. Just like the myriad of other jobs that are redundant because of innovation.

[6gvONxR4sf7o]

It the computer can do a better job, but can only do that by exploiting your work as training data, then it’s not the same thing.

[rowanG077]

Why? The actors were paid for that training data.

[6gvONxR4sf7o]

I would negotiate a different contract, depending on how my work would be used. Being paid is only half the story. Like software licenses: you can use this for free if you release your own code as GPL, but we’ll come to a different agreement if you want to use it differently. Different terms for different use cases.

[rowanG077]

I agree. But afaik most contracts in the acting industry make the footage of the actor completely owned by the employer.

[6gvONxR4sf7o]

I wouldn’t be surprised to see that change at some point. There was no reason to exclude impossible uses in the contracts, but as those uses become possible, people will probably want to have provisions that they share in the fruits of their own labor.

Since a lot of these new uses seem to be ‘fair use,’ it might require changes to IP law.

[rambojohnson]

horse carriages are seldom the protagonist of any movie, you realize...

[rowanG077]

I don't understand what you are getting at. If you mean horse carriages are not people. You are right. But the "drivers" of horse carriages were.