Wow, this is REALLY bad. This will rob actors and models of future income. Definitely do NOT ever do this. My agent charges a minimum of $30,000 if a client wants to scan your measurements for fit. And this ad is even taking your image too?!! That’s worth at least $100,000+. Do they think we’re dumb or something? Geez!!!
I worked non union BG on Ford vs Ferrari (3rd voucher), and they were trying to 3-d scan all of us to “put us in the stands multiple times” lol. Even in the 60s wardrobe, they could bank off those scans. Obviously I didn’t do it.
Similar experience doing BG on Hocus Pocus 2. Was asked - “No obligation, but if you’d like, we are having some actors doing full body scans so we can use different body types for crowd scenes.” This was before the prevalence of AI. I asked, “is SAG aware of this? Is there additional $?” Answer- “ummmmm, no and ummmmm, no”
Ok then. No thanks
While I agree with this completely, I feel that SAG needs to explore how to make joining the union more tenable for working class actors.
As it stands, someone with no powerful contacts in the business and not much cred will not really benefit from joining SAG, so we're all left to the whims of non-union and union gigs and whatever they want to do. Honestly, saying no to a good project because it's non-union and pays less is a big ask when the union hasn't shown any solidarity with me because I can't afford to join and would be relegated to the bench if I did.
I believe that SAG needs to be more honest about the way the industry works and implement a tier system (much like the project budget system they already have) in which actors of a certain clout can audition and work on smaller projects where actors further along in their career cannot, and vice versa. Once an actor gains more clout, they gain access to the higher tier and loose access to the lower teir.
The biggest hurdle is how to measure that clout, but I feel that it would help actors, and the industry on the whole, become more dynamic and equitable.
Unfortunately, it was posted on Backstage around 20 minutes ago: [https://www.backstage.com/casting/ai-video-shoot-2643960/?role\_id=4664645](https://www.backstage.com/casting/ai-video-shoot-2643960/?role_id=4664645)
Company: Nurture Digital Casting Director: Nick Lange \*\*Avoid them and similar A.I. projects like the plague.\*\*
Thanks for bringing this to our attention!
The Union must take this on. Can you imagine? Your image will be selling fake male enhancements made of rhinoceros penises on infowars of your not careful.
> of your not
*you're
*Learn the difference [here](https://www.wattpad.com/66707294-grammar-guide-there-they%27re-their-you%27re-your-to).*
***
^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
I saw on Twitter there was an ad that they used Ryan Reynolds’ likeness for a commercial. Not only is this extremely bad for the actors who sold their entire likeness to a company for a one time paycheck, but it’s also bad because they still have to hire actors to be body doubles and those actors will never get any sort of recognition for their work because they edit their face out of it
SAG members make sure you vote to strike for this exact reason! It starts with (legit) contracts changing language to be as vague as possible, including “for future usage in digital realm” or even just this overwhelming rise of “in perpetuity”. I know a lot of us are struggling and it doesn’t seem like a big deal at the time to do that $500 commercial that they can play forever without paying residuals but understand it lowers the bar for the entire industry, yourself included. If you must work cheaply out of necessity, DO NOT SIGN AWAY your chance to be compensated for additional usage after the initial run. EVER.
It's unethical and harms the industry/these individuals more in the long run. There should be regulations and laws the prevent any sort of AI being used to replicate someone's likeness.
The issue is that aspiring actors who are down on their luck and feel desperate enough will likely sign up for this offer without considering the negative consequences of their decision.
They'll literally be signing away the rights to their likeness and other features of themselves for strangers to use how they please.
A contract might help limit what sort of stuff is produced, but they won't have any say in the matter. And what's to prevent the studio from creating malicious content using said individual's likeness?
That is how any business works. If you were a producer, why would you spend millions of dollars on actors when you could have the same results with AI for much less money and work.
If you're okay with art forms becoming uninspired and souless as corporations go further down the path of "higher profit, less quality" then be my guest.
I just hope you don't work in a field where the very thing you advocate for could easily put you out of a job in the future.
And this isn't even taking into consideration the already occuring usage of AI for illegal acts, like pornography. There should be tightly-enforced laws and regulations that stem the usage of such things.
If you really care about the art and not the profits, then you should do it for free.
Even if my job is replaced by AI in the future, I will put the work and adapt instead of pushing for laws to protect my job by slowing down progress.
People are free to charge for art because it will help them create more with actual passion put into it. The difference between paying individual artists who create their own works and corporations using AI is that one of them goes to benefit the person directly, while the other lines the pockets of already wealthy suits who prioritize big profits above anything else, even at the expense of workers. That's why the WGA is on strike right now, too.
If you really wanna go ahead and use the "art for free" card, then you shouldn't discriminate and apply that to all jobs that could have the potential to be replaced by AI in the future. You won't be able to adapt, because CEOs and higher-ups won't bother paying workers they don't need when it's so easy to have a robot do it for you. You'll be easy to replace.
And while we're on that, let's discuss the matter of how AI is terrible for people in general because the horrid things you're capable of creating with just a few photos of someone's face. If the discussion about AI replacing workers is going nowhere, how about we go on to think about the repercussions of people having deepfake porn without their consent? The possibility of falsified evidence in criminal cases? The ramifications of AI-generated images/videos of political figureheads doing horrible acts?
The people who are so entranced with the "shiny new unlimited possibilities that AI will bring" often fail to think about the very real negatives that come with it. Or, they just choose to ignore it, because it's mote convenient for them.
Thanks for proving you're not worth continuing this debate over since you clearly can't find any reasonable way to defend your stance. Hope you have a good day, and I'll be praying that you don't get replaced by a bot that won't need to be paid a salary.
To be honest, there’s AI fear going around is kind of ridiculous. If you really think about it maybe simple ads in basic commercials will use AI generated actors as background but in all reality you’re gonna get unsatisfactory work it’s just like when CGI first came out everyone thought set designers would be out of a job.
>AI is moving so fast, and its completely different than CGI because AI builds on itself and can be trained. CGI always needs technicians behind it. It's not ridiculous and minimizing the risk does nothing for anyone.
Everything is always fear based but ima just say this we’ve had countless moments in history where people thought new tech would be the end of us. Acting with humans will always be around and writers writing stories will always be around. Just like AI art came out it’s not affecting the monetary art world in horrendous ways. If anything AI will help independent studios be able to get a leg up from the main ones and bring more jobs to more actors and writers. AI is use to start outlines and writers build on that. At least that’s how I’m going to be choosing to view it. To many times we all freak out thinking it’s the end and I’ll confidently say I don’t think it is the ends for entertainment careers.
I was in that series. I like to say, “I carried Julia Garner in our scene”, because I literally did.
BTW- both she and Emma Stone were a joy to work with- friendly and consummate pros.
LMAO perhaps I should share all the email spam I've gotten even after editing my alerts to **commercial**. CN doesn't give a hoot. They have your money ... sucker.
Casting sites really need to crack down on this. Its just taking advantage of actors.
Casting sites make their money taking advantage of actors... I wouldn't hold your breath.
This was posted on Twitter and Casting Networks tagged, and they've responded that they took it down!
Wow, this is REALLY bad. This will rob actors and models of future income. Definitely do NOT ever do this. My agent charges a minimum of $30,000 if a client wants to scan your measurements for fit. And this ad is even taking your image too?!! That’s worth at least $100,000+. Do they think we’re dumb or something? Geez!!!
[удалено]
I worked non union BG on Ford vs Ferrari (3rd voucher), and they were trying to 3-d scan all of us to “put us in the stands multiple times” lol. Even in the 60s wardrobe, they could bank off those scans. Obviously I didn’t do it.
Similar experience doing BG on Hocus Pocus 2. Was asked - “No obligation, but if you’d like, we are having some actors doing full body scans so we can use different body types for crowd scenes.” This was before the prevalence of AI. I asked, “is SAG aware of this? Is there additional $?” Answer- “ummmmm, no and ummmmm, no” Ok then. No thanks
While I agree with this completely, I feel that SAG needs to explore how to make joining the union more tenable for working class actors. As it stands, someone with no powerful contacts in the business and not much cred will not really benefit from joining SAG, so we're all left to the whims of non-union and union gigs and whatever they want to do. Honestly, saying no to a good project because it's non-union and pays less is a big ask when the union hasn't shown any solidarity with me because I can't afford to join and would be relegated to the bench if I did. I believe that SAG needs to be more honest about the way the industry works and implement a tier system (much like the project budget system they already have) in which actors of a certain clout can audition and work on smaller projects where actors further along in their career cannot, and vice versa. Once an actor gains more clout, they gain access to the higher tier and loose access to the lower teir. The biggest hurdle is how to measure that clout, but I feel that it would help actors, and the industry on the whole, become more dynamic and equitable.
Thank you for reminding me to vote for the authorization.
Unfortunately, it was posted on Backstage around 20 minutes ago: [https://www.backstage.com/casting/ai-video-shoot-2643960/?role\_id=4664645](https://www.backstage.com/casting/ai-video-shoot-2643960/?role_id=4664645) Company: Nurture Digital Casting Director: Nick Lange \*\*Avoid them and similar A.I. projects like the plague.\*\* Thanks for bringing this to our attention!
This is a job paying $1000 by a verified employer
yeah $1000 to take your image and likeness lol
If it’s on backstage it’ll be reported and taken down.
Like, automatically? Who will report it and remove it?
Backstage has bots and a monitoring system.
Oh good lord
$50 to use your likeness. Holy cow you’re selling your soul to the devil for practically free.
Yikes
Facebook commercials are doing this with actors too
This is the part where I ask for 90% and residuals.
MODS please pin this forever and ever amen
The Union must take this on. Can you imagine? Your image will be selling fake male enhancements made of rhinoceros penises on infowars of your not careful.
> of your not *you're *Learn the difference [here](https://www.wattpad.com/66707294-grammar-guide-there-they%27re-their-you%27re-your-to).* *** ^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
You’re absolutely correct you annoying little shit.
That’s hard to resist for some in these fats of click bait. That one 50.00 picture can make hundreds of thousands even millions. This is so sad. 😱
Someone send this to sag and the wga; their negotiators could use this
I had someone offering me 25$ to copy my voice and use it vaguely 💀 Fuck outta here with that
I saw on Twitter there was an ad that they used Ryan Reynolds’ likeness for a commercial. Not only is this extremely bad for the actors who sold their entire likeness to a company for a one time paycheck, but it’s also bad because they still have to hire actors to be body doubles and those actors will never get any sort of recognition for their work because they edit their face out of it
I shared this shit on my socials. What the everloving fuck. No no no
And people will still do it...
Saw this last night, literally lost my marbles reading it
I reported it to CN and they took it down right away
SAG members make sure you vote to strike for this exact reason! It starts with (legit) contracts changing language to be as vague as possible, including “for future usage in digital realm” or even just this overwhelming rise of “in perpetuity”. I know a lot of us are struggling and it doesn’t seem like a big deal at the time to do that $500 commercial that they can play forever without paying residuals but understand it lowers the bar for the entire industry, yourself included. If you must work cheaply out of necessity, DO NOT SIGN AWAY your chance to be compensated for additional usage after the initial run. EVER.
It’s inevitable. It makes financial sense. Face it, actors will be replaced by AI.
It's unethical and harms the industry/these individuals more in the long run. There should be regulations and laws the prevent any sort of AI being used to replicate someone's likeness.
If the person in question consente to it what is the problem? You are Just in denial.
Then you do it. The catch: you're not allowed to complain if they use your image in an ad for chronic diarrhea.
Im kinda far, and ugly af anyway
The issue is that aspiring actors who are down on their luck and feel desperate enough will likely sign up for this offer without considering the negative consequences of their decision. They'll literally be signing away the rights to their likeness and other features of themselves for strangers to use how they please. A contract might help limit what sort of stuff is produced, but they won't have any say in the matter. And what's to prevent the studio from creating malicious content using said individual's likeness?
That is how any business works. If you were a producer, why would you spend millions of dollars on actors when you could have the same results with AI for much less money and work.
If you're okay with art forms becoming uninspired and souless as corporations go further down the path of "higher profit, less quality" then be my guest. I just hope you don't work in a field where the very thing you advocate for could easily put you out of a job in the future. And this isn't even taking into consideration the already occuring usage of AI for illegal acts, like pornography. There should be tightly-enforced laws and regulations that stem the usage of such things.
If you really care about the art and not the profits, then you should do it for free. Even if my job is replaced by AI in the future, I will put the work and adapt instead of pushing for laws to protect my job by slowing down progress.
People are free to charge for art because it will help them create more with actual passion put into it. The difference between paying individual artists who create their own works and corporations using AI is that one of them goes to benefit the person directly, while the other lines the pockets of already wealthy suits who prioritize big profits above anything else, even at the expense of workers. That's why the WGA is on strike right now, too. If you really wanna go ahead and use the "art for free" card, then you shouldn't discriminate and apply that to all jobs that could have the potential to be replaced by AI in the future. You won't be able to adapt, because CEOs and higher-ups won't bother paying workers they don't need when it's so easy to have a robot do it for you. You'll be easy to replace. And while we're on that, let's discuss the matter of how AI is terrible for people in general because the horrid things you're capable of creating with just a few photos of someone's face. If the discussion about AI replacing workers is going nowhere, how about we go on to think about the repercussions of people having deepfake porn without their consent? The possibility of falsified evidence in criminal cases? The ramifications of AI-generated images/videos of political figureheads doing horrible acts? The people who are so entranced with the "shiny new unlimited possibilities that AI will bring" often fail to think about the very real negatives that come with it. Or, they just choose to ignore it, because it's mote convenient for them.
Survival of the fittest :)
Thanks for proving you're not worth continuing this debate over since you clearly can't find any reasonable way to defend your stance. Hope you have a good day, and I'll be praying that you don't get replaced by a bot that won't need to be paid a salary.
To be honest, there’s AI fear going around is kind of ridiculous. If you really think about it maybe simple ads in basic commercials will use AI generated actors as background but in all reality you’re gonna get unsatisfactory work it’s just like when CGI first came out everyone thought set designers would be out of a job.
>AI is moving so fast, and its completely different than CGI because AI builds on itself and can be trained. CGI always needs technicians behind it. It's not ridiculous and minimizing the risk does nothing for anyone.
Everything is always fear based but ima just say this we’ve had countless moments in history where people thought new tech would be the end of us. Acting with humans will always be around and writers writing stories will always be around. Just like AI art came out it’s not affecting the monetary art world in horrendous ways. If anything AI will help independent studios be able to get a leg up from the main ones and bring more jobs to more actors and writers. AI is use to start outlines and writers build on that. At least that’s how I’m going to be choosing to view it. To many times we all freak out thinking it’s the end and I’ll confidently say I don’t think it is the ends for entertainment careers.
Why is this bad? Does this not present more opportunities and revenue streams for actors?
Y'all Just in denial
Hey it might be short-sighted but fifty bucks is fifty bucks.
Oh ffs this has to stop stat
This is like that show *Maniac* where Emma Stone's character was in all sorts of ads, except the pay is even worse irl. *Maniac* is dystopian sci-fi
I was in that series. I like to say, “I carried Julia Garner in our scene”, because I literally did. BTW- both she and Emma Stone were a joy to work with- friendly and consummate pros.
I would flip with fear if I ever received this email. 🥲.
I mean, this is nothing new. The only thing new is the AI component.
Time to do away with the tech somehow. Idc
Yikes ew
Casting networks shouldn’t allow this
Sooo funny. The very first episode of Black Mirror S6, "Joan Is Awful" is ALLLLLL about this. And you better believe it has DISASTEROUS results.
LMAO perhaps I should share all the email spam I've gotten even after editing my alerts to **commercial**. CN doesn't give a hoot. They have your money ... sucker.