More than five rules within the 16-page summary discussing artificial intelligence focus on the tentative agreement between the producers and SAG-AFTRA. This agreement is the outcome of strategic negotiations by the union over a matter that the studios initially underestimated in its significance during the negotiation process.
The document highlights the establishment of a comprehensive definition of “generative artificial intelligence” and outlines the protocols for notification, consent, and compensation concerning “synthetic performers” and AI-generated “digital replicas of actors.” It signifies a groundbreaking recognition of the value of individual contributions to the film industry and the potential implications for employment.
Despite these advancements, concerns persist among SAG-AFTRA members regarding the limitations imposed by AI regulations, especially regarding the creation and utilization of digital replicas in performances. This could potentially enable studios to bypass established actor protections. The direct negotiation option between members of the Alliance of Motion Pictures and Television Producers and performers for certain AI applications, rather than going through the union, has raised apprehensions. This scenario might lead to situations where actors are compelled to forgo opportunities involving AI-generated duplicates as a condition of employment.
The agreement delineates two categories of electronic replicas: employment-based, where the performer actively participates, and independently-created, where the likeness and voice are licensed for production. It sets specific constraints on consent and compensation for both groups, including provisions for fair remuneration based on the days of work affected by the use of employment-based digital replicas. While exceptions exist for Schedule F performers earning above a certain threshold, this framework discourages cost-cutting through AI technologies, emphasizing the bargaining power of actors. Fran Drescher, the president of SAG-AFTRA, has emphasized the importance of protecting the interests of the majority of actors, known as “journeymen.”
However, concerns arise regarding Schedule F performers who may not wield significant influence and are presented with offers involving modern clones as part of contractual agreements. The proliferation of such arrangements could undermine the intended autonomy of performers in deciding the utilization of their digital counterparts.
Furthermore, writers face similar challenges in safeguarding their rights under collective bargaining agreements. The Writers Guild of America’s previous negotiation with the AMPTP aimed to secure specific rights for its members, allowing them to retain control over their work in various mediums. However, subsequent developments have seen a shift towards studios reclaiming these rights at nominal costs, potentially limiting writers’ creative autonomy.
The integration of artificial intelligence in content creation poses additional complexities, with concerns raised about the use of actors’ performances as training data for AI systems. While the agreement allows for ongoing discussions on compensation for such practices, it permits the utilization of celebrities’ likenesses for training purposes.
In conclusion, while the negotiated agreement reflects progress in addressing AI-related issues, there are lingering uncertainties and challenges that necessitate ongoing dialogue and vigilance to safeguard the interests of performers and creators in the evolving landscape of digital content production.
