Rejected
International Artists Lyrics

We have lyrics for 'Rejected' by these artists:

A.N.D. I'ma tell ya I would Rather Speak my peace and Be a martyr F…
Alin Coen Band I could fight Or I could fogive again I could hold tight …
Architects Of Chaoz I don't belong in this world Kicked like a dog in…
Beyond the Void Take these visions away from me They don't mean anything Y…
College Credit Take care of me (Take care of me) Don't wanna be (Don't wann…
Decadence Dust Even if our love is a waste of time Even if…
Eddie Star Rejected, infected Rejected, disconnected Rejected, affected…
Empty Kingdom Moon light, I'm lost again I fade away like everyday But I'm…
Farewell to Arms Look at me now As I'm stumbling through the streets My leg…

Flight of the Conchords feat. Rhys Darby Rejected, thrown Away Affected, I don't know what to say Eje…
Grenouer Freedom is not happiness You never know where you can go Y…
Infected Cells Life goes through The choices of each one of us My choices…
karim soliman Man why aren't you letting me in Is it because of…
Laci Kay Rejected, rejected, rejected Rejected, rejected, rejected Yo…
Polars Collide How does your mouth taste What does your skin feel Like a…
Rancid I could not fit in I was the one who got…
Rancid [1993] I could not fit in I was the one who got…
Shotty I've got nothing to do I've got nothing to lose They all…
Tarby Smile wide for all the ones who Stuck around to watch…
Teardown I'm crawling no more, I've rejected your world Rejected you…
Tim Be Told Hey, what is this about, don't just turn me out Am…
Too Far For Gracie King of the hill With a view from the top In control,…

Unwritten Law Was it something I said Or something I became You said he…

The lyrics are frequently found in the comments by searching or by filtering for lyric videos

TRACKS

Genre not found

Artist not found

Album not found

Search results not found

Song not found

Most interesting comment from YouTube:

@andystein8220

21w↑3

Here's how I'd interpret that mountain of text at 18:19

"If a digital replica is used to replace an actor, if the scene is work the performer would have done in person, the performer gets paid..." ...sounds like a performer will get paid if their replica is used in a scene that the actor had already agreed to do, but couldn't film--perhaps due to an emergency or sickness of some sort (or death)?

Now it gets confusing: "...EXCEPT when... (...a major role performer employed on a one-hour television motion picture works for three days and the performer's Employment-Based Digital Replica is used to perform the equivalent of another three days of work)"
... so, this sounds like the studios are able to MATCH the amount of time an actor has already put into filming/recording, without having to pay the actor anything extra.
If you film 1 hour's worth of a performance, they can then use the replica for an additional 1 hour for free. If you film 3, they could do 3 for free. Maybe if you film 2 hours, and they replicate 3 more hours, you get paid the 1 hour of extra content. Not sure if that's correct or not, but that's how it sounds to me.

So basically I think they're saying, if they paid an actor for X amount of footage, they can recreate X amount of extra footage without owing the actor anything else. I think. Maybe.

And... "...or if the Employment-Based Digital Replica of a series contract performer is used to perform work that could have been performed by the series contract performer in person within the work time..." ...so I guess that means, if the actor was physically capable of working/filming, but chose not to for whatever non-emergency reason, they'd be entitled to recreate the performance without paying the actor. So like, if Sam Jackson agreed to do a film, but then just never showed up to film on set, and didn't give a good reason why he didn't show up (or said he just didn't feel like working), they could recreate the performance digitally for free.

Again, I'm not sure if I'm interpreting this correctly or not, but that's my best guess. Hopefully that at least begins the discussion of clarifying its meaning. Man, I wish these folks just spoke like human beings.

All comments from YouTube:

@jorgeneedssleep7978

21w↑79

It does not surprise me to be honest. When I read through the terms of the deal it really seemed like SAGAFTRA leadership sold in a lot of key areas and the terms about AI were too vague for comfort. And I personally do not believe the success based bonus will be viable for actors because streaming shows and movies are needles in stacks of needles. Theres too much content for any particular production to get a real chance at success. And without that chance of success, there might as well not be a bonus.

@Im_Ish

21w↑6

Needle in a haystack is one thing. Studios can just remove the needle entirely. Any popular show close to a bonus can get pushed down and be harder to find.

@agenerichuman

21w

Yeah. I think companies had already thin margins on a lot of these shows and bank more on the rare possibility of a hit. I want talent to get paid but I'm sure these companies will see this as an excuse to deprioritize certain shows as a way to pay as little as possible. Honestly I hope I'm wrong but I'm also not sure what the solution should be.

I think AI is the far bigger threat. I just watched the new Indiana Jones movie and it kind of terrified me how good the CG was. Right away, I knew that this is the future of cinema and I'm honestly still trying to process it. It's hard to know what to think. I just hope it doesn't cost people jobs because it looks like it will.

@YakAttack915

21w↑9

What I love about your content, is you not only give us a more broad view of things that most people can enjoy, but you are one of the few who dig so deeply into the minutia of every aspect of the industry. In the last few years, it's really enlightened me to certain things, gave me a better understanding of how things work, and allows me to look at entertainment differently. I know you put many many hours of hard work into this, and hopefully the compensation is worth it. But for my part, I just would like to say thank you for doing so much work so I can sit back and enjoy and absorb it

@intivism

21w↑16

I wonder if there will be a divide between older and younger actors over the AI provisions. Older actors nearing the end of their career might be looking forward to selling their digital likeness, younger actors wanting as many restrictions on their digital copies as possible being they're at the beginning of their careers.

@mcbean1

21w↑5

good point, I bet the older ones would love to sit back and get royalty cheques for doing nothing at all

@intivism

21w↑5

@@mcbean1 Yep. And they can retire, while their digital clone goes on and takes the roles that would otherwise go to younger actors.

@brianscli9567

21w↑27

Thanks again, Dan, your videos are some of my favorites to watch. Your perspective and knowledge is so valuable, I appreciate you being so dedicated to keeping us in the loop during the strike.

I realize prolonging some of these seemingly dead-end negotiations would end up hurting a lot of folks in the industry who are counting on being employed this holiday season and next spring, but if I were a member of SAG right now, I’d not settle for this. This entire ordeal has been quite upsetting to watch as an outsider looking in, damn these selfish executives. They don’t care about art, they don’t care about artists, they wouldn’t know integrity if it hit them in their bloated, botoxed faces. Will there even be an industry in 5-10 years for up and coming artists to break into, or will it be a distorted, manipulated, disfigured version of what it once was. It felt so good to be a film fan before the pandemic, I’m less hopeful now but I still pray things look better in the next few years. If there are any young, hopeful artists that read this, hang in there and keep creating. we need you ♥️

@thrawncaedusl717

21w↑66

The problem is they probably can’t get a better deal. They stated residuals and AI control as their two non-negotiables, and lost on both. Either they are incompetent (and some amount of incompetence is implied by how long they fought for how little gain) or there is simply no possibility of getting what they want.

@Bad_Wolf_Media

21w↑10

I disagree about saying they got little gain. They actually accomplished quite a lot. They didn't get everything they wanted, but that's the way negotiations work. The studios gave a lot more than they had in their "best, final offer." Always remember that "perfect is the enemy of done." They could have held out forever to demand stuff they were never going to get, and that's what it feels like people like Bateman and Modine want to happen.

@timogul

21w↑2

OR, those points were never non-negotiables, they were moonshots, things they never intended to get, but by insisting on them, they got the studios to agree to all sorts of other things that they never would have, while still coming out thinking that they'd "won." They were never going to win on those two points anyway. They were dumb points.

@thrawncaedusl717

21w↑5

@@timogul that’s possible, but all of their rhetoric to their members were these two issues were existential threats. Also, everything else they got AMPTP seemed willing to give months earlier.

@timogul

21w↑1

@@thrawncaedusl717 Maybe, and that might piss off their members, but they can't communicate with their members without also letting the studios know that, so any sort of negotiating subterfuge by necessity involves lying to the public membership. The membership just needs to decide whether the things they did get are worth more to them than the things they didn't.

@MatthewBreck

21w↑2

the system is always stacked towards the billionaires.

@tachibanachiharu

21w↑16

The slide at 18:00, what I think it means is that if you're an actor under a contract that says you get paid $200,000 for the totality of your appearance in that movie, you don't get paid a second time if your digital replica also appears in the movie. You still just get the $200,000. For example, Hugo Weaving doesn't get paid 151 times because 150 replicas of Agent Smith appear in Matrix Revolutions. Hugo just gets paid whatever was agreed to in the contract he negotiated for his appearance in that movie.

In contrast, if someone is getting paid $300 for every minute they appear in a movie, their digital replica appearing would also earn them pay of $300 for every minute of its appearance.

@Sarbury12

21w↑2

This, and also, actors are often booked for specific time periods, especially in episodic television.
-1 Day Rate
-3 Day Rate
-8 day rate (as hour longs are often on an 8 day schedule per episode).

If you’re booked for 8 days, you’re not necessarily shooting all 8 days but you can’t book any other work during that time. I believe this deal means if you shot, say 5 days, and your digital replica was used for work that would have otherwise been another 3 days of shooting, that’s still considered 8 days worth of work.

If, however, you were booked for 3 days, shot for 3 days, and then they used your digital replica for the equivalent for another day of work, they’d have to pay you a bonus since your 3 day contract didn’t cover that overage.

@TasogareAnd

21w↑1

I don't think that's correct. (...i agree with @Sarbury12 )
More like - if a "Digital Replica" is used for something that "an Actor" has already agreed to do him self. The Actor is getting only paid what he agreed to and not getting paid again for the use of "Digital Replicas"
So: You get page of a script 10 lines of dialog and some descriptions. You agree to shoot it on Monday for $5000. Turns out the director has complicated choreography in mind normally to get it right 1 week would be needed. Digital Replica is used and You are getting paid 5k.
Hugo Weaving example doesn't work as he can't multiply himself and perform the scene without 150 Digital Replicas (there's a line in the agreement "the performer would have done in person"). He would be paid for his performance and for the use of his Replica. (1 time, not 150 i think)

@NickMichalak

21w↑67

A friend of mine who is an actor in Los Angeles was VERY displeased at the deal regarding AI. He wanted it utterly abolished, for lack of a better term from me. He felt they caved and compromised on a major sticking point here.

A lot of the language for this seems vague enough for some producer to pull a fast one trying to subvert the agreement based on ambiguous boundaries of this nonsense.

@mcbean1

21w↑8

Does your friend not realise he can't stop progression and technology. I mean the writing has been on the wall for a while, why pay actors big cheques when ai can do it as good for far less money. He might be displeased but that won't change anything.

@kennyhudson9201

21w↑4

They had to cave. They would never accept a deal that abolishes AI. AI proves that art is overrated and formulaic. They would just go with scabs and full ai writing before they would go the other extreme and ban AI. Besides every writer is using AI, they just want to get the credit and praise for the AI's work that they submit as their own.

@Samuel-p17

21w↑2

@@mcbean1The writers got their deal, that no AI is to be trained with their work. So why shouldn't the acters fight for the same thing?

@Samuel-p17

21w↑5

@@kennyhudson9201 Oh what an extremely arrogant pov. You AI advocats never created something in your lives right? Because if you had, you wouldn't say something like that. Every writer is using AI? So there just was no writing before AI?
As an academic I know that some use AI, but many like myself don't, because conceited for that. It's not my work, so I don't want it to represent myself.

@mcbean1

21w↑1

@@Samuel-p17 no they didn't, they specifically left that issue unresolved because they could not agree 1 way or the other, go watch Dan's video about the writers deal @19:20.

6 More Replies...

@AlexMercedCoder

21w↑7

The way that clause read to me is that actors don’t get paid for replica usage to deal with delays.

So 3 day shoot, everything would’ve been fine during those three days but unforeseen weather causes the loss of a single day. A replica is used to complete the work that would’ve been done that day. The Actor is still paid their three days, not an additional fourth day cause the usage is “make-up” work.

@reedgordon5388

21w↑30

I'm glad to be getting a breakdown of the deal. I've been hearing a lot of things, but I haven't known where to look.

@rmsgrey

21w↑44

The complex clause Dan asked about appears (disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, etc) to say that if you hire an actor and agree to pay them to do a particular job, you can split the actual work however you want between the actor and their digital replica, but still pay the actor as though they did all the work.

For example, if I hire Bob Actor to work ten days, then I can choose to tell Bob not to bother coming in for certain of those days, and use DigiBob in the scenes Bob would have filmed on those days. I still pay Bob for all ten days, and I'm not allowed to use DigiBob for more that I should have been able to get Bob himself to do over those days - which is a point where discussion could happen over whether Bob actually could/would have turned in enough performance over those days to cover the scenes I'm claiming he would and using DigiBob for.

The general idea is to pretend I replaced Bob with another natural actor, Bob II, rather than his digital clone, and Bob II came in and shot on those days, for the same deal as Bob, except that Bob gets to take home all the money I would have paid Bob II rather than splitting it across two people.

@zerostozeros

21w↑3

100% accurate.

@JeffHanke

21w↑3

That's how I read it too. You can use the digital double for anything you wouldn't have to pay the actor more to do.

@timogul

21w↑1

Yeah, although like you say, it's hard to estimate how much "acting time" a double's performance would be worth. It might take far more/less time to actually create those scenes than if a human did it. In future negotiations, it might be better to ignore "time spent acting," and just have a more flat rate of "screen time" for digital actors, that if they are on camera for 5 minutes of the film, the human actor gets paid a certain amount of their daily rate for it.

@arun279

21w↑1

Let's assume that Bob was contracted for 10 days of work. After those 10 days, DigiBob was used to perform another 10 days of work digitally. Bob will still only be paid for those 10 days, I think that's the point of contention here.

Assuming technology advances far enough for it to be possible, once studios are comfortable with it, they can maliciously comply with the agreement by hiring actors for a minimum (like 1 day), and get a full movie's worth of performance of their digital replica.

@gimmibox

21w

I wonder how does this apply to stunt doubles

12 More Replies...

@samtreich

21w↑4

Thanks for your great coverage, Dan!

@TVandManga

21w↑4

Brilliant video Dan, thanks for the insightful and in depth analysis.

@TStark-vj2wo

21w↑2

Thank you Dan for all your work in explaining this and good to hear that your honeymoon was fun.

@Aussie27Legend

21w↑8

Do i think they will end up ratifying? Yes but I do not think it will be a 98.1% or whatever it was from the writers, seems like maybe in the 70% range. It is funny that sag and the wga almost mirror their roles, unsurprising that the writers are better at loopholes and details in general.

@MrKangorilla

21w↑12

That digital replica provision sounds like they can get 2 for 1 on an actors time or can fill out gaps or create altered content of an actor if they finish their primary calling quickly, which sounds kind of insane

@ronyYTube

21w↑2

Thank you Dan, very interesting as usual. We'll see how it plays out in the next few days, weeks and months

@andeekumar2817

21w↑6

Idk why but my dude Dan has a calming effect and great film related content. Great video when taking study breaks

@barbararowley6077

21w↑13

I certainly wouldn’t sign that. Employers will manipulate language as much as they can to break contract terms in their favour - for instance, we weren’t allowed to ‘train’ other employees, since if we weren’t at least a Grade 2 Scientist we had to be paid a training allowance. We had to ‘show them how’ instead. That’s the sort of ridiculousness used to save a measly $20 an hour for a couple of hours training.

@jackson857

21w↑2

I really hope the actors in the guild accept the deal.

@ShinPG

21w↑4

Great breakdown Dan! I was waiting for this video to help me understand what happened lol.

@Suzanne_sf

21w

Dan, have you seen Looker which was released in 1981 and had to do with digitally replacing actors? Looker was similar to Robocop in seeing things others did not. Thank you for explaining the strike to us. I appreciate it. :)

@jamesgoldin7063

21w↑1

In general-and this will be true of the WGA and DGA deals as well--the challenge for the studios/streamers is always to work around whatever deal is in place to either save money or spend less money. So if you have to pay more for X, you see if you can have fewer examples of X. (Cut the number of episodes, etc.) When you get to the manipulation of performances, it's a tricky thing. Actors who die during production have had their work completed by a combination of editing or reaction shots or special effects. Bela Lugosi in "Plan 9 from Outer Space" and Oliver Reed in "Gladiator" are two examples. Actors have been dubbed after death or even while alive to change or maybe improve a performance or conform to a script revision - and of course making R-rated dialogue acceptable for broadcast TV has sometimes been done with alternate takes, sometimes with third-party dubbing, sometimes just an edit. All audiovisual performances since before 1900 have been partially constructed by editing, sound, and music. (CU of actor staring. What are they thinking? Ah, scherzo music! They're upset!) Sometimes actors were replaced and yet still appear. (In the 1954 "Elephant Walk," apparently the fired Vivian Leigh is in some long shots, while Elizabeth Taylor took over the role. Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert don't even appear in the last few minutes of "It Happened One Night." I believe that in "The Score," Brando's mouth was digitally manipulated in his last movie to render a deathbed smile he refused to do...THAT, it seems to me, though, is crossing the line. (What if De Niro and Norton had shot a new scene where De Niro said, "Wow, it was so great when he smiled, huh?" Would that have been overstepping? Having Brando not quite appear at the door in the December 1941 flashback in "Godfather Part II" is also a trick... ) All that said, I think the existential things is that the time-honored tricks to create an onscreen performance (including rear screen projection a hundred years ago to make it look like someone could ride a horse or whatever) were aids...and now the tools look like they can take over. I don't think human actors can ever be done away with, but I do believe that the studios and streamers are interested in getting closer to that goal, mostly but not exclusively IF it'll save money.

@bened22

21w↑3

I think your usage of (double?) minuses has confused YTs markup interpretation.

@spridgejuice

21w

Unlike so many of the youtube cinema reviewers/commentators, Dan Murrell comes across as a guy you'd want to spend time with. His enthusiasm is infectious, as well as driving him (and his viewers) deeper into the complexities of the movie business than most of the others, who prefer simplistic clickbait opinionising. Much appreciation, Dan, keep it up...

@trevor6742

21w↑1

Dan! PLEASE BRING BACK THE RANKING VIDEOS!!!!! I miss them, they were so well made and executed. Even if we only get one every couple of months or so! I think you bring such a unique perspective on the movies. Start with Pixar or Nightmare on Elm Street.

@grahamcann1761

21w↑2

I enjoyed watching this.
As always, thank you so very much for the videos.

@jrhaile320

21w↑8

Dan, since it's just your perspective, would you ever consider having actors - possibly of different mindsets - on to discuss their perspectives?

@CaiRobinson

21w↑2

Im interesed in Ai when done right, but the union definetly got screwed as what can be done with repelicas is only going to get scarier and i wouldnt want to lose the right of that, let alone genterative ai. Strong protection against Ai (or people using it as its not the AI itself) is very important.

@jmclane27

21w↑2

Great breakdown, you make this all make sense for a simpleton like myself Dan

@MaxSmolev

21w

I wonder if the background actor part will be kind of a moot point as studios will start to use fully generated background characters. No need to worry about scanning people and consent, just create them randomly. And only training of AI is covered, except there's also a loophole -- if you train on output of animators and not some particular movie then it's not covered as well.

@edgarbyaruhanga6513

21w↑25

This seems like a loss for the actors. They've distracted them with pay and a few short term things, to allow loopholes for advancing AI to a point where it will be pointless negotiating, by the time it gets to 2026.

Btw Dan, not sure if this of interest but can you make a video on how studios copyright things? Like sometimes you hear WB or Disney has copyrighted words/websites, incorporated a business "x", "y" or "z" which means they are making movie "A", "B" or "C".

What do they actually copyright, how do they copyright it and how does that help them control their planning!

@timogul

21w↑4

Yeah, this is the thing, right now, AI actors cannot replace real ones. At some point, five, ten years down the line, they 100% will be able to. Studios can sign whatever deals they want right now, but the minute the AI is ready to pick up that job, they will drop union actors in a heartbeat, or at least some studios will, and those studios will grow bigger and bigger relative to any that remain shackled away from AI.

@tituspannell6009

21w

Great reporting on this. I was looking for information on what was going on with this whole negotiation.

@unoriginalandrew

21w

Hey Dan, you should check out the Tawas Theater in Michigan. It's only got two screens, has been there forever, and has one of the coolest collections of film memorabilia! It's been a part of my family's vacation traditions for three generations now. They even used the "let's all go to the lobby" song before every screening.

@dougfarrell7355

21w

This is really tough because while I feel this will inevitably start the beginning of the end of human creatives, this deal really needs to go through. I know someone who was fortunate enough to get called in for a film after months of no work, plus there's many thousands of non-A-listers that really need that income. The question is whether SAG-AFTRA is willing to take the quite likely risk that their jobs will be on the line in less than three years.

@mcbean1

21w

"here's many thousands of non-A-listers that really need that income" - sure they need the income but tbf they want the income from acting. Fact of the matter, if there is a contraction in the market for actors, no matter how much you might want it, that job may no longer exist. I imagine when the car was brought to market, ever horse show maker wanted to keep their income the same as well.

@benzaiten933

21w↑1

thank you for this update, I was also under the impression the strike was over and done.
I also hope you had a lovely time in NZ:

@iluvdrakeandjosh

21w

Thank you for the detailed breakdown. Also just a response: we missed you! Glad your honeymoon was great and i look forward to more of your videos.

@robscalise

21w↑2

First, very well done work sir! I came away with very detailed understanding I just would not from dumb down mass media. The one factor you could not consider at this point is that once consumers understand a performance in a project is not real just to save money or increase profits will that become a reason that will not be watched. I’m sure an initial novelty will be involved but humans don’t trust computers and will reject content meant for humans made by computers. That means less viewership or box office / profit once the novelty wears off. I know this is way ahead of time to know but I believe the possible rejection could solve the issue for this entertainment business. Just a possibility.

@Badficwriter

21w

People didnt care that the majority of Avatar 2 wasn't real at all.

@joen0411

21w↑1

Let’s look at this from an extreme example. Let’s say I invented holodeck technology just like in Star Trek. Works exactly as it does in the show. First holodeck program I created is Jaws. You can now insert yourself as any of the existing characters or be a completely new character that tags along with the main characters. Walk into any AMC theater to help chief Brody, Hooper and Quint hunt the shark. Who does the studio need permission from, who and how much do they have to pay under this new contract.

@froboythestud

21w↑2

So would technologies like “Massive” developed 20 years ago for LOTR to generate huge armies of people at a scale that had never been seen before count as synthetic performers? Or would they be considered digital models of the extras who were actually filmed in costume on set? Idk, I always thought that technology was so revolutionary, creative, and inventive. Would the extras have to be paid again if a huge cgi army based on them is used? Seems a little strange because all that work is truly done by the VFX artists, who as we all know, don’t even have a union at this point.

@Qegixar

21w

That digital replica clause seems to be saying that actors will get paid for their on-set work and not anything the digital replica does, unless the digital replica is the majority of their appearance in the project. E.g. if they get you on set for 1 day to create the replica and then make a whole movie with the replica, you get paid for a whole movie, but if you're on set for 1/2 the time and the other 1/2 is your digital copy, you get paid for 1/2 a movie.

@TullyQuinn

21w

It seemed so weird to me, one day the media was reporting on how awful the AI language was, then literally the next day the strike was over. Something, or some one, collapsed.

@hoemalone

21w

Charts with Dan is my most anticipated video in some time. Feels like Dan is the Avatar. When we needed him most, he disappeared hahaha. (But glad you had your honeymoon fr)

@renskedunnewold1995

21w

Sounds to me like the studios intend to replace all background actors with non-recognizable as real people AI characters, and want to use footage of real actors to train the AI. And this deal doesn't stop them in any way. If I was a small actor, I'd be very concerned

@user-ol5it2lt3j

21w↑2

Wait, so if they don't need consent from a public or historical figure to use them as an AI character, won't they just use those people to train the AI to create synthetic performers? This is f**ked and that's only one loophole of many.

@LexFett

20w

I think I finally got it. Min 18.

It refers that they won't pay for time the actor was actually supposed to be on set but instead he/she actually didn't show up, resulting on delays or production issues that usually could come up for a bad attitude or similar (getting late, playing diva, etc)

@LexFett

20w

I mean, Digital Replica it's not a solution for problematic actors

@waynesmiley2207

21w

Always enjoy these updates 🙂

@kathleen1896

21w↑5

I hate this as a fellow movie lover. You watch movies for the real performances. I hope one studio takes it way to far that they get so heavily criticized that all studios reconsider this AI bull shit

@AlainVirgin

21w↑1

Not sure if I know how to ask this question correctly. What if an actor seeing the end of their ability to work wants a synthetic performer created in their likeness to enable ongoing income after their working days are ended, for example someone retiring like a Bruce Willis? Under this deal can they have this and/or does there need to be some sort of carve out for this sort of thing? I guess the same could be asked about an estate or power of attorney.

@DanMurrellMovies

21w↑4

The short answer appears to be yes. In this case, it would be a combination of digital replica and synthetic performer. But the terms of this deal appear to make the digital use of an actor mostly limitless with proper consent from the actor or their estate.

@NoCreamedCorn

21w↑25

They 100% should. Advancements in replication of an actors image makes it too easy to use their likeness.

@hallowedground4101

21w↑2

What the paragraph you question means, in the simplest terms, is that you don't get paid twice. So if you're already being paid for a certain time period, and then they use AI to reshoot some of that work, you don't get paid again for the AI reshoot

@ShogunOrta

21w↑2

Given they said this was the final proposal, but SAG is still dragging this out, does that mean things truly are shut down until mid Spring like no one wanted?

@DanMurrellMovies

21w↑2

SAG isn’t dragging it out, it just takes a while to get a ratification vote. Things haven’t been “shut down” since the tentative deal was announced almost a month ago.

@ShogunOrta

21w

Okay, thanks Dan. Great vid!@@DanMurrellMovies

@Ranganath.Vemula

21w↑1

So digital replica is basically used when you can’t make a shot physically because it’s dangerous and you do it in CG to avoid anything bad happening. It takes a lot of money, effort, manpower to make once such shot.

But AI on the other hand, doesn’t need a lot of money and effort to replace a face. It is an automatic process.

@NicholasYanes

21w↑1

Fantastic analysis and overview of this topic

@SpaceCatPower

21w

As I've seen it, the terms were favorable to live action, larger productions. However, if you were a voice actor, or a motion capture actor. The terms were not favorable to them.
The AI provisions are way too vague and just threw up their hands and say "if you have a problem, just go to arbitration".

@michaelmcchesney6645

21w↑1

I want to say first, AI is not my area of expertise. But I question whether generative AI has advanced to the point that actors need to fear being replaced by computer-generated performances. Yes, computers can generate human likenesses and even make them move and talk. But if the AI-generated YouTube videos are anything to go by, the technology has not advanced to the point that such characters can really pass for human beings. In other words, I think we are probably a long way from a computer winning a best acting Oscar. If I am right about this, then it makes sense not to remain on strike fighting for contract language that would prevent studios from doing things with generative AI that the technology can't actually do yet. If I am wrong about that, well, the contract will expire in less than 3 years, and the union can negotiate that language and/or go back on strike.

I wonder, though, if the larger pay increases (percentage-wise) for background actors are in the contract because it is background actors that are in the most danger of being replaced by AI-generated characters. The contract does seem to prevent studios from just scanning a background performer and then using that scan in place of employing the performer going forward. But studios would be allowed, apparently, to use those scans if the performer agrees. If I were a background performer, I'd be concerned that studios might just pay people for the use of their scanned likenesses in perpetuity so that they could then mix and match those scans to create background characters so that they wouldn't need to hire background performers. Even if no studio decided to go that route for fear of provoking the union, I wouldn't be surprised if some visual effects companies didn't start purchasing likeness rights from people so that they could offer studios the ability to create digital background characters. I think that is the more immediate threat facing the union.

@arun279

21w

26:10 There might not be any need to train on SAG-AFTRA member performances, or really any performances at all. You can potentially train on YouTube or really any source of videos, and come up with a model that can generate synthetic performances.
For example, as far as the model is concerned, there won't be any difference between a person acting like they are happy/sad/excited/etc, or some random video they can find of any person expressing those same emotions.

@Boowl29

21w

23:15 regarding the removing of cultural references, isn’t it already the case that studios can cut references, such as (parts of) scenes when releasing the movie? Actors don’t have any say in the cutting of their performances now, do they? How is this different exactly?

(Genuine question)

@botz77

21w↑1

They have to reject it if the studios still think they can just own everyone's likeness for eternity.

@patrickdupuis9091

21w↑1

Happy to have you back. Been looking forward to this video. Glad to hear you had a good time on your honeymoon. Welcome back!

@josevlog945

21w↑1

Really good informational video Dan! I've only kept up with the headlines so this was super neat to watch.
Curious if you have any Christmas/Holiday videos ready if not a your favorite Christmas movie video would be a fun one to watch

@2nd3rd1st

21w↑2

27:20 This paragraph reads to me that if you are a well known (and presumedly successful and well off) actor who is easily recognisable in an A.I. performance, you are getting paid. But if you are an unknown actor and your performance cannot be easily recognised, you will not get paid. Does that seem fair?

@kmn2222

21w↑1

lawyer talk makes me laugh so much because it is so obvious they only use it just to confuse people who aren't lawyers

@rayanvij3457

21w

It makes no sense as people just go to their lawyer for a translation

@ianlexington

21w

A point for clarification. Has there already been AI actors, in the form of CGI background characters? As those have been widespread since the early 2000's. Are AI actors in someway different? Genuinely asking for clarification.

@matthewrichards4078

21w↑2

22:50 Those are what lawmakers/lawyers call- pork and earmarks. They are intentionally vague, wordy, meant to confuse the reader. They talk the paragraph in circles, and each paragraph contains parts that when put together spell a workaround to get under/over/around the agreement/major part of said deal. AKA stuff that almost ruined rock/metal/folk bands, stars, child actors, tv, rivals of various products etc.

@devrandvar

21w↑4

It is obvious that the studios are intending to replace all of at least most actors with AI at some point once the tech gets good enough. I expect that we will be seeing wide-spread use of synthetic actors within the next 5 years. I really doubt that there is anything the SAG-AFTRA can do to stop that, the studios will never willingly give up the chance to have synthetic actors that they do not have to pay. The only thing that might hinder that would be some form of legislative action from the government, but even then they would have to outright ban the showing of movies using synthetic actors or they would just create the movies in another country.

@DrVVVinK

21w

Or if people would give a two shots to pay to watch it. Or if audience would rather spend their free time getting their entertainment from YouTubers like Dan and others, hence human created.

I know besides Better Call Saul, which just ended about a year ago, I haven't seen any movie or TV show, because nothing had interested me. I watch YouTube, or older programs 10+ years old as I find them more entertaining. An all AI movie. Sorry no thanks. I can think of better ways to spend my time and money.

@TheDilettante

21w↑1

I think that long legalese is saying that an actor will not get paid more for a digital replica if the replica's work + the actors work falls within the amount of work in the contract. E.g. I contract for 3 days of shooting. I perform 1 and they create a digital replica that does 2 days worth of "shooting", then I am not entitled to additional pay.

@andystein8220

21w↑3

@mariogonzalez2999

21w↑1

I think the problem is when you have actors charging 20millions or more for a movie that’s is basically the costs of a full movie in many countries is crazy. Making $150 millions movies is not sustainable anymore and something have to give up!

@DanMurrellMovies

21w↑1

The number of actors getting paid that kind of money is a fraction of a percent of the actors in the union.

@user-ud2po2zz8p

21w↑1

What the clause you asked about means is if an actor was paid to do x hours of work on series and a digital replica is used, then the producer does not need her or his permission if the producer thinks the total screen time associated with the actor could have been filmed in x hours. The statement you showed did not describe any means of calculating hypothetical work hours. An example, from a movie, of a replica being used after the actor did work that was not used is Nicholas Cage in the Flash. There also seems to be no provision for if the actor did something with what she or he thought was an important message, and censor replacing the performance with something containing an antitheical message, but using the actors likeness

@davediaz1742

21w↑1

Can’t wait for this to be made into a film. Who’s gonna play who??

@SplatterInker

21w

I think that mystery paragraph is trying to say you can't be paid for work your digital replica does. You get paid for consent and image, not for how many days work the replica does.

@aharris0484

21w

Kris carr on campea said she asked, what happens if I reject to be scanned. She was told then the studio can replace them. That's a red flag. If they're smart, decline the deal.

@Dr_Madonna

21w

Thanks Dan! Great video!!!

@shadebug

21w

So let’s say you were employed for up to six days work and you do three days work. If your digital replica then does an equivalent of three more days work you don’t get paid for it because it’s within whatever you were originally contracted for

@jackdoyle2954

21w

Hey Dan, fellow FSU grad here. Any thoughts on FSU being left out of the CFP despite the undefeated season?

@DanMurrellMovies

21w

Infuriating. It undermines the entire playoff system.

@34Nor

21w↑4

If this passes with the AI segment staying the way it is, The AMPTP will pour as much resources they can to advancing synthetic actor technology and swaying public opinion. 2 years is a long time for them to prepare in the tech space. I don’t think it will happen, but if they are going to get a shot at pausing this, it’s now.

@jeffnicholas6342

20w

The words “would have performed” is the weird part of the phrasing.
It’s presumptuous to know an actor’s decisions on the day.
However, if one applies the ‘Performance Capture’ clause, perhaps that artificial ‘performance’ would at least be restricted and subject to the actor’s consent..?
I’m not a lawyer, but that contract language may work in tandem

@AnnAnonyme

21w↑2

I held off of reading too many news articles about the SAG-AFTRA strike, because I knew you would do a better job of explaining the details. Thanks!

@matthewrichards4078

21w

28:31 All the minute marks earlier spell a workaround here also. See how earlier minute marks spell the over/under/arounds? kind of like a cheat sheet or cipher as it were.

@GA-1st

21w

Well, the current "stars" are protected - at least for as long as the studios continue to believe they have special drawing power. But, of course, the reality that's becoming less and less the case. One thing's clear: background actors are screwed.

@larrydavis7689

21w↑1

Good to have you back hope you’re good

@mitchellb4551

21w↑1

he was just on his Honeymoon so he's doing great would be my guess

@aloysiusmaina2625

21w

Lovely use of the expression 'sticky wicket' 😂.

@NeoDaOne

21w

SAG played themselves if they sign this deal. A whole bunch of mumbo jumbo is on full display with this contract terms. Left vague on purpose for studios to create their own loophole to exploit. SAG must have terrible lawyers or none on their end when making these negotiations. AI use should not be compromised PERIOD. Give these greedy studios an inch, they will take a continent.

@fredcordery9725

21w

AI should never replace human jobs. Not writing, not acting!

@freddyfeliciano4468

21w↑2

Thanks Dan for really explaining the ins and outs of this SAG deal. In one hand, I can understand how the SAG negotiators wanted to settle this before they lost their leverage with the new TV season. On the other hand, the deal has a lot of questionable things that should have been fought harder for the contract to not include. It's a completely complex situation but I would not blame the union members at SAG if they turn it down.

Thanks for putting it all in perspective for us Dan.

@kennyhudson9201

21w↑1

The off site hair and makeup is just a way for the actors to get their friends and cronies a paying gig.

@jamesgoldin7063

21w↑1

Thank you for this.

@zunaidparker

21w↑2

This looks like a job for @LegalEagle. Someone call Devon stat!

@SecondTake123

21w

I think the actors gave in too easily with these "digital replicas"...

@matthewrichards4078

21w↑1

26:30 the exemptions of the 18, 21, and 23 minute marks get around THIS specifically on those long winded lists.

@Lesbean_Burrito

21w

An interesting discussion as always, Dan!

I think it's always worth remembering that studios will attempt loopholes REGARDLESS of wording. It has to be frustrating to "negotiate" with people that clearly don't respect their workers.

@torchwood00

21w↑1

1985 Cocoon Is Gone Forever This Is One of the reasons physical media still matters

@Tigiri

21w↑1

Dan, try a collaboration with Legal Eagle, Devin for sure knows this mambo jambo.

@asan1050

21w↑1

Thank you for posting.

@AnthonyAPerez

21w↑3

Dan, I aspire to be as thorough as you are.

@donjindra

21w↑1

My wife voted against it. But I doubt it matters what the members vote. The leadership will approve the contract regardless.

@godspeedrebirth

21w↑1

Welcome back Dan!

@zenquantum1246

21w↑2

The agreement sounded good initially, but the more I hear about the details, the less I think that SAG-AFTRA should agree to the AI provisions

@mcbean1

21w↑1

I find it hard to see what other option they have, ai is inevitable and if you are an actor that feels threatened, maybe look for a change of career.

@zenquantum1246

21w↑1

@@mcbean1 yes, AI is here to stay. Using vague legal language to use AI to screw over the independent contractors who work for the studios is a choice by the studios. Nobody needs to lie down in front of the bus someone else is trying to throw them under

@mcbean1

21w

@@zenquantum1246 well tbf, strict legal language can be just as problematic. if the contract says you can't do 'X', then legally I can do 'X.1' without issue, But if the contract says I can't do stuff like X, then there is a legal grey area that more often than not would mean I would avoid doing X.1 because I could be in breach of the contract. Some level of vagueness can be useful

@zenquantum1246

21w

@@mcbean1 maybe I should have described the language as “arcane”. Either way, SAG-AFTRA has enough dissenters feeling (justifiably, IMHO) exposed by the deal that it is in jeopardy of falling apart over the AI portion.

I spent time arguing with an actor friend that they should take the deal because both sides had compromised. However, now I can see that there are loopholes that even a non-legal mind like me could find ways to drive an 18-wheeler through. Studios might learn that they can’t make movies with just virtual performers in time, but they’re sure as hell going to try it first. Just like Wal-Mart thought self-check-out would be great and are now going back to cashiers.

In the meantime, workers (in this case, actors) get knocked around like ping-pong balls while the C-Suite crews make up their minds

1 More Replies...

@danzmachinz2269

21w↑3

Tom hanks should consent for his likeness for Polar Express Remastered..

@Alo4321

21w

Didn't Fran say it was the best deal??? .. anyway, it would be hard for any actor who isn't rich to vote against it. They need money.

@rsrocha1984

21w↑3

The clause in the 18 minute is not that complicated. It just mean that an replica can be only be use without compesation if the replica does the same amount of work that the actor/actress did. So, if the actor worked for a day, his replica can do in the movie the equivalent of a one day of shooting without compensation. It puts a cap on how much studios can use a digital replica without paying the actor. They cannot just call an actor to shoot for on day and finish the movie with a digital replica, not without paying the actor the equivalent he would have receive for the work his replica did, minus 1 (but to be honest, I am a lawyer so it may be simpler to me, because im use to this kind of language)

Load More Comments...

More Comments

just now