- cross-posted to:
- movies@lemm.ee
- cross-posted to:
- movies@lemm.ee
Robert Downey Jr. plans to sue any Hollywood executive who signs off on the creation of his digital replica.
You must log in or register to comment.
The whole big tech ethos is to figure out the intersection of against-the-spirit-of-the-law and within-the-letter-of-the-law, and colonize the fuck out of that spot.
So they’ll probably just create a replica through means that allow them to claim they didn’t use his likeness directly, and call it “Rodert Upney Sr.”
THIS SUMMER, Bobert Sideney III IS…Metal Fella
It’s Bruce Lee/Bruce Li/Bruce Le/Bruce Lai/Dragon Lee all over again.
He was great in Smooch Smooch Boom Boom.
God, this is so painfully true. Microsoft really set the precedent for the industry, often straying over the line into illegality; if Bush hadn’t given directions that resulted in the ruling being overturned, they’d be several smaller companies now, and without their near-monopoly.
Fucking Bush.
“You’ll be dead,” Swisher noted, to which Downey replied: “But my law firm will still be very active.”
You can have a will and an estate, but if your estate fucks you over is there anything anyone can do about it?
I dunno, lets ask Prince …
Holy shit, that’s some really harsh collateral damage
Get to haunting some motherfuckers
Spouse will sue
what if spouse is also dead
Someone with an interest in a payout will sue.
what if all those people are dead too
At that point, the likeness would likely have entered public domain anyway.
What if the public is dead?
Then we will be at piece
Kids will sue
What if the kids had a Disney+ subscription?
Kill the kids.
Wait.
Unfortunately, RDJ probably already agreed to an AI likeness in his own Disney+ subscription.
“I don’t envy anyone who has been over-identified with the advent of this new phase of the information age. The idea that somehow it belongs to them because they have these super huge start-ups is a fallacy,” Downey told Swisher about figures like Altman. “The problem is when these individuals believe that they are the arbiters of managing this but meanwhile are wanting and/or needing to be seen in a favorable light. That is a massive fucking error. It turns me off and makes me not want to engage with them because they are not being truthful.”
👏🏼👏🏼
Dude just said what rub me the wrong way these AI mumbo jumbo techbro do, that i myself can’t really quite get why.
He should do it himself and then it’s protected by copyright after he’s dead.
People, your likeness can’t be used by others commercially without your consent, and this goes back way before AI or even computers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#United_States
For example:
actor Crispin Glover filed a lawsuit against Universal Studios for both the unauthorized use of his likeness and the use of footage of him from Back to the Future in Back to the Future Part II; his permission had not been sought for the latter and he received no payment. After a motion to dismiss was denied, the case was settled for an undisclosed amount. The Screen Actors Guild changed its rules to prohibit its members from unauthorized mimicking of other SAG members.[51][52]
How’d that work out for Johansson?
Well we don’t know, the case is ongoing. But it’ll probably go in her favor. Judges currently tend to dislike AI.
the AI piece is kind of irrelevant. the only relevant parts as far as I understand are how much the “image” directly resembles her, and the laws in the specific state (I believe her state of residence, but could be wrong).
Does this mean Elvis impersonators are breaking the law?
If they’re not in SAG and/or it’s not a SAG-covered field, then no.
It’s definitely a SAG-covered field, especially with later-era Elvises.
Impersonators, assuming you’re talking about the ones on the street, typically fall under parody and are therefore fair use. Some also do pay licensing fees for their portrayals. Just sort of depends on the situation.
I just meant that they’re fat.
Not just Elvis, there are a lot of celebrity impersonators out there. I’m guessing they are legal or traditionally tolerated for some reason. Maybe the fact that it’s in-person vs in a film/tv show/ad/print makes it different.
So what keeps someone from running a Robert Downey Jr. lookalike contest, then giving the winner a cash prize in exchange for their likeness?
That’s sorta the definition of a person’s likeness to run a lookalike contest
Oh snap RDJ with the ban hammer! I think Hollywood might be worried now /s
lol, like that’s going to stop them.
You signed their contracts and they will find a way to own and replicate your likeness.
surely the contracts he signed are for a limited number of appearances, not to use his likeness in perpetuity. this is nothing new in hollywood, contracts have been drawn up considering likenesses for a very long time, AI is not really anything new in that regard.
And this was the day Robert Downey Jr. discovered just how little power he actually held.
how so? suing for unauthorized use of likeness is not unusual.
deleted by creator
Did he just now realize that he signed away the rights to his digital likeness many years ago?
If he did, he likely did that before it was possible to create photorealistic digital clones. Then it’s an interesting question about how US contract law works: are you able to agree on something that is not possible at the time of signing?
Surely, if the contract would contain some explicit clause about that. But if it just said some like “we can do anything we want with the video material”, then it’s probably less clear.
there’s no way this was not accounted for by his agent or whoever negotiated for him. You can’t even use a photograph of an actor in a movie without negotiating an “image and likeness” agreement.
For example, Crispin Glover sued and got a settlement because they used his likeness in BTtF2 and 3 by making George Mcfly’s new actor look like Glover with makeup and prosthetics. CGI and AI don’t change that at all.
Interesting point.
Michael Jackson sold his digital likeness when it was only possible with the most advanced computer imagery hardware. Majel Barrett recorded her voice to be synthesized and then died before it was actually possible to do so convincingly.
I think there’s a lot of cases like this that are too vague and written before the technology was fully understood to clearly indicate legal rights and will have to be renegotiated.
What if it’s always possible and you just don’t know what tech era you’re in because lots of it is kept quiet?
I’m pretty sure it’s closer to your second paragraph there, also “within the known universe”.
(meaning our universe, not a cinematic universe)
did he though? in perpetuity?
