this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2024

307 points (99.0% liked)

Movies

7429 readers

282 users here now

Welcome to Movies, a community for discussing movies, film news, box office, and more! We want this to be a place for members to feel safe to discuss and share everything they love about movies and movie related things. Please feel free to take part and help our community grow!

Related Communities:

!books@lemmy.world - Discussing books and book-related things.

!comicbooks@lemmy.world - A place to discuss comic books of all types.

!marvelstudios@lemmy.world - LW's home for all things MCU.

While posting and commenting in this community, you must abide by the Lemmy.World Terms of Service: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, or advocating violence will be removed.
Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally insult others.
Spam, self promotion, trolling, and bots are not allowed
Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem.

Regarding spoilers; Please put "(Spoilers)" in the title of your post if you anticipate spoilers, as we do not currently have a spoiler tag available. If your post contains an image that could be considered a spoiler, please mark the thread as NSFW so the image gets blurred. As far as how long to wait until the post is no longer a spoiler, please just use your best judgement. Everyone has a different idea on this, so we don't want to make any hard limits.

Please use spoiler tags whenever commenting a spoiler in a non-spoiler thread. Most of the Lemmy clients don't support this but we want to get into the habit as clients will be supporting in the future.

Failure to follow these guidelines will result in your post/comment being removed and/or more severe actions. All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. We ask that the users report any comment or post that violates the rules, and to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

307

Robert Downey Jr. Bans Hollywood From Creating Digital Replica: I Will Sue (variety.com)

submitted 1 week ago by GreenEngineering3475@lemmy.world to c/movies@lemmy.world

46 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Robert Downey Jr. plans to sue any Hollywood executive who signs off on the creation of his digital replica.

all 47 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] mojolobo@lemmy.jrvs.cc 99 points 1 week ago (1 children)

“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.”

👏🏼👏🏼

[–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 13 points 1 week ago

Dude just said what rub me the wrong way these AI mumbo jumbo techbro do, that i myself can't really quite get why.

[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 70 points 1 week ago (3 children)

“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?

[–] metaStatic@kbin.earth 39 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I dunno, lets ask Prince ...

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 16 points 1 week ago

Holy shit, that's some really harsh collateral damage

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 11 points 1 week ago

Get to haunting some motherfuckers

[–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Spouse will sue

[–] affiliate@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

what if spouse is also dead

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Someone with an interest in a payout will sue.

[–] affiliate@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

what if all those people are dead too

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

At that point, the likeness would likely have entered public domain anyway.

[–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What if the public is dead?

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Then we will be at piece

[–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Kids will sue

[–] CluckN@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

What if the kids had a Disney+ subscription?

[–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 6 points 1 week ago

Kill the kids.

Wait.

[–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Unfortunately, RDJ probably already agreed to an AI likeness in his own Disney+ subscription.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 50 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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]

[–] Shiggles@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

How’d that work out for Johansson?

[–] Pips@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well we don't know, the case is ongoing. But it'll probably go in her favor. Judges currently tend to dislike AI.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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).

[–] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Does this mean Elvis impersonators are breaking the law?

[–] Pips@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If they're not in SAG and/or it's not a SAG-covered field, then no.

[–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's definitely a SAG-covered field, especially with later-era Elvises.

[–] Pips@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

I just meant that they're fat.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 30 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.”

[–] sxan@midwest.social 15 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

THIS SUMMER, Bobert Sideney III IS...Metal Fella

It's Bruce Lee/Bruce Li/Bruce Le/Bruce Lai/Dragon Lee all over again.

[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 6 points 1 week ago

He was great in Smooch Smooch Boom Boom.

[–] BroBot9000@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

lol, like that’s going to stop them.

You signed their contracts and they will find a way to own and replicate your likeness.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[–] esc27@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So what keeps someone from running a Robert Downey Jr. lookalike contest, then giving the winner a cash prize in exchange for their likeness?

[–] kyle@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago

That's sorta the definition of a person's likeness to run a lookalike contest

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

He should do it himself and then it's protected by copyright after he's dead.

[–] Souyo@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago

Oh snap RDJ with the ban hammer! I think Hollywood might be worried now /s

[+] aeronmelon@lemmy.world -11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Did he just now realize that he signed away the rights to his digital likeness many years ago?

[–] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 26 points 1 week ago (4 children)

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.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[–] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

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?

[–] cheezoid2@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I’m pretty sure it’s closer to your second paragraph there, also “within the known universe”.

(meaning our universe, not a cinematic universe)

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

did he though? in perpetuity?