For some professionals, this transferability can lead to people losing control of their “personality” as companies take full ownership of their identities instead of just licensed use. for a specific purpose. In fact, the original calling for these types of transferability was made in the 1950s by studio attorneys who wanted control over the films the actors appeared in and the products they endorsed. “One could (potentially) make more money for such a total transfer, but the cost seems unimaginably great to people and society,” says Rothman.
Student athletes, for example, risk agents, regulators, corporations, or even the NCAA conceal their identities in hopes of deducting any future profits should they perceive major league success. Actors, athletes and average citizens, Rothman arguesrisk losing control of their “own name, breed, and voice over creditors, ex-spouses, record producers, managers, and even Facebook.”
Many actors will not be affected, simply because their identities will not be valid. But it’s also true that celebrities like Kim Kardashian and Tom Cruise have a bargaining power that others don’t: They can optimistically agree that the use of their image doesn’t go beyond any show. specific show or movie. Meanwhile, smaller actors face the possibility of wholesale rights contracts. “There is a real risk that actors are new (i.e. just starting and hungry for groundbreaking work) at Queen Mary, University of London,” said Johanna Gibson, a professor of intellectual property law. . “This power imbalance can be exploited by studios that want to commercialize images and characters and indeed to avoid smearing (depending on the nature of that commercialization), as the actors will no longer have control over how their image is used.”
This can put actors in the position of missing work or signing a contract that will later allow them to dig deeper into content they find degrading without the need for legislation. In the movie franchise model, Gibson argues, the risk is even greater.
SAG-AFTRA disagrees, explaining that rational minds will always differ, even when working towards the same stated goal. Van Lier said: “While some prominent commentators have expressed concern that transferable publicity rights may lead to involuntary assignment or forced commercialization, there is little basis for believe that this fear will materialize,” Van Lier said. “To the best of our knowledge, there is no instance where a right has been transferred involuntarily during the lifetime of any person or by any person being forced to exploit that right. The most notable effort involved OJ Simpson and the court explicitly refused to pass it on to his victim’s family”.
Eventually, AIs trained in Bruce Willis likeness won’t need Bruce Willis anymore. “If a company can train its AI algorithms to copy a particular agent’s style, timing, tone, etc., then that would make content AI-driven,” says Van Lier. creating more and more life-like,” says Van Lier. “This could have long-term implications.” In other words, actors — and everyone else — must learn to protect their digital rights, or they may find themselves performing a role they weren’t expecting.
