THE STRIKES involving Hollywood actors and writers entail many distinct issues, but one of the most controversial concerns the rights to artificial intelligence (AI) likenesses by individual human beings. The studios are requesting the right to offer contracts that allow them to scan the bodies, voices, and other features of individual actors, including extras, and then hold the rights to the AI likenesses in perpetuity. The actors are upset for good reason.
First, think through how this market will work. Most actors don’t become famous, and so their likenesses end up being worth nothing. That means studios can’t afford to offer any more than a small sum for the likeness rights on such a large number of initial acting contracts. It also means that if the studios get their way, potential stars end up significantly underpaid for selling their likenesses before they have become famous.
Imagine being Harrison Ford and working as an extra early in your career. You — if I may time splice just a bit — could have lost the rights to your AI likeness forever. As technology evolves, future AI likenesses could be incorporated into new Raiders of the Lost Ark and Star Wars movies, whether the human Harrison Ford approved or not.
I find this unfair, but what is a better solution? I suggest that the eventual strike settlement forbid studios from buying the rights to AI likenesses for more than a single film or project. Or, as a compromise, the contract could be for some limited number of projects, but not in perpetuity. Actors thus would remain in long-run control of their AI likenesses, yet if they wanted to keep selling those likenesses — project by project — they could do so.
Note that this proposal is along some dimensions quite inegalitarian. That is, future stars would end up much richer and the large numbers of actors who fail would end up slightly poorer. They would not be paid small upfront sums for rights that would quickly become worthless.
We can feel better about that trade-off if we consider the interests of the fans. Many people (myself included) enjoy the image and thought of Han Solo (one of Ford’s most famous roles), whether or not they are paying money in a given year to see the Star Wars movies. Would those fans prefer that Ford or some movie studio be in control of the Han Solo image?
The answer may depend on the wisdom and aesthetic taste of the actor in question, but overall I would opt for actor control of the AI likenesses. At least some actors will care about the quality of the projects their likenesses are attached to, rather than just seeking to maximize profit from deploying the likenesses. So, if the question is whether an AI likeness of Han Solo can greet visitors at the entrance to a Disney ride, Disney might say yes but Ford might say no, or at least he would have that choice.
Having celebrity images remain scarce rather than overexposed is a good aesthetic decision, even if it keeps some market power in the hands of Ford, his eventual heirs and future movie stars more generally. With these additional restraints on AI likenesses, we will likely end up with a more exciting, less tired, and less overexposed kind of celebrity culture, and I hope that leads to broader social benefits, if only by cultivating better taste among fans and viewers.
Such a proposal is not so unusual when viewed in a broader context. Standard labor contracts don’t allow you to sell your labor to your boss in perpetuity, as you always retain the right to quit. Few people consider that limitation on contracting objectionable, as it protects human liberty against some hasty or ill-conceived decisions, such as selling yourself into slavery. If your AI likeness ends up being such a good substitute for your physical being, as it seems our current technological track may bring, why should we not consider similar restrictions on the contracts for the AI likeness?
My proposal is not without problems. For instance, if a studio finds it difficult to buy the AI likenesses of stars, it may build composite AI animations not traceable to any single star and market those likenesses into star candidacy. It could be that all stars (and our culture) end up worse off as a result. Or what if the studios approach non-unionized YouTube performers and seek to make them bigger stars and thereby capture their AI likenesses in perpetuity, again putting the actors at a disadvantage?
A new world of AI is arriving rapidly, and I doubt if we can arrange all of our affairs so that bargaining power falls out exactly as we might want. Nonetheless, on this issue I will be happy if the strike awards victory to the actors.
BLOOMBERG OPINION