#look I'm a director I get it

[thelaurenshippen]

I'm back with some additional info/context that I thought might be interesting to people.

I've been looking around at a bunch of different perspectives in the hopes of better understanding of peoples' concerns and the positives of the deal. this twitter thread from NegComm member Jason Winston George was very interesting to me, especially the following:

this is one of those "we've got to be pragmatic" points that I do think are worth consideration. the whole thread makes an argument for why voting no would be short-sighted - this is the best deal we're likely to get (probably true), we can't stop the advancement of technology so we need to work with it (definitely true), and we cannot let an entire season of network tv get canceled (true and it would be disastrous for the industry in ways I'm sure I don't even understand). so I do believe the folks in the union who are making the argument that we are losing the strength of our bargaining power - I'm sure the AMPTP sees it that way. this deal has a lot of problems but there is the real possibility that if we vote no, the contract we'll ultimately end up with will be worse or the same, and we'll have lost out on months of work not just for actors, but for everyone in the industry.

however, other things are ratcheting up my personal concern. Variety spoke to some of the members of the board that voted "no" and the whole article is worth a read. it makes some of the same points - that if we voted no, that doesn't mean we go back on strike, and it doesn't guarantee any of these points remain on the table. imho, if we did vote no, the AMPTP wouldn't come back to the table until january at the earliest - not only would they most likely be little whiny babies about having to do their goddamn jobs (I have no love for them lol), but nothing substantial really gets done in Hollywood from Thanksgiving to January. we'd most likely be looking at Jan/Feb/March for a new deal that says who knows what and, in the meantime, I'm not sure if we'd be on strike or if folks would continue to work under our last contract which has no protections for things like digital replicas. there's a real, legitimate argument to be made for voting yes simply to stay alive. not to mention, apparently SAG is going to be pursuing some state and national political moves to help shape public policy around this.

BUT!

in that same article, Variety quotes Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, the executive director of SAG, and in a Zoom with members earlier this week, this happened:

Crabtree-Ireland fielded numerous AI questions from union members. He was asked if actors could be required to give an AI consent as a condition of employment. “Yes, they can ask you for that,” he said. “If you can’t reach agreement on that, then yes, they can go and hire somebody else instead of you.”

yeah, so. uh. that's not consent. this is exactly what I was concerned about (click the read more above, though at this point, my concern here would move from "hm" to "bad") - as every decent person alive understands, coerced consent is not consent. holding someone's employment hostage until they agree to your weird thing is coercive. I can't believe I even have to say this stuff.

"but lauren", you say, "employment is always conditional on someone agreeing to a contract that they have the right to negotiate, how is that coercive?" you're right random internet stranger, except we all understand the difference between "I'm signing a contract that says I'm going to provide the service I'm being hired to perform and I'm agreeing that the company I'm signing with will own that performance I give forever" and "I'm signing a contract for that service and also they'll only let me do that if they can read my diary because the director likes to read actor's diaries to better understand them and when I give over my diary, the company can do whatever they want with it".

like....that's weird, we all agree that's weird. handing over your diary is not necessary for you to perform your job as an actor. giving a mega-conglomerate your digital likeness is not necessary for you to perform your job as an actor.

let me be perfectly clear on that last point: digital replicas, synthetic performers, and digital alteration have nothing to do with the art or profession of acting.

to expand upon this point - I was explaining all the terms to my partner the other night because it helps me to understand them better, and I was getting really worked up about the synthetic performer stuff (read about that above). and when my partner pressed me on it, I admitted that I didn't actually think that synthetic performers were going to replace actors - maybe the technology will one day be good enough, but it isn't now, and ultimately, people do not fucking want to watch made up computer people replace actors. I don't know that I believe in my heart of hearts that whole cloth AI performers are a true threat.

so why was I getting so hot headed about it? well, because it's in this contract at all. we're still waiting on the full contract language, but my understanding is that, basically, SAG (a union for actors) is saying "hey studios, please tell us if you're using a totally AI generated object in place of a human actor so we can talk about it, k thx".

I'd rather we didn't say anything at all. a) the studios are not going to fucking do this lol if they want to replace human actors they just will and b) WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT AI OBJECTS AT ALL. is the idea of a studio replacing us with pixels scary? yes. does this meaningfully do anything to prevent that? fuck no.

what it does say to me - what all the digital alteration stuff says too - is that AI objects and actors are essentially the same. oh sure, the first part of the generative AI section is "Parties acknowledge the importance of human performance in motion pictures and the potential impact on employment", but those words are not legally binding in literally any way and also...I don't think we are acknowledging that. I think, instead, by acknowledging that AI human-looking objects exist, by acknowledging that someone's physical movements could be digitally altered without their consent, by acknowledging that someone could have their digital replica film a whole scene without the actor present, we're saying that acting isn't a meaningful craft at all. I don't care if those actors are getting paid for the work of their digital replica, acting is not an art that can be automated.

I don't know. I'm still undecided. I see the practical reasons to vote yes. and I agree that this technology is going to move forward whether we like it or not and we do need protections for actors who can't afford to sue every time their likeness is used without their consent. but it bums me out that the SAG-AFTRA - the union for actors, the actor's union, the union made by and for people who perform acting jobs - is seemingly siding with the "actors are meat puppets" part of Hollywood.

finally taking the time to read through the SAG agreement summary and oof, I hope they have an AI town hall soon because...well, there are things to discuss!

so, in case folks are curious, here are my immediate takeaways from the deal as a SAG actor, a SAG producer, and person who is not any kind of expert but spends a lot of time being skeptical of contracts I sign. this is a summation/commentary, not a holistic breakdown of every point, nor even an in-depth discussion of the points I do talk about. and it is, of course, in no way legal advice or voting advice.

this post is already maybe the longest post I've ever written on tumblr (lol) and I feel like I've barely scratched the surface. to be clear, nothing I'm saying here represents how I'm going to vote, how I think other actors should vote, or my be-all-end-all stance on a particular issue. this is me reading through, flagging what concerns me, and asking myself questions. and I'm here to take your questions too! though of course my expertise is limited.

(what?? something I wrote got annoying long?? in my tumblr? it's more likely, etc. huge write-up after the cut)

the good

self-tape stuff: this is one of the more niche/the thing that the general public will find least interesting, but they've put in a lot of provisions to make sure self-tape auditions have limits (# of pages, no stunts, no nudity, doesn't have to be professionally shot, etc.) which is amazing because these types of auditions have gotten out of control since the pandemic. this feels like a great gain

data transparency: in no world did I think the streamers were ever going to agree to any data sharing with either the wga or sag so even though the data is limited, this still feels huge to me.

folks who sing and dance will be paid for both of those things now, which is great

they've added MLK day and Juneteenth as holidays (about time)

a performer cannot be required to translate their own lines

principal performers are required to be given hair and makeup consultation or reimbursed for obtaining their own services - this seems like a small thing, but it's being put in here pretty much entirely because HMU services have generally been appalling when it comes to textured hair/a variety of skin tones. there's also stuff in here about working to hire more diverse HMU artists

it looks like it's going to be easier/provide a path for folks getting IMDb credits even if they're not credited on screen

miscellany: there's a bunch of gains in wage increases, P&H increases, relocation fees, franchise language etc. that all seem good to me, though my limited knowledge on those subjects prevents me from going in depth on them.

this is not important, but it tickled me, there's a term to replace all instances of "telegraph" in the contract with "email & text" which like...why has it taken us thirty years to do that lol.

the "...hm..."

intimacy coordinators: oof. when I watched the press conference SAG gave, I was fucking thrilled when they said that the new agreement required folks to hire intimacy coordinators for nudity and simulated sex scenes. that was almost reason enough for me to vote for it tbh - not requiring it is the exact reason I voted no on our last contract. however, reading the contract summary now, the exact language is: "Producer must use best efforts to engage an Intimacy Coordinator for scenes involving nudity or simulated sex and will consider in good faith any request by a performer to engage an Intimacy Coordinator for other scenes. Producer shall not retaliate against a performer for requesting an Intimacy Coordinator." this....sucks. "best efforts" and "good faith" are not the same as "required". IMO, an intimacy coordinator is the same thing as having a stunt coordinator or, like, any number of health and safety requirements. OSHA doesn't say you must "in good faith" put your "best effort" to providing fire exits. it's great that performers can request coordinators for any kind of scene, and this is still the strongest language we've ever had in a contract but....c'mon guys.

residuals: look, I can't speak to these new terms in any concrete way. there are increases, there are bonuses for streaming success, there's a whole thing about a fund regarding those successes that I need explained to me more in depth, but overall, it looks like we made some in-roads here. as someone who employs actors under digital distribution contracts that has no residuals (podcasts), I know how genuinely cumbersome the unholy trifecta of "views-success-profit" can be (as in views do not equal success, success does not equal profit, etc.). I also have no sympathy when the majority of companies dealing with that cumbersome trifecta are massive media conglomerates. anyway, long story short, idk if this is good enough, I'm hoping to attend the next info meeting sag has.

the bad

the new hair/makeup provisions are explicitly for principal actors. while I hope it leads to better, more inclusive HMU services all around I haaaate that this implies supporting or background actors (who oftentimes also have to sit in HMU) don't deserve the consideration. (then again, background actors are usually required to do their own HMU/bring their own costumes, but for productions where that's not the case, the same HMU provisions should apply IMO)

as with every contract, there's language that could be stronger, clarity that needs to exist, and important things missing - but this isn't the final contract and I'm not a lawyer, so I'm gonna leave that stuff to the experts.

but, "lauren", you say, "what about all the AI stuff? where does that go?" well, reader, I was planning on including that in the above but it's the hot-button issue right now and I think it's wickedly complicated, so I wanted to break it down separately, after I had a chance to point out all the good-bad-in-between stuff that's not getting talked about.

a note: in my career, I've learned there's two big things to keep in mind when reading a contract you might sign:

what is the worst case interpretation of this language (thank you to my lawyer, prince among men, for teaching me how to do this in practice (that said, anything I say here is not legal advice, he'd also want me to say that lol))

what are you willing to lose/compromise on/what are the limits of your pragmatism? contracts are not about a company giving you everything you want out of the goodness of their heart - it is always a compromise. pragmatism has to be a part of the equation.

so, with that said, I'm going to play a little devil's advocate here, and a) try to find the good/the pragmatic and b) catastrophize the worst case scenario. but first, it might be handy to look at this SAG infographic for some basic definitions. let's go.

the AI good

a ton of stuff here requires consent. that is not a small thing, and the consent continues even after your death (whether it was a yes or no; though this can be complicated by your estate/your union)

the language does establish that the consent must be a separate signing from the employment contract, even if its in the contract, which is great (but more on that below - timing matters)

actors often do get paid for use of their digital replicas, though it's different based on the use/type of replica.

the actor must be provided with a "reasonably specific description of the intended use". this language is vaguer than I would like, because it allows producers to decide what "reasonably specific" and "intended" means - there's always going to be some vagueness when it comes to this specific thing, but a good start would be for producers to require not blanket consent, but conditional consent for each significant use of digital replicas.

if the replicas are being used in other mediums, that must also be consented to, thank god.

replicas cannot be used in place of background actor counts on a given day - if I'm understanding this correctly, this means a production can't just have a bunch of fake background actors by themselves, they have to engage real people up to a certain number first (which in this new contract is 25 for TV and 85 for movies). we're already filling in background with digital people or copy-pasting of the same crowd over and over and have been doing so since at least the late 90s, so it's good we're continuing to put up boundaries around that.

the AI "...hm..."

it's unclear (to me) when an actor can be asked to consent. IMO, everything is meaningless if the consent is happening as part of regular contract negotiations. these things have to happen when - and only when - the actor has already been engaged in a role and feels empowered to say no

the use of independently created replicas (replicas pulled from existing footage, not created by the actor) being allowed without consent under first amendment reasoning - this is obviously concerning a lot of people bc first amendment arguments are so broad. that said, there's a pragmatism part of me that understands this is already happening/has been happening for a while and used in ways I think are perfectly fine - I was just watching the new episode of For All Mankind (one of the best TV shows right now!) and it's an alternate history, which meant that in the opening scenes of this season they had some bonkers good deep fakes of Al Gore saying stuff he never said. I think that's okay to do in a fiction show that imagines a different US history! "but Lauren", you might be saying, "Al Gore isn't a member of SAG!" are you sure? are you positive? because I'm pretty certain he is - he was in several episodes of 30 Rock, way more people are in SAG than you think (every NPR reporter for instance), and the two worst presidents we've had in the last 50 years (yes, those ones), are both definitely members of SAG (even if one is dead). now, the other side of this is that public figures like politicians are under a different social contract than actors, and if they wanted to sue, they could, unlike the average SAG actor who might have their image abused. this is why this is in the "hm" column - deep fakes and parody/satire/commentary use of replicas is already here and there's always going to be a 1st amendment argument to make, so we need to figure out how best to limit those and protect the most vulnerable.

alteration: with this language, a project can digitally alter without consent if the script and performance stays "substantially" the same. again, this language is too mealy-mouthed. I don't know that I have a huge problem with a line of dialogue getting replaced with a digital version of that actors voice if, for instance, a word was mispronounced, or wind garbled the sound or whatever - yes, it would eliminate the need for ADR, but if we put some limit on it like..."if there are more than 5 lines in a given episode/movie that require digital alteration in the service of clarity, the actor must be engaged for an ADR session or paid for the digital replacement" then I could see this being workable. I'm also personally okay with things like costumes being digitally altered but, again, we need limitations on that. digital altering cannot replace the art of costuming but, for instance, if a costume needs to be altered to include a hate symbol or something, I think that's fine (example: I have friends who worked at the VFX house for an alternate history TV show that involved a lot of Nazi costuming and set design - a huge part of that VFX house's job was to put swastikas in places, rather than props making nazi flags. I'm okay with that!) but again, these fringe cases do not a compelling arugment make, and this contract language can be interpreted too broadly for my comfort! like everything else in this "hm" category, I need to see the final contract language to decide.

the AI bad

there's a bunch of circumstances in which actors don't get paid for creating their replica/use of it and those circumstances are too broad for my taste.

synthetic performers - this is just awful. no. no, we should not be allowing AI to generate entire actors. just............no. there's some language about the producers having to talk to the union if the synthetic performer is "used in place of a performer who would have been engaged under this Agreement in a human role" but this doesn't apply to non-human characters so....wouldn't that be all roles?? leaving the producers room to be like "this role has to be synthetic, we never would've cast a human!" is bullshit. also, even if we're having AI create a magical talking unicorn whole cloth (which, like, also no, we have artists for this), that unicorn still needs to be voiced by a human person. this whole section is a disaster.

the exceptions to consent for digital alteration are bad-bad. I talked about the potential ADR replacement above and that has a whole host of issues with it that I didn't even get into, but I can see the argument. the rest are very troubling:

there is an exception under "any circumstance when dubbing or use of a double is permitted under the Codified Basic Agreement or Television Agreement" - okay, so does this mean we can replace dubbing artists and stunt performers entirely? this section is about digital alteration, but who's to say alteration couldn't turn an actor broadly miming a fight into an entirely digital, expertly performed fight that usually a stunt double would have done? with AI translation technology, does this mean we're replacing VO artists for dubs entirely? bad!

similarly, "Adjusting lip and/or other facial or body movement and/or the voice of the performer to a foreign language, or for purposes of changes to dialogue or photography necessary for license or sale to a particular market" - Justine Bateman has a great twitter thread on the terrible puppetry potential of this but I want to draw attention to the particular market bit - we all know that selling to china is such a huge part of studios' strategies that they'll remove entire scenes or lines around queer stuff. to me, this clause makes all of that so much easier. I know the argument here is going to be "we can replace swear words and license it for kids!" which.......sure? fine? but, uh, we already have ways to deal with that? and the potential for abuse here is terrifying to me. with all the digital alteration stuff too, there's just so much icky implication for the beauty/body standard to get so much worse.

if a background actor’s digital replica is used in the role of a principal performer, they'll be paid as if they actually performed the days for that role, which, sure, but uhhhh why are we saying it's okay for a digital replica of a background actor to suddenly be a leading role!?!?! I can't think of anything more demoralizing than going to set to act in background (a job I've done! an important job! a fun job a lot of the time! but creatively limited) and then getting a much bigger role (the dream!) and.....not being able to, you know, act that role or be in scenes with other principal actors or do the thing that you've dedicated your life to doing. nightmare stuff.

woof. there's so much more to say but I'm going to leave it there. these are the concerns I'm going to go into SAG's meetings with, and the concerns I'll be considering as I decide how to vote. I know there are things I didn't address and very possibly things I misinterpreted or misrepresented - if you're an actor, I highly recommend a) reading that Justine Bateman thread and b) attending SAG's meetings to ask questions and express your concerns. and I'd love to hear what y'all think! my ask box is open.

[edorazzi]

distributing a vital PSA to the Miraculous community!!! 💖

[deoidesign]

Been thinking about her recently.

[sapphire-weapon]

update: i am Unwell

[kaerinio]

it's monday. why tf am i sitting here having to professionally pop off at someone???

[forcebookish]

i need everyone who thinks that forcebook look alike to write me an essay down to every miniscule detail of what they think is similar about their faces because i can only think of two (eyebrows and the cheek mole, even though book's isn't as prominent and usually covered up by makeup) and that is hardly enough to say they look like TWINS. EVERY OTHER FEATURE IS TOTALLY OPPOSITE. I WANT IT ON MY DESK

[fiepige]

I know it's irrational but still!

[whipped-for-fictionals]

going to be singing in our school's talent showcase tomorrow!! i'm so so excited, i chose the best song to sing as my final tribute to the school

[team-118]

yapping below proceed with caution. it's relevant though I promise

[kingroan]

being a fan of ana de armas is hard because i feel like 60% of her fanbase is actually creepy weird dudes who 'like' her in the way they also 'like' sydney sweeney and the way their fathers before them 'liked' marilyn monroe

[cerealbishh]

"We're in the exact same place we were before..."

"We are in such a different place. We're communicating, we're- we're listening to each other... We're gonna figure it out, together."

[amelikos]

Explorers backstory.. soon.

[charmre]

When your groups either won't get back to you about meeting times or haven't decided on a direction to go in so you can't make work for it...and the projects are due on Monday...

[ginkovskij]

gin, we need your critical opinion about megalopolis. was it really that bad?

i mean.

is it unwatchable? no. but also it is not good for sure. would love for it to be a case of "so bad it circles back being somehow good", but unfortunately no, becasue in order to achieve such a thing coppola should have gone camp and embraced the style instead of taking himself too seriously.

there are. ideas. that considered by themselves sort of make sense if you are desperate to find sense in this insanity of a movie, but whether within or without context for the large part they remain disjointed. and are anyway very cringe at core. i don't know how to put it kindly but the script just sucks. and choices were made.

[supercantaloupe]

yooo i got another gig opportunity in december

[takecarelove]

i'm not texting and driving! i'm emailing and taking pictures of the sky and driving