| Duncan Crabtree-Ireland had just returned from the picket lines. The executive director of SAG-AFTRA, the union that represents more than 160,000 actors, was in the middle of a strike against major video-game studios over compensation and the use of artificial intelligence. These were also two of the major sticking points in the guild’s months-long dispute with Hollywood studios last year. Crabtree-Ireland has worked at the union for more than two decades and has witnessed the rise of user-generated content, streaming video and social media. Generative artificial intelligence could be just as significant, if not more so. “AI is still in the early stages of being deployed,” Crabtree-Ireland said. “We are seeing more examples of companies looking to enter into contracts with our members to let them do something in the future than actually deploy right now.”
Yet contrary to what Hollywood’s loudest alarmists say, experts don’t believe AI is going to eliminate most of the jobs in the entertainment business. But it will eliminate some and create others in the production, marketing and distribution of audiovisual content. It may enable an amateur filmmaker to produce video that looks like it costs far more than it did. And it may enable a professional filmmaker to save some money on their latest $200 million project. I use “may” because we don’t know. The biggest challenge with negotiating licensing deals, passing laws and even legal rulings is we don’t know what this technology will look like in five years – to say nothing of 10 or 20. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, which enshrined many of the rules governing the internet today, was passed before Google or Facebook existed. To better understand where things are headed, I spoke with four experts: - Crabtree-Ireland
- Chris Jacquemin, who is spearheading all things AI for the talent agency WME
- Alison Stein, a partner at the law firm Jenner & Block
- Dan Neely, CEO of the AI startup Vermillio.
I conducted the four conversations separately and edited them into what you are about to read. Let’s start with the basics. How is AI already being used in film and TV? Neely: There are five big use cases – I would like this person to speak in a different language, I want to figure out how to de-age this person, I want to create an asset of a character (say, Iron Man) that I can use in the future, I need to create more versions of a character in animation and, lastly, there is actually new video content being created. Those have all happened more than once over the last year. Jacquemin: I’ve noticed increased usage in pitch materials and fleshing out story ideas. That seems pretty common. We’re also seeing it being implemented into production. A good example is in AI-driven visual effects, de-aging in the movie Here. How much do you see use of AI accelerating or changing in the next couple of years? Stein: It has the potential to be one of the most significant shifts in the way people consume and create content. But I don’t think adoption is as rapid as people think. You already see there are a lot of AI startups going under. People are anxious about underlying issues with deepfakes and hallucinations. Neely: Sora blew people’s minds in terms of what is possible. But it didn’t when put it in the hands of directors. It wasn’t direct-able. It’s out of control. It will become something where you can tell it what to do. ‘I need it lit this way. I need this person to smile more.’ Crabtree-Ireland: The most common uses will be where someone is unavailable or unable to perform a certain role but is wanted or needed. Someone like Val Kilmer having their voice replicated to overcome a limitation caused by disability. Someone unavailable due to being deceased or schedule conflicts. There is clearly interest on the part of production insurance companies to have companies create digital scans of key cast members to help ensure that if something happens, like an injury, that production can continue to reduce the financial risk. Jacquemin: There will be novel uses of this technology to do things that have never really been possible. For example, creating an experience where audiences can interact with characters from a film or TV show. What is an example of that? Jacquemin: When I was a kid, I loved Star Wars. I bought all the toys and would play with the toys, and I was doing my own version of storytelling. If I could talk to R2D2 or C3PO and have a real one-on-on engagement? That’s possible with AI. Are people you know more fearful or excited? Neely: A shift took place at about the start of 2024. Sora came out, AI companies were more open to having conversations. Studios want to be on the right side of this. Stein: There was a lot of fear at the beginning, especially about job displacement. Then there was excitement, particularly as tools got more sophisticated. Now it’s back to retrenchment and caution. And that’s because certain things that the world hoped would be dealt with – like hallucinations and deepfakes – are still issues. What are the most important safeguards? Neely: Everyone is focused on outputs. Did you deepfake me? Is Mickey Mouse in this video or not? But it’s about inputs. How are my data and IP used in models? We need a way to protect around that. And who participates? Do just OpenAI and Google generate significant revenue? Or do you get paid for contributing data? Jacquemin: We don’t want to see a repeat of copyright issues like what happened with YouTube. There were some missteps made in how that was handled. It’s hard for some people to understand just how valuable datasets and content and opportunities to license your likeness are right now. There has to be a perpetual royalty structure in place. Crabtree-Ireland: No. 1 is what we call informed consent. A person must officially approve the use of their name or image or likeness. We’ve pushed hard to make sure consent under our contracts requires information. They require specific details of intended use. Hollywood companies largely failed when it came to managing the rise of YouTube. They fought in the courts and lost. They tried to compete and failed. Music companies struggled for a while but now make quite a bit of money from it. How much faith do you have in traditional media companies to do better this time? Stein: I have a lot of faith. The line between traditional media and tech is blurred now. Big tech companies are creating content. Content companies have sophisticated tech investments. Neely: If you look at licensing deals that have happened, they look great on the outside. The problem is they aren’t protecting themselves. They will end up being one-time transactions and they’re give everything away. Stein: I disagree. Who knows what the value will be in five or 10 years? Isn’t that the case with any new technology? Crabtree-Ireland: I am concerned about traditional companies because of their obvious dominance in the industry and the impact that could have on so many peoples’ livelihoods. But I am less concerned they will violate the terms of agreements we’ve negotiated. I am very concerned about what other new tech companies may do. Even when they are not coming from a malicious place, they have a real knowledge gap when it comes to how what they are doing impacts artists. What is the biggest legal question regarding AI and entertainment? Stein: Does the copying of copyrighted content to feed an AI tool constitute copyright infringement? And the second part of the question, which is more interesting and the main question: What if the output is substantially similar to copyrighted content or otherwise competes with the copyrighted content? How do you see that being resolved? Is it legal to train a large language model on copyrighted material without paying for it? Neely: I don’t think so. Is that enshrined in law? Neely: It isn’t. Five to 10 years from now, that will be settled. These AI companies want to be on the right side, not the wrong side. YouTube went through the same path. People want the real thing. They don’t want the janky version of Spider-Man in Times Square. They want the real one. To get that, OpenAI will need to talk to Sony or Disney to make that happen. Are we most likely to resolve this question via negotiation, legislation or litigation? Crabtree-Ireland: The courts will ultimately side with copyright holders that it is not fair use for companies to scrape the internet, take materials without licenses and create commercial AI models. Stein: Not legislation. No one has figured out how to legislate fair use. It will be a combination of litigation and negotiation. The early litigation decisions will influence negotiation. There were a few denials of motions to dismiss this past week in copyright cases. People are paying attention to those decisions. That will cause companies to come to the table on both sides. Will AI make producing entertainment less expensive? Crabtree-Ireland: It has the potential to make it less expensive in certain ways. Some cost reductions are good. And others are not so good. Cost reductions that occur because people’s jobs are eliminated are a real concern. There are a lot of buzzwords about efficiency. Sometimes they mean that and sometimes they wanna do the same thing with fewer people. Jacquemin: It will compress costs and eliminate the need for certain requirements in the production of video games or sophisticated visual-effects sequences or animation. We will see a new generation of storytellers and ideas being brought into the industry. That’s a very positive thing and a big trend that will come out of this. Which fears are irrational or overblown? Neely: AI will take all these jobs away. It is quite irrational. Crabtree-Ireland: There is a certain contingent of people who want to see AI banned completely. As an emotion or feeling, I get that. Everyone has an ultimate right to feel that way. They don’t have to engage with AI if they don’t want to. Having said that, the idea out there that we could block AI and that should be our strategy is so misguided. Past history shows us that it’s impossible to block or stop technology. Jacquemin: Only humans can come up with original storytelling. I don’t see AI tech replacing all forms of entertainment as we know it. That feels like a dystopian future I want nothing to do with, and it doesn’t seem realistic. Just look at digital content from creators. Yes, it’s become meaningful. You could argue it has achieved parity in terms of consumption with the video entertainment that came before it. But it hasn’t replaced that at all. Turner Sports is working hard to preserve Inside the NBA, its award-winning studio show. The future of the show has been uncertain ever since the NBA rejected Turner’s offer to keep TV rights to games and instead struck deals with Disney and new partners Comcast and Amazon. Turner’s owner, Warner Bros. Discovery, has sued the NBA over that decision, but most people involved believe the likely outcome will be some kind of settlement in which Turner at best might get a few games. Turner would like to keep the show whether or not it keeps NBA rights, perhaps reinventing it as a general-purpose sports talk show. Both Amazon and Comcast would like to have the show when they start to air games. Neither of those scenarios is likely, according to several people familiar with the matter. Some of the people involved in the program have the contractual right to opt out of their deals if Turner doesn’t have NBA games. Other people on the show, including Ernie Johnson, Kenny Smith and Charles Barkley, do more than the NBA for Turner. Both Smith and Barkley contribute to March Madness coverage. Barkley is the biggest draw, and his position on his future has changed often. As it became clear that Turner was losing the rights, he started to criticize Warner Bros.’ leadership for mismanaging the negotiations. Barkley has since changed his tune, supporting Turner and criticizing the NBA. One reason? Money. Barkley has more than $100 million left on his Turner contract, and both sides have agreed to honor the deal with or without the NBA. (At least for now.) Someone in Barkley’s world has been saying that he is allowed to do work for other networks. There was at least a conversation about his contributing to coverage of Netflix’s upcoming fight between Jake Paul and Mike Tyson. But Turner says its contract makes him exclusive. Even if Barkley stays at Turner, other people who work on basketball are likely to depart for Amazon, NBC or ESPN. Shaquille O’Neal, Reggie Miller and Candace Parker are all cornerstones of TNT’s coverage. Draymond Green, though an active player, is a proven commentator. Dwyane Wade is another name being bandied about, especially coming off this year’s Olympics. He contributed to Turner for three years in a deal that ended in 2022. There is about to be an incredibly active market for basketball commentators as this new contract between the league and its broadcast partners triggers a once-in-a-generation shift. The NBA hasn’t changed homes in two decades. A tale of three summer hitsTV fans are feeling the effects of the 2023 labor stoppage. There just aren’t that many new or exciting shows to watch because the strikes impacted the pipeline for this year. That said, this summer featured three massive hits. Netflix had the third season of Bridgerton, Amazon released the fourth season of The Boys and HBO/Max offered the second season of House of the Dragon. The Bear fell out of the Nielsen top 10 after just two weeks; new episodes of Evil and reruns of Your Honor and Grey’s Anatomy delivered larger numbers. Bridgerton is the biggest hit of the three, at least on streaming. House of the Dragon also generates a lot of viewership on linear TV. Take a look at how viewership of the shows compares over their first six weeks: Three important things to know: Netflix dropped episodes of Bridgerton in two batches, which is why the numbers drop and then jump back up. We don’t have all of the numbers for House of the Dragon. It likely stayed in the top 10 for all eight episodes and generated more viewership than The Boys in total. These numbers are only domestic and only on TV. The No. 1 move in the world is…Alien: Romulus. Fede Alvarez’s reboot of the classic thriller sold more than $100 million in tickets globally this weekend with a particularly strong start in the US (more than $40 million) and China (more than $20 million). The No. 1 tour in the world is…Bruce Springsteen. Though Springsteen had to delay some dates due to voice problems, his current tour is making more than $7 million a night as it barnstorms across Europe. Deals, deals, deals - Kevin Durant acquired a minority stake in France’s top soccer team.
- Dr. Phil fired more than 30% of his staff.
- More cost-cutting at Warner Bros. Discovery, which announced that Channing Dungey, the head of its TV studio, will also oversee its TV networks. Kathleen Finch is leaving.
I just finished Jonathan Eig’s biography of Martin Luther King Jr. You may think you know his story, but this book is just exceptional. And as newsrooms across the country shrink, I just want to shout out the journalists courageous enough to start their own ventures. Former CNN reporter Oliver Darcy has a new media newsletter called Status, while 404 Media churns out great work every day. | 
