Why The Digital Commerce Industry Should Back The SAG-AFTRA Strike
Why The Digital Commerce Industry Should Back The SAG-AFTRA Strike The Screen Actors Guild Strike, otherwise known as The SAG-AFTRA Strike, has received a lot of coverage, but almost little study of how an increased use of artificial intelligence would impact the bottom line of not just actors and writers, but the digital commerce industy as a whole. How? Because the digital commerce industry does make its money off celebrity. So, consider what happened when a star is no longer on the annual red carpet circuit because its studio controls that actor's image, and can solely make money from that image, and cut out digital commerce / media organizations. The end result could be the very cratering of the celebrity content industry as we know it. Think hard about what that means. It means that photographers who make their money from celebrity sitings would realize squeezed revenues. It means the images of celebrities who were knighted in England could be made to take on actions that could cost that celebrity such a designation. The studio that controls that actor's image could engineer such a scenario just because the actor fell into disfavor for whatever reason. Take a read at how a forfeture of a UK knighthood could happen, courtesy of the main page itself: There is an expectation that those who receive an honour are, and will continue to be, good citizens and role models. An honour can be withdrawn (or ‘forfeited’) for a variety of reasons, including criminal conviction and bringing the honours system into disrepute. Only living individuals are able to forfeit their honour. It is not possible to withdraw an honour from someone who has died. However, the Forfeiture Committee can consider specific cases where a recipient has been accused of a crime after their death, with a view to issuing a statement that confirms action would have been taken had that individual been convicted. A decision to forfeit an honour can be based on events that pre-date the award (for example, a past criminal conviction, even if spent), or conduct that occurs after the award is made. The Forfeiture Committee considers cases put to it when the holder of an honour has brought the honours system into disrepute. It will automatically consider cases where an individual: has been found guilty by the courts of a criminal offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than three months; has been censured or struck off by the relevant regulatory authority or professional body, for actions or failures to act, especially which are directly relevant to the granting of the honour; has been found guilty by the courts of a criminal offence covered by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (England and Wales), Sexual Offences Order 2008 (Northern Ireland) or Sexual Offences Act 2009 (Scotland); has been found to have committed a sexual act which is listed in the Acts above following a ‘trial of the facts’. The Committee is not an investigatory body – it does not decide whether or not someone is guilty or innocent of a particular act. Instead, it reflects the findings of official investigations and makes a recommendation of whether or not the honours system has been brought into disrepute. Please bear in mind that personal disputes are not likely to be a reason to forfeit an honour. The Committee’s recommendations for forfeiture are submitted through the Prime Minister to the King. If the King gives his approval, a notice of forfeiture is usually placed in the London Gazette. Note: The Forfeiture Committee Is Not An Investigative Body, Meaning The Actor Can Be Harmed Without Recourse Consider what was just presented and realize that the UK Government has not added any provisions to consider the possible negative role of artificial intelligence. Movie producer's A.I. desires place knighted performers in harms way unless the rules are adjusted. The question is, will they be? Right now, no one knows. But what we do know is that, as of this writing, movie producers do not care to protect actors from misuse of a digital image, let alone use it to avoid paying the actor. Governments and digital commerce industry players must think completely about the rapid advance of artificial intelligence and work on legislation that protects the possibility that their very culture could be altered by images out of control of the performer. Stay tuned.
via YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMIdXN5f-Qs
Why The Digital Commerce Industry Should Back The SAG-AFTRA Strike The Screen Actors Guild Strike, otherwise known as The SAG-AFTRA Strike, has received a lot of coverage, but almost little study of how an increased use of artificial intelligence would impact the bottom line of not just actors and writers, but the digital commerce industy as a whole. How? Because the digital commerce industry does make its money off celebrity. So, consider what happened when a star is no longer on the annual red carpet circuit because its studio controls that actor's image, and can solely make money from that image, and cut out digital commerce / media organizations. The end result could be the very cratering of the celebrity content industry as we know it. Think hard about what that means. It means that photographers who make their money from celebrity sitings would realize squeezed revenues. It means the images of celebrities who were knighted in England could be made to take on actions that could cost that celebrity such a designation. The studio that controls that actor's image could engineer such a scenario just because the actor fell into disfavor for whatever reason. Take a read at how a forfeture of a UK knighthood could happen, courtesy of the main page itself: There is an expectation that those who receive an honour are, and will continue to be, good citizens and role models. An honour can be withdrawn (or ‘forfeited’) for a variety of reasons, including criminal conviction and bringing the honours system into disrepute. Only living individuals are able to forfeit their honour. It is not possible to withdraw an honour from someone who has died. However, the Forfeiture Committee can consider specific cases where a recipient has been accused of a crime after their death, with a view to issuing a statement that confirms action would have been taken had that individual been convicted. A decision to forfeit an honour can be based on events that pre-date the award (for example, a past criminal conviction, even if spent), or conduct that occurs after the award is made. The Forfeiture Committee considers cases put to it when the holder of an honour has brought the honours system into disrepute. It will automatically consider cases where an individual: has been found guilty by the courts of a criminal offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than three months; has been censured or struck off by the relevant regulatory authority or professional body, for actions or failures to act, especially which are directly relevant to the granting of the honour; has been found guilty by the courts of a criminal offence covered by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (England and Wales), Sexual Offences Order 2008 (Northern Ireland) or Sexual Offences Act 2009 (Scotland); has been found to have committed a sexual act which is listed in the Acts above following a ‘trial of the facts’. The Committee is not an investigatory body – it does not decide whether or not someone is guilty or innocent of a particular act. Instead, it reflects the findings of official investigations and makes a recommendation of whether or not the honours system has been brought into disrepute. Please bear in mind that personal disputes are not likely to be a reason to forfeit an honour. The Committee’s recommendations for forfeiture are submitted through the Prime Minister to the King. If the King gives his approval, a notice of forfeiture is usually placed in the London Gazette. Note: The Forfeiture Committee Is Not An Investigative Body, Meaning The Actor Can Be Harmed Without Recourse Consider what was just presented and realize that the UK Government has not added any provisions to consider the possible negative role of artificial intelligence. Movie producer's A.I. desires place knighted performers in harms way unless the rules are adjusted. The question is, will they be? Right now, no one knows. But what we do know is that, as of this writing, movie producers do not care to protect actors from misuse of a digital image, let alone use it to avoid paying the actor. Governments and digital commerce industry players must think completely about the rapid advance of artificial intelligence and work on legislation that protects the possibility that their very culture could be altered by images out of control of the performer. Stay tuned.
via YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMIdXN5f-Qs
Comments