Sure we do. Streaming is gonna cost more now.Unless you're in the union, you have no say in what's considered "standard".
If it's sufficient for the actors and union, then it's sufficient, case closed. We have no horse in this particular race.
Sure we do. Streaming is gonna cost more now.Unless you're in the union, you have no say in what's considered "standard".
If it's sufficient for the actors and union, then it's sufficient, case closed. We have no horse in this particular race.
Sure we do. Streaming is gonna cost more now.
You're quite right.Unless you're in the union, you have no say in what's considered "standard".
Sure we do. Otherwise we would not be discussing this for 24 pages and our lives would proceed on as normal without any regard for these unions or their work. In fact, why do we care at all? Why have this conversation at all?If it's sufficient for the actors and union, then it's sufficient, case closed. We have no horse in this particular race.
That’s nice in theory. But I bet most care more about costs. Check out chocolate. I can buy a bar direct from a farm for $18. Or I can buy one that most likely used child labor for about $2. I can afford to pay $18 for the better bar of chocolate. But I can tell you that I didn’t give out $18 chocolate bars on Halloween.The conversation was about whether or not studio executives will learn to treat workers better post-contract negotiations. That's what @M'rk son of Mogh meant by us not having a horse in this race, though I think, all else being equal, most people would prefer their entertainment to be made by workers who are treated fairly.
The studios have apparently told SAG this is their "last, best, and final offer."
According to the Hollywood Reporter, the use of AI to create likenesses of performers is the sticking point.
The studio is offering a one time payment ($32,000 for TV, $60,000 for motion picture) for living and deceased actors and to use their likeness in perpetuity without consent from the actors or their estates, while SAG wants a clause that says no performers likeness can be used without their permission and residual payments every time the actors likeness is used
According to the Hollywood Reporter, the use of AI to create likenesses of performers is the sticking point.
The studio is offering a one time payment ($32,000 for TV, $60,000 for motion picture) for living and deceased actors and to use their likeness in perpetuity without consent from the actors or their estates, while SAG wants a clause that says no performers likeness can be used without their permission and residual payments every time the actors likeness is used
AgreedThe studios can fuck all the way off with this bullshit.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.