Sora 2, AI Actors, and How Hollywood Can Fight Back

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: "Sora 2, AI Actors, and How Hollywood Can Fight Back"

Podcast: The Town with Matthew Belloni
Host: Matt Belloni
Guest: Duncan Crabtree-Ireland (National Executive Director, SAG-AFTRA)
Date: October 2, 2025
Producer: The Ringer

---

Overview

In this episode, Matt Belloni speaks with SAG-AFTRA’s Duncan Crabtree-Ireland about the latest version of OpenAI’s Sora—an advanced AI video tool that can generate lifelike video clips using familiar copyrighted characters and even the likeness and voice of real actors. They discuss the urgent legal and practical challenges these advances pose to Hollywood, specifically around likeness rights, copyright infringement, and the uneasy opt-in/opt-out systems. They also address industry reactions, the inadequacies in current law, and how Hollywood can proactively respond.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Sora 2 Update and What It Can Do

Timestamps: 00:31–06:54

• Sora 2, OpenAI’s video tool, now combines realistic character video with convincing voices, allowing users to generate scenes with intellectual property (IP) like Wednesday Addams and Peter Griffin.
• Matt played with the app, noting its stunning realism and ease of use, as well as how it was possible to recreate major copyrighted characters and celebrities' likenesses and voices.
  • “The ease that I was able to make my own mini versions of shows that Hollywood studios have put millions of dollars into creating and protecting was pretty stunning.” – Matt Belloni [00:35]
• The opt-out system for IP (but opt-in for likenesses) means exclusion from the AI model is burdensome for rightsholders.

2. Legal Gray Areas: Training vs. Output

Timestamps: 06:54–09:11

• Courts are starting to distinguish between the legality of using material to "train" AI (more permissible) versus the content AIs output (where infringement likely occurs).
• Duncan emphasizes the gaps: “There is and should be real concern about the possibility that copyright law is not going to do much to clamp down on the training side. And so, you know, the output side is an area where we've certainly been really focused, and I think all of us need to pay attention to it also..." [08:16]

3. The Need for New Rights: The ‘No FAKES Act’

Timestamps: 09:11–10:55

• SAG-AFTRA is pushing Congress for the No FAKES Act, which would create a new federal IP right for individuals’ voice, likeness, and image—going beyond copyright and right of publicity.
  • “This bill, like, solves a lot of that. And that's a right that I think this Sora 2, and so many other things that are happening out there, show us why we really, really need this to be enacted.” – Duncan [10:54]
• Many people mistakenly believe they already have these rights unless highly famous—current law often doesn’t protect ordinary people unless specific contract language or local laws are involved.

4. OpenAI’s Divide: Likeness vs. Copyright, and the Limits of Opt-Out

Timestamps: 10:55–15:16

• OpenAI treats real people’s likeness (faces) as opt-in—users must upload their own image and consent before being used.
• For copyrighted materials (characters, shows), OpenAI applies an opt-out system. Studios like Netflix and Disney must request each property/item be excluded, and OpenAI does not honor blanket opt-outs.
• Actors’ image/voice can end up in Sora-generated videos, even without their knowledge, unless complex, often ineffective claims (Lanham Act, state publicity, etc.) are pursued.
  • “Our contract provisions are very, very clear on this point. Any kind of digital replication of a performer has to be with informed consent, including a reasonably specific description of the intended use.” – Duncan [12:45]

5. The Arms Race and Legal Stalemate

Timestamps: 15:17–21:57

• Studios are attempting to fight back: lawsuits against AI companies (e.g., Midjourney), issuing cease-and-desists, and trying to mass-opt-out properties.
• The process is likened to “whack a mole”—new startups and AIs pop up constantly, and mass-infringement is already deeply baked in.
• Matt draws a parallel to the rise of YouTube, where copyright was similarly trampled until the industry was “bludgeoned into acceptance.”
  • “They learned that from Google... ultimately it became the biggest media company in the world.” – Matt [16:37]
• Both bemoan the burden opt-out places on rightsholders and how the DMCA’s notice-and-takedown model is being misapplied to AI.

6. Opt-In vs. Opt-Out: Broken Copyright Logic

Timestamps: 21:57–24:26

• The show criticizes how opt-out is unacceptable for copyright and image rights.
  • “We have gone down a bad road with opt out and unfortunately I admire many things that the EU did in the AI act, but one of the, in my view, worst things… was that it embraced this opt out idea for text and data mining. And that…sort of has emboldened others to feel like, oh yeah, that's a normal thing…” – Duncan [21:10]

7. What’s Next? Lawsuits, Settlements, and the “Cynic’s View”

Timestamps: 24:27–28:57

• Matt suggests some believe OpenAI wants to be sued, so courts will set industry-wide guidelines and lead to settlements, just as YouTube did with Hollywood years ago.
• Duncan thinks studios don’t want “one-size-fits-all” compulsory licensing because their assets vary in value, and a billion-dollar settlement may be a lost cause if it means ceding foundational rights.
• Hollywood’s reluctance to sue stems partly from uncertain legal precedent and the risk that courts may not offer protection.
• Matt and Duncan note that the tech sector wields vast resources and is openly lobbying for AI-friendly laws, sometimes leveraging competition with China to excuse aggressive copyright disregard.

8. The Tilly Norwood / “AI Actress” Hype

Timestamps: 29:31–34:52

• Recent headlines about agencies signing AI “actresses” (e.g., Tilly Norwood) are, per Duncan, misleading and overblown.
• SAG-AFTRA’s position: only people can be actors—AI avatars are synthetic performers.
  • “We don't consider an AI model to be an actor or an actress. An actor is a person. An actor has human experience, human creativity…” – Duncan [30:44]
• Synthetic performances are a concern; current contracts (e.g., with record labels) require streaming royalties for songs generated by AI voices, to create a level economic playing field.
• Matt jokes about agencies representing digital avatars—the broader point being that economic incentives must be aligned to prevent AI from eroding performer livelihoods.

9. The Voice Problem and Technical Catch-Up

Timestamps: 34:52–36:14

• Sora’s capability to realistically replicate not just images but voices (e.g., Seth MacFarlane’s as Peter Griffin) is highlighted as “effed up” and alarming.
• Any temporary technological limitation is “only temporary”—tech is advancing too fast for the industry to rely on the “uncanny valley” or poor quality as protection.

---

Memorable Quotes & Moments

• On the speed of AI progress:
  “You cannot rely on technical shortcomings as your long term solution to dealing with this technology. Because these companies are advancing so fast…” – Duncan Crabtree-Ireland [35:42]

• On copyright’s opt-in principle being upended:
  “This is just turning the entire system on its head... This product is affirmatively altering, perverting, changing, exploiting these intellectual properties and creating new products out of those intellectual properties and trying to lean on this opt out system...” – Matt Belloni [19:47–21:10]

• On the future for human performers:
  “If these companies have to pay the same amount of money to use a synthetic performer that they would have to pay to use a human performer, we genuinely believe they're going to want to use human performers.” – Duncan Crabtree-Ireland [33:17]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Sora 2’s Capabilities and Demo Experience – 00:31–06:54
• Legal Gray Area: Training vs. Output – 06:54–09:11
• No FAKES Act and New Image Rights – 09:11–10:55
• Likeness vs. Copyright, Opt-Out System – 10:55–15:16
• AI Industry “Whack-a-Mole”, Lawsuits and Opt-Out Traps – 15:17–21:57
• Why Opt-Out Fails Rightsholders – 21:57–24:26
• Industry Litigation vs. Negotiation – 24:27–28:57
• "AI Actress" (Tilly Norwood), Synthetic Performers & Economic Safeguards – 29:31–34:52
• Sora’s Voice Replication, Tech Moving Fast – 34:52–36:14

---

Conclusion & Tone

The episode conveys urgency and exasperation at the current legal and technological gap, while providing a clear-headed overview of the challenges and possible paths forward. Matt and Duncan are critical but pragmatic, repeatedly highlighting that what’s at stake is not only Hollywood’s business model but the concept of creative human labor itself in an AI-first future. The conversation is candid, occasionally humorous, and rooted in real-world industry struggle.

---

For listeners who missed the episode:
This summary covers how open questions in law and technology are colliding in Hollywood as advanced AI like Sora transforms what’s possible in media creation. There is an urgent need for new image and voice rights; the current opt-out systems functionally fail artists and studios; and although AI brings new creative tools, the industry has to act immediately—or risk being permanently outpaced.

---

Transcript

[A]

Hi everyone, it's Amy Poehler and I'm launching a new podcast called Good Hang. In preparation for that, I asked some of my friends to send in some videos and give me some advice.

[B]

Just be yourself and the guests will come. Don't be the celebrity that this is.

[C]

Their like sixth thing they're doing.

[B]

I love true crime and cooking podcasts. Is there any way you could combine the two?

[A]

Well everyone has an opinion and a podcast, so join me for Good Hang. It's rough out there, we're just trying to lighten it up a little.

[B]

This episode of the Town is presented by FX's the Lowdown, proclaimed a gloriously off kilter noir by Rolling Stone. The series follows Lee Raybon, a citizen journalist and self proclaimed Truthsorian, as he exposes corruption and unearths the city's hidden rot from acclaimed Reservation Dogs creator Sterling Harjo and starring four time Academy Award nominee Ethan Hawke. TV Guide raves the Lowdown is easily one of the best new shows of the year. The Lowdown premieres September 23rd on FX, streaming next day on Hulu. It is Thursday, October 2nd. Have you checked out the latest update to sora? That's the OpenAI video tool that's been incorporated into a new video sharing app and it is quite something. Sound and video together, characters who talk and move much more realistically, and a whole lot of pretty blatant copyright infringement. I played around on the app this week and made my own versions of Wednesday Addams and Peter Griffin from Family Guy trading jokes at dinner, Cartman from South park saying the you can't handle the truth monologue from A Few Good Men, a bunch more. Some characters were blocked by the app. I asked for a video of Batman and Yoda riding a motorcycle together and that was a so called content violation. But many others were not. And the ease that I was able to make my own mini versions of shows that Hollywood studios have put millions of dollars into creating and protecting was pretty stunning. Not to mention the image and likenesses of real actors like Jenna Ortega and the Voice of Seth MacFarlane. All there for the taking. A lot of people around town and online have asked me why Hollywood hasn't just run to court to shut Sora down. The studios may very well do that. Earlier this year, Disney, Comcast and Warner Discovery sued a company called Midjourney over its video output. But it's complicated. As we talked about on the show, the legal framework for what's allowed to be used for training AI models is still unclear. Recent court results have suggested that training is maybe okay. It's the end result. The product that Sora is putting out, that's what we're focusing on today. OpenAI has declared that for likenesses of real people, it will use an opt in system. That means you have to let OpenAI have access to your face for them to use it. But for copyrighted materials, that's movies, TV shows, music, et cetera, they will use an opt out system, meaning every single piece of content, including Wednesday Adams and Peter Griffin, have to be specifically excluded from the model. At least some of the studios and talent agencies have said they want to opt out. Netflix and Disney for sure. But according to the Wall Street Journal, OpenAI will not accept blanket opt outs. You have to individually request that each individual thing be excluded. And clearly, from my experience, opting out is easier said than done. A lot of people freaking out about this, and I think rightly so. So I wanted to have Duncan Crabtree Ireland back on the show. He's the top executive at SAG aftra, the performers union. He's going to walk me through some of these implications of this new SORA video tool. How actors can protect themselves, what copyright holders should be doing, what's really at stake here. Plus, a little on Tilly Norwood, that AI actress that got a little bit too much attention this week from the ringer and Puck. I'm Matt Bellany and this is the Town. Okay. We are here with Duncan Crabtree Ireland, who is the national executive director of SAG AFTRA and its chief negotiator and a returning champion on the Town. Welcome back, Duncan.

[C]

Oh, hey, Matt. It's so great to be back. Always love it.

[B]

Okay, so be honest. How much time have you spent on the new SORA app this week?

[C]

I've spent a bit of time on the new SORA app this week, although I have to say there have been a few other AI related developments that.

[B]

Yes, we'll talk about the AI actress. Yes, we'll talk about that.

[C]

Yeah, I think all of us have been really, you know, wanting to see it. And, you know, I have to say, you know, in credit to OpenAI for this, we've had an arrangement with them where we have conversations in advance about some of these things. And so we did get a chance to take a look at Sora 2 not too far before its public release, but a little bit and as we have done with the original SORA release, so. And give them some of our thoughts about it.

[B]

So can you share what some of those thoughts were?

[C]

Yeah, I mean, I Think with Sora. With Sora 2, it was such a short period of time. I don't think we've given them coordinated feedback, but we have been talking to them ever since, even before the first Sora release, really, about the robustness of protections. Our primary focus, robustness of protections around name, image, likeness, use in Sora and how to make sure that unauthorized deep fakery digital replication was not happening. And so, as I imagine we're going to talk about, you know, I'd say there's some success in that area, and then there's some real challenges there.

[B]

Well, the first video I made yesterday was a prompt that said, Wednesday Addams having dinner with Peter Griffin from Family Guy and talking. Boom. Popped up. Jenna Ortega looked almost real. Almost real. Chatting with Peter Griffin, making dumb jokes about, you know, in the style of Wednesday and Family Guy. And with their voices. It was either Jenna Ortega or something very similar. And it was Seth MacFarlane is Peter Griffin or something almost identical. Like, what do you do with that?

[C]

You know, one of the things that all of us should take away from what we're seeing with SORA 2 is any theory that this technology is not going to advance far enough to make it a serious threat to the legitimacy of content, to people's control over their own image, likeness, and voice. I mean, you can't rely on that. It's like for a long time, people relied on the Uncanny Valley to protect actors from really being replaced. You can't rely on those things. That's why it makes me feel good about the efforts that we have undertaken, not because they've achieved the ultimate goal, but because they are absolutely warranted. Because look at where this technology is going. It is of real concern, and that's why we need to take it seriously now and not wait until it's, you know, until it's too late.

[B]

All right, so we'll get into what you guys are doing about it, but I want to be clear here about our terms, because there's a difference between using actors and performances and other copyrighted materials to train these models. It is very clear that that is happening. And then there's the concern about the output of these models. And the legal framework for this seems to be heading into in the direction. I know that the industry has not conceded anything, but some initial rulings are that courts are going to look a little bit less negatively on the training aspect and are going to focus on the output and whether these outputs are infringing on any rights. Is that your understanding as well?

[C]

I think that's a really likely outcome. I mean, nobody is giving up on the fight to say this is not fair use. Certainly SAG AFTRA doesn't think it's fair use. I think the rights holders don't think it's fair use to just sort of train on any and everything you can get your hands on.

[B]

I mean, if you look at their video that they put out, their training video, I mean, the dragon looks like how to train your dragon, and the people look like people that you recognize and are famous people. It's just they've tweaked a little bit.

[C]

Right? I mean, I kind of feel like the motto of the entire AI industry should be, you know, ask forgiveness, not permission is kind of what they're doing. And it's clear the courts so far have not been willing to do anything to preemptively stop them from doing it. The litigation is far from done, but the early indications are not clearly favorable towards the rights holder's point of view. I mean, there is and should be real concern about the possibility that copyright law is not going to do much to clamp down on the training side. And so, you know, the output side is an area where we've certainly been really focused, and I think all of us need to pay attention to it also, because let's not forget some of this use of people's face voice bodies in these technologies are not going to be protected by copyright under any scenario because it's not a copyright issue. That's why we've got to have new rights to make sure that those of us who don't want just random people to be able to do and say things in our face and our voice, you know, don't have the right to do that.

[B]

Well, what would be an example of a new right that could be created? A national right of publicity law or. Yeah, please enlighten us.

[C]

Well, so the no Fakes act, which is the bill that we've been pushing really hard in Congress, would create a new federally recognized intellectual property right in your face, your voice, your body, and would basically give you the right to say yes or no, a consent right, and a compensation right attached to any of those types of uses. And that's independent of copyright. So it's not because there's some copyrighted element that's being reproduced. It's because you as a human person own the right to control the use of your face, image, voice. Obviously, there are First Amendment boundaries around that that are part of that bill. But, you know, there is a. I think a lot of People, probably a lot of your listeners, think that they already have the right to control the use of their face. Right. So many people say that. To me. I didn't give permission for this. And the unfortunate reality is, unless you're a super famous celebrity and you have a Lanham act claim, or unless it's a trademark and there's a state right of publicity claim, you probably don't have a really good claim. There might be some privacy or other things. I mean, there's various, like, edge claims that you can try and make, but there is not a clear intellectual property right. And importantly, there's not a clear right that's not preempted by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. So when you're talking about social media platforms and getting anything taken down, that's a huge problem as well. So this bill, like, solves a lot of that. And that's a right that I think this sort too, and so many other things that are happening out there show us why we really, really need this to be enacted.

[B]

Yeah. Okay. So a lot going on there. OpenAI has taken the position that likenesses are. Are being dealt with differently than copyrighted materials. That's what they say.

[D]

One of their executives has gone in the media and say, our general approach has been to treat likeness and copyright distinctly. And when you go on the app, you have to give them permission and upload a photo of yourself to be ingested for what they call cameos or putting yourself in videos. And if you try to make videos with real people and with most celebrities, they will tell you no, that you can't do that. So that's a win for you guys. But then again, there's something like what the Jenna Ortega example is. She's playing a character. Clearly they have trained the model on episodes of Wednesday. And what rights does Jenna Ortega have when she is now being manipulated to say things she would never say or the character would never say in the Sora app?

[C]

Obviously, number one, you know, Jenna Ortega just as an example, and this would be true of anybody. So I know this is not unique to her, but we'll use that example, since that's the one that you sort of prompted. Jenna has given certain rights to producers who have used her in their projects.

[B]

MGM produces the show, Netflix distributes it.

[C]

Right. So in that case, if they are promoting Wednesday by using content that has been created for the Wednesday project and they're doing it on a platform like Sora, et cetera, that typically is completely permissible and covered by that not by digital replication, but by clip use by other forms like that.

[B]

Sure. And she may have approval rights or anything like that contractually with whoever produces.

[C]

Correct. Under our collective bargaining agreement, though, what they would not have the right to do is to give some third party like Sora or OpenAI the right to digitally replicate Jenna without her separate permission and consent. Right. Our contract provisions are very, very clear on this point. Any kind of digital replication of a performer has to be with informed consent, including a reasonably specific description of the intended use. And so a generic sort of grant of rights to say, oh, okay, you can take her image or likeness in the form of Wednesday and just do whatever you want with it through digital replication would not be allowable at all. Couldn't even be consented to under our contract.

[B]

But what if, what if OpenAI is just ingesting every episode of Wednesday without Netflix even knowing or having control over that?

[C]

Right. That is, I'm assuming, exactly what is happening. Right.

[B]

Yeah. I asked Netflix about this and they said that they have opted out a couple of studios and I'm sure everyone eventually will say we're opting out and we'll get to the opt out stuff. But that didn't stop OpenAI from taking episodes of Wednesday and creating a movable, talkable Jenna Ortega.

[C]

Right. And this goes right back to ask forgiveness, not permission. Because on the ingestion side. Right. None of them are asking for. I mean, there's a few deals that are going on where they're licensing content for people, but largely these models are populated with data that there's been no consent given, not even asked for. Right. So I'm assuming that's the case here. And then on the output side, if you're not a signatory to a collective bargaining agreement like one of ours, if there's not a right of publicity claim under state law, if there's not a Lanham act claim under federal law, which would have to be filed by the parties involved. Right. Then you don't really have a legal claim. And that's, that's why that no Fakes bill I'm talking about is so important. Because if that were the law, then there would be a separate claim for image, name, image, likeness, voice. Use that Jenna Ortega as an example, or any person could pursue when that kind of output is done without their permission. As things stand right now, someone would have to do a legal analysis of the various possible claims. Could there be a Lanham act claim? Maybe because of who Jenna Ortega is. But if this were somebody who's not at that level of prominence, there probably wouldn't be Atlanta Max claim.

[B]

Right, That's a trademark claim. Her meaning, her name and her face and everything has, has generated meaning in the marketplace. And you are deceiving people by suggesting that she would do in these videos what she is doing.

[C]

Right. And so, you know, there are various cases where there might be something that could be done, but in a broad swath of this type of use, there really isn't the legal framework to protect it. And that's why we all need to do something about this. Now I don't want to just demonize OpenAI here. I mean, Sora too is a highly visible example of this. But there are lots of other tools and models out there that are doing things, perhaps not with the level of sophistication, but certainly with the disregard for people's image rights, copyright and everything else.

[B]

Yes, and the studios are suing mid journey and they're sending cease and desist to others. And this is a whack a mole situation because there are going to be millions, not millions, there's going to be many, many startups and models that can do this. And it's only the beginning innings of this game.

[C]

You're absolutely right. And I think a lot of these AI companies are basically saying, look, we're going to take the chance that we lose these cases someday for the benefit of our sort of first mover advantage now and just like getting as far down the road as we can with this and either, you know, we'll make so much money that whatever it is that happens in the court case won't matter to us, or we won't, in which case maybe we'll be out of business before any of this ever actually comes home to roost.

[B]

And by the way, they learned that from Google. I mean, 20 years ago we were talking about this with YouTube and YouTube came to prominence because of lazy Sunday and Daily show clips and all sorts of copyright material that was on YouTube. And Viacom sued and others made deals and they essentially bludgeoned the industry into accepting this as a new product and ultimately it became the biggest media company in the world.

[C]

But Matt, we should say, I mean, I do think within the cameo function, the level of controls and the framework they built for that, I think that's quite interesting and frankly, I do think that reflects a lot of feedback from artists, certainly from us and from others who've said if you're going to do this kind of stuff, you've really got to give people control. You've got to give them. You can see the informed consent model embedded in the Cameo structure.

[B]

Would you upload your photo to to Sora? I certainly wouldn't if I were going.

[C]

To, you know, consider being letting people use my Cameo on Sora too. I just say also, I'm not an actor, so to me, you know, my livelihood is not based upon the use of my image or likeness in that same way. So I think that's, it's a, you know, it's hard to equate that because that's something that can be livelihood threatening. And it's ironic that they named it Cameo because as you know, a bunch of our members actually make money by doing short videos on a tool called Cameo, that this could literally do the same thing if content protection isn't working. Right. And if their image and likeness is available to people to use in the video. So. And I think one of the things people need to do is look at the terms of service. Right. And we looked at the terms of service for the Cameo function. I actually think the terms of service for it are surprisingly reasonable. They're not as one sided as you would normally expect those kinds of things to be. Not saying that we're endorsing those terms of service or don't have issues with it, but I do think that if you have the control, that's the key point. And so I guess what I would say is I'd like to encourage other AI companies who are developing these kinds of tools to embrace the concept of people should have the right to decide whether they're in. I mean, Cameo is opt in, it's not opt out.

[B]

And let's get into that because that's a key element here. By the way, my kid is never using Sora for this purpose. Never giving his.

[C]

Far as I know. Exactly.

[B]

Good luck. They'll start sending me videos of him hitting home runs for the Dodgers and it'd be like, what? Where'd you do? Where'd you create this? All right, so the opt in versus opt out thing, I mean copyright law for, you know, hundred years now has been based on the opt in scenario. You have to affirmatively decide that the rights you have in your copyrighted work are going to be licensed or given to another person. Now what OpenAI is doing here is they are saying, no, no, no, no. We would prefer that this be an opt out situation. We're going to use whatever we want to use.

[C]

And.

[B]

And if you don't want us to use it, just let us know. The onus is on you. I was talking to Aaron Moss, who's a big copyright lawyer that I know, and he's like, this is just turning the entire system on its head. And it's using this pretense of the Digital Millennium Copyright act, which you referenced. Section230 is a little different because it's more about the liability for people that are posting things on social media platforms that might be defamatory or something like that. But the DMCA has this system where if there are copyrighted videos on YouTube or other platforms, you have to affirmatively notify the platform and they will take it down. And OpenAI is leveraging that to try to apply it to a very different platform. This is not just hosting videos or hosting copyrighted images that people post. This product is affirmatively altering, perverting, changing, exploiting these intellectual properties and creating new products out of those intellectual properties and trying to lean on this opt out system. And it just seems like that is an absolute loser for the copyright industry.

[C]

Yeah, I couldn't agree more. Look, we have gone down a bad road with opt out and unfortunately I admire many things that the EU did in the AI act, but one of the, in my view, worst things about the EU AI act was that it embraced this opt out idea for text and data mining. And that I think sort of has emboldened others to feel like, oh yeah, that's a normal thing where, you know, you can basically say to the world, I'm just going to take your stuff and if you don't want me to, just let me know. But that's an impossible burden on rights holders, on creative people, because how are you supposed to, you know, how are you supposed to know every possible entity in the world that is using your stuff and go to each one of them and tell them, I'm opting out? Like, that's not a realistic possibility.

[B]

I mean, these studios and streamers, they own hundreds and hundreds of thousands of characters. And if, you know, like for instance, Netflix and Disney and a couple others are opting out, but you can't just. I mean, it's an impossible task to opt out of everything. And we're seeing it on the platform because I'm able to create videos. I mean, Peter Griffin, pretty available. Cartman from south park, pretty available. Spongebob, very available. These are very valuable characters that are just being absolutely perverted on these sites. And I know that there are companies that do this, like Vermilio is one of them. There's another one name I forgot. There are companies that these studios outsource this, this task to. And there are lots of products that are trying to be created where they can use AI to essentially counter AI. So it's like an arms race of trying to figure out where. Right. So, yeah, yeah, I'm sure you guys are. I mean, I know the talent agencies are involved in this. They have said to William Morrison, Dever has said to OpenAI that they're opting out all of their clients. I mean, that's a lot of very prominent people that they're saying they're opting out, but I don't think it works that way. I think that they are going to require individuals, characters, people, all these other things that are part of the copyrighted materials to send their own notices.

[C]

Right. Because they don't really want you to opt out, obviously, if you don't want it to. And you know, and I think what you said though, Matt, is so important, which is for people to recognize that this is not like a social media platform that's just hosting content. I mean, I have issues with that. I have issues. This is where I mentioned section 230 of the Communications Decency act earlier, which is this concept that there should be immunity for platforms that are just neutrally hosting content and provided they have a notice and takedown procedure, whatever. But the reality is this is not a hosting of other people's content platform. This is a, a tool that is actually creating content. And it was never meant to be the case that there was some idea that when you actually are the creator of the content that there's some safe harbor based upon, you know, after the fact, someone can just come tell you, take it down that if that were the rule that incentivizes copyright infringement, that incentivizes people to do exactly what we're now seeing, which is abuse those rights. And so that can't, that really can't stand. And we have to do something to address that.

[B]

This episode is brought to you by Focus Features. Don't miss Focus. Anemone starring three time Academy Award winner Daniel Day Lewis in his long awaited return to the big screen. It's the most anticipated performance of the year. Anemone tells the story of two brothers wrestling with their past and the one secret that has kept them apart for decades. Anemone Rated R under 17. Not admitted without parent. Only in theaters October 3rd. This episode is brought to you by 20th Century Studios New film Deliver Me From Nowhere starring Golden Globe winner Jeremy Allen White and Academy Award nominee Jeremy Strong. Scott Cooper, director of the Academy Award winning movie Crazy Heart brings you the story of the most pivotal chapter in the life of an icon. Don't miss the movie. Critics are raving is the real deal. An intelligent, deliberately paced journey into the soul of an artist. Springsteen, Deliver Me from Nowhere, Only in theaters October 24th. Get your tickets now. All right, so you say we have to do something, but how do you think this is going to play out? Because I've heard one theory is that OpenAI wants to get sued. They are purposefully putting this out there to hopefully generate a big industry wide lawsuit and maybe even a class action. And then it would allow this entire group of rights holders to be treated as the same in one case. And it will proceed as one case. And then they can get a settlement and an opt in from this entire group versus having to get every single actor, artist, studio character, participant, et cetera, to sign individual opt inside. And at the end of the day the industry will cheer and say we got a billion dollar settlement from OpenAI. But the rules of the road will be established. Hollywood will be able to say we were right, but they will once again be left behind and the business of AI will trudge forward with copyrighted materials. Is that the cynics view?

[C]

Yeah, I think that is the cynic view. I mean, I'm not saying it's not true, but I think it is the cynics view. However, I would say I do think the companies are very clear on the fact that the value of their intellectual property here, it's not a one size fits all scenario. And so there have been people who've raised the idea, for example of statutory licensing like we have in certain parts of music.

[B]

Right. Where you have to, it's a compulsory, you have to give the license under the law. But there is a framework for it, right?

[C]

There's a framework for payment, but that framework for payment generally doesn't recognize differential value in specific pieces because that would be virtually impossible. Right. And that's something that the audio visual part of the industry and in certain ways the recording industry are fighting vigorously against now. So I think they do recognize that there is a critical element of differential value in different types of intellectual property they own and they do not want. And I don't think we'll do anything to cooperate with sort of establishing a compulsory or statutory system that doesn't recognize that value. Now you're right, maybe this is going to pass through a litigation process.

[B]

Yeah. Why didn't they run to court? I mean, maybe I'm just like impulsive on this stuff. But why didn't the Studios file their lawsuits on Tuesday morning when this product debuted.

[C]

Well, I wonder if it's because so far the courts haven't seemed like a really great venue to get any kind of answers out.

[B]

Yeah, they think they can get better results just negotiating with them.

[C]

I think that's a possibility. And I think also, you know, there is a risk that these companies, whether it's OpenAI or other ones who will try to leapfrog them, will push things so far that even though it's incredibly hard to do anything at the legislative level with respect to copyright, you know, the courts don't have to be the final answer on this. They're the final answer because everyone is scared to go to Congress about copyright matters because no one wants to upset the very carefully created balance that exists there. But if these companies push it too far, that may change.

[B]

Well, and who knows what Trump will say and will direct the Copyright Office to do in this situation. The tech companies have a pretty powerful lobbying force. And you've already heard things like Sam Altman talk about how there needs to be unfettered access to copyrights, because if not, we're just going to lose the AI race to China, which doesn't even acknowledge intellectual property. So if you're, if you're racing to the bottom against China and you're getting emboldenment from the government, that's pretty scary for these rights holders.

[C]

Yeah, no, it really is. On the other hand, I would just note that President Trump signed the Take It down act earlier this year. The no Fakes act has explicit support from OpenAI and from YouTube as two examples of tech companies. So there may be a pathway to finding a solution to this. It's just, you know, with the pace of the tech companies fighting each other and all, like, it is like a gold rush. I mean, this must be what it felt like and you know, to be in California during the Gold Rush. Except that, you know, this gold rush just shows no sign of slowing down.

[B]

Yeah, it's the closest is the dot com bubble. And, you know, we both live through that. And this is that on, you know, I hate to use that phrase, but on steroids, where it's just like trillion dollars going into the economy to try to outlast these other AI companies. And if the consequence of it is that you piss off some people in Hollywood, they are more than happy to take that risk. All right, speaking of more than happy to piss people off in Hollywood, can we talk a little bit about Tilly Norwood? I don't want to give this Too much time, because it is pretty silly. But this producer in Zurich caused. It wasn't actually her fault. She said a dumb thing on a panel about how these agencies are clamoring to sign this AI actress. But the real problem here is that Deadline took her seriously and wrote a headline that said, agencies Circling AI Actress. And everyone freaked out. And first of all, the top three agencies have said they are not, in fact, trying to set to sign this actress. Gersh went out of their way to put out a statement saying, we are not trying. Everyone's walking away from this. But that is not a thing. Representing digital avatars is not a thing. At least not yet. And what does SAG say about it?

[C]

Well, first of all, I'm glad that you shifted to calling her a digital avatar, because I know a lot of this press and maybe even the original creator has called this entity an actress. We don't consider an AI model to be an actor or an actress. An actor is a person. An actor has human experience, human creativity. You know, our new president, Sean Aston, was on a interview with one of the major networks yesterday, and I think he expressed it beautifully, which was exactly that. You know, this is not a person or an actor. And the role, you know, it's even questionable. Like what. What is the concept of an agency representing a non person? A non person. That's like, you know, an agency can represent a corporation, I suppose.

[B]

Yeah. I think what she was saying is that agents want to represent her company in dealings with studios where they. She could. Her company could provide digital avatars, performers, whatever you want to say, for particular uses in movies. I think that's what she wanted to say.

[C]

Right. And the reality is that, you know, we've known that synthetic performance was going to be a threat to actors. We negotiated over it in 2023. It was part of the strike. We achieved not everything we wanted, but we did achieve significant protections there, including notice rights, bargaining rights. If any of the companies that are signatory to our contracts were going to use synthetic performance.

[B]

What does that mean, bargaining rights?

[C]

It means we get to bargain over what the conditions and terms would be for the use of a synthetic performance.

[B]

So they would have to pay sag, aftra. Who do they pay if they're using.

[C]

That's one of the big questions. Now, since that negotiation, we've answered that in part. Right. In our contract with the record labels, we have a specific provision that says if a record label releases a track that contains only synthetic voices, they have to pay the same streaming royalties for that track. That they would have paid to a human artist into a fund that we have. And then we can use that to help mitigate the impact on singers, for example. But the truth is, Matt, the important part of that, the fund is fine. But the important part of that is leveling the economic playing field between synthetic performers and human performers. So if these companies have to pay the same amount of money to use a synthetic performer that they would have to pay to use a human performer, we genuinely believe they're going to want to use human performers. Because if you take away that sort of cheapness aspect of the synthetic, you can get a much more nuanced, beautiful artistic result by working with a human performer. And so that's what we want to encourage.

[B]

Or you create a market for low level agents to represent avatars and get the money that will have to be paid for these avatars to perform.

[C]

Well, maybe I don't think so. I think what really will happen because I mean, if you've been, if you've played around with any of these tools, you know, prompt engineering your way into the perfect performance is not so simple. Even with tools that generate a really, you know, high quality output. The other thing I would just note is we now have a similar provision in our commercials contract, except where the money goes is into our benefit plans to help shore up any kind of health benefits, retirement benefits for performers. So there are things that can be done with funds from that. But to me, the most important piece is there's got to be a level playing field. Because if humans are competing against tools that are much, much less expensive, then the economic incentives become a real challenge to overcome. So that's something that we're trying to address. And that's what would happen, I think, in the negotiation with a studio or streamer. But I want to be really clear, Matt. No studio, no streamer, no company signatory to our contracts, not a single one has given us notice of any creation or use of a synthetic performer in the film television streaming industries.

[B]

Well, maybe, you know, Kim Kardashian has a new show coming out, so maybe they will do that. Sorry, I just made a joke at one of your members expense.

[C]

And just to know, I'm not talking about digital replication now, I'm talking about synthetic performers. So we're talking about replicas of human performers. To me, that is a, it's a real concern. It's a very different concern than synthetic performers created by generative AI that are not a replica.

[B]

That is a whole different thing. By the way, the thing about voices is interesting. If you look at Sora. Sora is pretty good at replicating celebrity voices. The south park voices, Family Guy, all of that. Seth MacFarlane must be watching that. Being like, that's effed up. I mean, my voice is valuable.

[C]

Yeah, well, I'm watching it thinking that's effed up too. And it is. I mean, voice has been already on the, you know, the cutting edge of the impact of AI in every way. Right. Whether it's dubbing performances, as one example, all kinds of voiceover work. One of the things about the original Sora that was, you know, less startling, or maybe I wouldn't call it reassuring, but was less alarming, maybe, is a way of putting it, was the lack of audio integration.

[B]

Sure.

[C]

So again, I mean, that takes us back to the lesson. I think one of the lessons of all of this, which is you cannot rely on technical shortcomings as your long term solution to dealing with this technology. Because these companies are advancing so fast and they are in full on flight mode. They are trying to solve every problem. So, you know, technical limitations are a temporary protection at best.

[B]

All right, well, I appreciate you coming on the show and explaining it. Good luck to you guys. It's a really tough battle there.

[C]

It is. But, you know, one that's so important and I feel really happy that our members are so unified around making sure that, you know, AI technology and its threats and implications are at the forefront of what we're working on. So.

[B]

Yeah. All right, thank you.

[C]

Talk to you later.

[B]

All right, no call sheet today. That's the show. I want to thank my guest, Duncan Crabtree, Ireland, producer Craig Horlbeck, artist Jesse Lopez, and I want to thank you. We'll see you next week.