Disney Struggles With How to Use AI - While Retaining Copyrights and Avoiding Legal Issues (msn.com) 29
Disney "cloned" Dwayne Johnson when filming a live-action Moana, reports the Wall Street Journal, using an AI process that they were ultimately afraid to use:
Under the plan they devised, Johnson's similarly buff cousin Tanoai Reed — who is 6-foot-3 and 250 pounds — would fill in as a body double for a small number of shots. Disney would work with AI company Metaphysic to create deepfakes of Johnson's face that could be layered on top of Reed's performance in the footage — a "digital double" that effectively allowed Johnson to be in two places at once... Johnson approved the plan, but the use of a new technology had Disney attorneys hammering out details over how it could be deployed, what security precautions would protect the data and a host of other concerns. They also worried that the studio ultimately couldn't claim ownership over every element of the film if AI generated parts of it, people involved in the negotiations said. Disney and Metaphysic spent 18 months negotiating on and off over the terms of the contract and work on the digital double. But none of the footage will be in the final film when it's released next summer...
Interviews with more than 20 current and former employees and partners present an entertainment giant torn between the inevitability of AI's advance and concerns about how to use it. Progress has at times been slowed by bureaucracy and hand-wringing over the company's social contract with its fans, not to mention its legal contract with unions representing actors, writers and other creative partners... For Disney, protecting its characters and stories while also embracing new AI technology is key. "We have been around for 100 years and we intend to be around for the next 100 years," said the company's legal chief, Horacio Gutierrez, in an interview. "AI will be transformative, but it doesn't need to be lawless...." [As recently as June, a Disney/Comcast Universal lawsuit had argued that Midjourney "is the quintessential copyright free-rider and a bottomless pit of plagiarism."]
Concerns about bad publicity were a big reason that Disney scrapped a plan to use AI in Tron: Ares — a movie set for release in October about an AI-generated soldier entering the real world. Since the movie is about artificial intelligence, executives pitched the idea of actually incorporating AI into one of the characters... as a buzzy marketing strategy, according to people familiar with the matter. A writer would provide context on the animated character — a sidekick to Jeff Bridges' lead role named Bit — to a generative AI program. Then on screen, the AI program, voiced by an actor, would respond to questions as Bit as cameras rolled. But with negotiations with unions representing writers and actors over contracts happening at the same time, Disney dismissed the idea, and executives internally were told that the company couldn't risk the bad publicity, the people said...
Disney's own history speaks to how studios have navigated technological crossroads before. When Disney hired Pixar to produce a handful of graphic images for its 1989 hit The Little Mermaid, executives kept the incorporation a secret, fearing backlash from fans if they learned that not every frame of the animated film had been hand-drawn. Such knowledge, executives feared, might "take away the magic."
Disney invested $1.5 billion in Fortnite creator Epic Games, acccording to the article, and is planning a world in Fortnite where gamers can interact with Marvel superheroes and creatures from Avatar. But "an experiment to allow gamers to interact with an AI-generated Darth Vader was fraught. Within minutes of launching the AI bot, gamers had figured out a way to make it curse in James Earl Jones's signature baritone." (Though Epic patched the workaround within 30 minutes.)
But the article spells out another concern for Disney executives. "If a Fortnite gamer creates a Darth Vader and Spider-Man dance that goes viral on YouTube, who owns that dance?
Interviews with more than 20 current and former employees and partners present an entertainment giant torn between the inevitability of AI's advance and concerns about how to use it. Progress has at times been slowed by bureaucracy and hand-wringing over the company's social contract with its fans, not to mention its legal contract with unions representing actors, writers and other creative partners... For Disney, protecting its characters and stories while also embracing new AI technology is key. "We have been around for 100 years and we intend to be around for the next 100 years," said the company's legal chief, Horacio Gutierrez, in an interview. "AI will be transformative, but it doesn't need to be lawless...." [As recently as June, a Disney/Comcast Universal lawsuit had argued that Midjourney "is the quintessential copyright free-rider and a bottomless pit of plagiarism."]
Concerns about bad publicity were a big reason that Disney scrapped a plan to use AI in Tron: Ares — a movie set for release in October about an AI-generated soldier entering the real world. Since the movie is about artificial intelligence, executives pitched the idea of actually incorporating AI into one of the characters... as a buzzy marketing strategy, according to people familiar with the matter. A writer would provide context on the animated character — a sidekick to Jeff Bridges' lead role named Bit — to a generative AI program. Then on screen, the AI program, voiced by an actor, would respond to questions as Bit as cameras rolled. But with negotiations with unions representing writers and actors over contracts happening at the same time, Disney dismissed the idea, and executives internally were told that the company couldn't risk the bad publicity, the people said...
Disney's own history speaks to how studios have navigated technological crossroads before. When Disney hired Pixar to produce a handful of graphic images for its 1989 hit The Little Mermaid, executives kept the incorporation a secret, fearing backlash from fans if they learned that not every frame of the animated film had been hand-drawn. Such knowledge, executives feared, might "take away the magic."
Disney invested $1.5 billion in Fortnite creator Epic Games, acccording to the article, and is planning a world in Fortnite where gamers can interact with Marvel superheroes and creatures from Avatar. But "an experiment to allow gamers to interact with an AI-generated Darth Vader was fraught. Within minutes of launching the AI bot, gamers had figured out a way to make it curse in James Earl Jones's signature baritone." (Though Epic patched the workaround within 30 minutes.)
But the article spells out another concern for Disney executives. "If a Fortnite gamer creates a Darth Vader and Spider-Man dance that goes viral on YouTube, who owns that dance?
Good job Tech Bros (Score:3)
Re: Good job Tech Bros (Score:4, Insightful)
They made Disney nervous and you somehow manage to complain about it? Its fucking Disney, the king of litigation, lobbying and bribery in order to kill off any competition. A pox on their house for basically making copyright into an eternal nightmare.
Colour me unimpressed with your salty crocodile tears. I hope AI puts a stake in their heart.
Re: (Score:2)
Amen
Re: (Score:2)
Go ahead and herald the death of Disney, but it would be nice if the entire rest of the industry doesn't go down with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh well. suck it non-nerd.
I think part of Disney will bite the dust. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Disney has the theme parks, and the classic franchises, but AI is going to eat their lunch. I think. Soon every john, dick, and harry can create photo realistic, or cartoonist, movies... or shows... with any AI generated plot they can describe.
Disney's fortune is not in copyright, rather it's in trademarks and they'll defend their trademarks.
I don't think AI are going to eat their lunch the same as cheap animation out of Asia didn't eat their lunch. Disney has never been "photorealistic" and well, realism is really the opposite of what Disney sell, which is fantasy. What we're going to find is that, much like with cheap animation houses, you can produce decent animation but everything else suffers, no plot, no story, no character development..
Re: (Score:2)
Soon every john, dick, and harry can create photo realistic, or cartoonist, movies... or shows... with any AI generated plot they can describe.
Semi-pro and amateur productions are pretty limited in terms of budget for lighting, sets, size of cast and stunts - AI could change that and let some semi-pro and amateur creators do better. However, those semi-pro and amateur creators are sometimes also limited by poor pacing, wooden acting and awful editing. This is all assuming that the scripts are much the same. So we might get some better content with the ability to use AI to create stunts, etc., but there is no certainty. But there is some good drama
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck retaining copyright and merchandising rights of that slop.
Disney's Own Fault (Score:4, Informative)
Ironically, it is because of Disney's own actions that AI content generation is a legal minefield.
I don't feel sorry for them one bit.
Re: (Score:1)
"How can I monetize dead people?" -Disney / The government.
It was okay (Score:1)
"We tried AI but we got (Score:5, Funny)
...Goofy results".
Don't worry... (Score:4, Insightful)
If AI gets us the copyright reform we need ... (Score:3)
It would be so nice if AI would cause the copyright to improve. I already like how the whole "You don't have copyright to outputs without notable post-processing" keeps it out of being too commercialized. Some indie film maker doesn't have a large problem if someone can take parts of the movie. That won't make a big dent for selling the movie. But Disney can't sue people over using things they generate as they do for things they render. I'd wish it would stay like this, AI being most usable for people who are chill about copyright and avoided by large companies. But you bet they get a copyright reform that allows them to protect their "intellectual property" and at the same time use generated content in their product without people being allowed to reference it in own works.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be so nice if AI would cause the copyright to improve. I already like how the whole "You don't have copyright to outputs without notable post-processing" keeps it out of being too commercialized. Some indie film maker doesn't have a large problem if someone can take parts of the movie. That won't make a big dent for selling the movie.
I'm not so sure it won't make a big dent financially. If an indie (or a studio, for that matter), doesn't meet the 'notable post-processing' standard, no one has to pay to show or sell the film. I doubt a theater will give a percentage of the box to the indie out of the goodness of a theater's heart and because it is the right thing. If it's a hit they'll gladly take the money and congratulate the creators on winning an award. Beyond court fights over what is the 'notable post-processing' standard, I sus
Setting the big issues aside (Score:3)
Obvious (Score:1)
That explains The Mandalorian (Score:4, Interesting)
In the first season of The Mandalorian, when a de-aged Luke appears, I remember the complaints that the CGI wasn't great, and within days there were alternate versions using AI that actually produced much better results than what Disney spent a fortune doing. A lot of people were wondering why Disney didn't use these tools if they were available to the general public, and now it makes sense. It was the legal side of things and Disney not being sure they fully owned the result if it wasn't created by a work-for-hire human being.
Link to video (Score:2)
I should have searched this out and included it in my comment. Here's the video that prompted my comment [youtu.be]. Also note this video was from 4 years ago, just before the huge explosion in AI capability.
Who owns it? (Score:2)
"If a Fortnite gamer creates a Darth Vader and Spider-Man dance that goes viral on YouTube, who owns that dance?"
Easy. Nobody owns it, at least as far as being able to monetize. If I write a Harry Potter sequel using all the standard Harry Potter characters, JKR doesn't own it and can't take it and publish it and keep all the money. I can't publish it and keep the money either. Effectively its similar to contraband.
When uncanny valley fills with raw sewage (Score:2)