New York Becomes First State To Require Disclosure of AI Performers in Ads (hollywoodreporter.com) 24
New York Governor Kathy Hochul on Thursday signed two bills aimed at regulating the use of AI in entertainment, requiring disclosure when ads feature AI-generated performers and mandating consent from heirs before a deceased person's likeness can be used commercially. Hochul described both measures as "first in the nation" policies during a signing ceremony at SAG-AFTRA's New York City offices.
The first bill compels ad producers to disclose the use of synthetic performers, and the second requires companies to obtain consent from heirs or executors before using a person's name, image, or likeness for commercial purposes after their death. "We will have responsible AI policies in the state of New York," Hochul said. "It's a time where we do want to embrace innovation. But not to the detriment of people."
The signing came the same day Disney announced a partnership allowing users of OpenAI's Sora to create clips featuring Marvel, Pixar, and Star Wars characters.
The first bill compels ad producers to disclose the use of synthetic performers, and the second requires companies to obtain consent from heirs or executors before using a person's name, image, or likeness for commercial purposes after their death. "We will have responsible AI policies in the state of New York," Hochul said. "It's a time where we do want to embrace innovation. But not to the detriment of people."
The signing came the same day Disney announced a partnership allowing users of OpenAI's Sora to create clips featuring Marvel, Pixar, and Star Wars characters.
In the real world (Score:2)
Not much different from disclosing paid actors (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The entire point of any ad is to convince someone to part with their money. It doesn't matter if it's AI or not. Take all advertising with a lump of salt and do your own research before buying something.
This law will just add some white text to the bottom of the commercial at the beginning saying AI was used. Yippie do.
I'm not sure why it even matters but I guess it's a baby step in demanding humans be used in the creation of media.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
*I* don't want to require humans to make ads but lawmakers and other officials that run cities want tax revenue. If AI takes the jobs, that revenue stream from people paying income taxes dries up. So far, we haven't seen an AI tax. Yet.
Re: Not much different from disclosing paid actors (Score:1)
Why can't they shift to a wealth fund model, and profit from AI investments backed by a Fed put in a panic?
Re: (Score:2)
If companies do not need to pay humans to make the ads, they take the money and pay the humans to make other things. It's not like there wouldn't be enough labor left.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the jobs in question.
What if you are part of a team of creatives working for an advertising firm and that firm now rolls out AI that does about half your job? Say your team is 10 people and most of them all do the exact same stuff. If AI can accomplish half the job, then I could either embrace AI as a tool to increase productivity and grow the company (assuming we can find more clients) or you embrace AI as a tool and layoff half the department letting the other 5 produce the same amount of work
Re: (Score:2)
But who are the people using the AI?
I've got the impression the "AI will replace us" people do not think about the AI we have, but about some form of robots that autonomously do everything on their own. But every image generator has a person who uses it. Who first thinks about what they want, then try designs with different prompts and ideas, then refine a good candidate with the more direct tools, refine the image in an editor afterward, possibly train models to create more consistent images of the same ch
Re: (Score:2)
demanding humans be used in the creation of media.
That will just mean media is no longer produced in New York.
Probably be challenged (Score:2)
There is too much money at stake, and it seems like a lazy free speech argument would go over well if it made its way to SCOTUS.
Re:Probably be challenged (Score:4)
There are too many lawyers regardless of how political you may want this to be; it simply isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
If Duke's is "the official mayo of the tailgate", then really anyone can make any sort of nonsense statements in marketing. The FTC's truth-in-advertising laws aren't really meaningful anymore, and I don't think they are applied equally to every industry (or at all).
So while the government could limit commercial speech, it also can't impose arbitrary restrictions without cause. There has to be a rationale that walks down the narrow definition that previous courts have defined. e.g. is it illegal, misleading
Re: (Score:2)
If I were Robert De Niro or Taylor Swift, I wouldn't care if an ad says "this is AI" on it, I'd freaking sue if an ad looked like me or sounded like me.
That's what the second bill is for, apparently. Isn't this already covered in US laws though? Here in the Netherlands we have had "portrait rights" for over a century, basically it means that you have a say in how your likeness is being used in publications, and you can forbid publication if you have a good reason. Reasons include protecting one's reputation, but also the use of a famous person's likeness without their permission. The law also protects persons after their death, but only for a period of
Re: (Score:2)
Barring Federal pre-emption, I don't see a way to challenge this new law.
Good! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
I think that AI, as deployed is harmful to society.
So join ANTIFAI - anti-f*-ai.
Though it might get you labeled as a ter'ist. Especially if you don't buy the products they're pushing.
Re: (Score:2)
And also (Score:2)
CGI? Animations?
I hear rumors that the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park were not real dinosaurs, but merely computer simulated to save money.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between claiming that something is real, and then the reality being different. With AI, there is the potential for a lot of true fake stuff that claims to be real, but is generated with AI. There is also a big difference between using special effects and AI to make something for entertainment purposes, vs. trying to convince people that these fake things are a reason to vote for a given candidate, or buy a product. It's like financial predictions needing a disclaimer that the rea
I'm okay with this. (Score:2)
Specifically, big red letters spelling out - "This is all a lie. The narrator does not exist and as such has never used a product of any kind."
May contain AI (Score:2)
We'll probably soon be seeing "May contain AI" disclaimers on everything. How do you want to be sure that no component of your ad pipeline uses AI? You can't. And probably a few indeed do use AI.
By the way, can we get disclaimers on food ads if they use glue instead of milk when presenting how it allegedly looks like when you pour milk on cornflakes?
everythgin (Score:2)
Everything not prohibited is compulsory.