>Actors don’t break out by virtue of their stellar background acting work.
Indeed. But it's a paying job that gives one the opportunity to learn how a film set works, and gain skills that will be useful later. Think of it as an internship, if you like. That, you'll surely agree, has some value?
>Why would you bother recreating someone when you could generate someone better fit for the role?
But, they're not doing that! They're taking background actors' images, and copy-pasting them into other scenes, and other works. That seems... Unjust? I mean, that's me, isn't it? Fair enough (I suppose), if they create an entirety synthetic person (that's totally been a thing for decades, for massive, anonymous crowds), but if you make something that's based on me, looks like me, moves like me, sounds like me, isn't that partly my creation, and shouldn't I get some credit, and some compensation?
I mean, maybe someday they may create entirely synthetic background actors, and then the point will be moot, but for now they're not quite there, and they're trying to get away with using actual peoples' work in ways that weren't ancicipated, and for which they were not compensated.
> Think of it as an internship, if you like. That, you'll surely agree, has some value?
Sure. I generally agree that the loss of background actors would be harmful to actors, most of whom are poor.
> But, they're not doing that! They're taking background actors' images, and copy-pasting them into other scenes, and other works.
This is not clear. I think what you are saying and what SAG are saying is incorrect because frankly it doesn’t make sense to me. The studios have said those narratives are grossly incorrect, and I am inclined to agree simply because they do not make economic sense. Background actors are cheap and better than trying to “paste” them into future scenes. But I don’t really care because the actual thing we should care about is the near term future where background actors are simply generated entirely, which is the primary threat and completely unchallenged by the current debate being had.
That’s the problem. The argument is the problem. Not the general plight of the small actors. Any belief that they are solving their current problems or future proofing themselves is painfully naive.
Indeed. But it's a paying job that gives one the opportunity to learn how a film set works, and gain skills that will be useful later. Think of it as an internship, if you like. That, you'll surely agree, has some value?
>Why would you bother recreating someone when you could generate someone better fit for the role?
But, they're not doing that! They're taking background actors' images, and copy-pasting them into other scenes, and other works. That seems... Unjust? I mean, that's me, isn't it? Fair enough (I suppose), if they create an entirety synthetic person (that's totally been a thing for decades, for massive, anonymous crowds), but if you make something that's based on me, looks like me, moves like me, sounds like me, isn't that partly my creation, and shouldn't I get some credit, and some compensation?
I mean, maybe someday they may create entirely synthetic background actors, and then the point will be moot, but for now they're not quite there, and they're trying to get away with using actual peoples' work in ways that weren't ancicipated, and for which they were not compensated.