Name: Brainstorm AI London 2024: Responding To AI’s Disruption Of Entertainment And The Arts
Uploaded: 2024-04-15
Duration: 18 min 23 s
Description: Josh Berger CBE, Founder and Chairman, Battersea Entertainment Lynda Rooke, Actor; President, Equity Alexandra Shannon, Head of Strategic Development, Creative Artists Agency Moderator: Ellie Austin, Deputy Editorial Director, Fortune Live Media, FORTUNE; Co-chair, Fortune Brainstorm AI London

Josh Berger CBE, Founder and Chairman, Battersea Entertainment Lynda Rooke, Actor; President, Equity Alexandra Shannon, Head of Strategic Development, Creative Artists Agency Moderator: Ellie Austin, Deputy Editorial Director, Fortune Live Media, FORTUNE; Co-chair, Fortune Brainstorm AI London  

Brainstorm AI London 2024:  Responding To AI’s Disruption Of Entertainment And The Arts

Photography by Joe Maher Fortune Brainstorm AI

Conferences

Josh Berger CBE, Founder and Chairman, Battersea Entertainment Lynda Rooke, Actor; President, Equity Alexandra Shannon, Head of Strategic Development, Creative Artists Agency Moderator: Ellie Austin, Deputy Editorial Director, Fortune Live Media, FORTUNE

Josh Berger CBE, Founder and Chairman, Battersea Entertainment Lynda Rooke, Actor; President, Equity Alexandra Shannon, Head of Strategic Development, Creative Artists Agency, Ellie Austin, FORTUNE

Hello again, everyone. And hello, Josh Linda and Alex. Thank you so much for being here. Alex actually has just flown in this morning from New York. So it's hot marks to her for being here, Linda. I want to start with you now. So equity represents a whole range of artists. We were talking backstage. You said in addition to actors, musicians, wrestlers, models, radio stars, um which A I use case do you think will be most disruptive to the members of equity? Probably screen uh and to some extent life as well live theater because of streaming of shows, et cetera that suddenly come in since the pandemic or during the pandemic. Uh but particularly a film and television as well as voice as well. Yeah, voice as well, the replication of, of voice. And I know that you're campaigning quite hard at the moment to raise, aware of these issues because there are no uh formal regulations in place. What would you, what guard rails would you like to see around A I in the arts industry? Well, there, there's a number of issues. It's, it's to do with transparency for a start of knowing where where your image is, what the rights are, where it's being used, et cetera, consent as well and control over that image, you know that you have the right to withdraw that consent, et cetera. And the biggie remuneration. Basically, if you're going to use our image and our voice, et cetera, we want to be paid and we want to know about it and we want to be paid properly. We're going to come back on to what properly means in a second. Josh. Now you've worked in the media TV, film theater industry for decades and you were at Warner Brothers where one of the things you did was you ran the global Harry Potter franchise, which is something very close to my heart. And I'm sure many millennials in the audience as well. Um I want to focus on the films for a second. If that first Harry Potter film was coming out in the A I age, how would it production be different and how would the end product look different? It's a good question. II, I mean, the first film, even as compared to the last films, uh there was a kind of revolution in the visual effects industry in this country as well. And Potter kind of brought on what is now the world leading the FX uh industry based based here. And uh and so in some ways, it was a step in that direction because they were computer generated images in the in the latter films and in the earlier films, not nearly as much, um you know, the the castle was, for example, a real, it was up at an E for example. Uh and then you'll see that there was a much more digital uh imagery in, in the later films as, as technology advanced. Well, in the A I era, it would be possible then to do more of that and it might look even more real or uh and it would be created, you know, with a AAA verbal prompt in 60 seconds instead of many, many people working to create it. Now again, that presupposes that we've worked out a lot of those uh a lot of these issues about remuneration for people who would normally be doing that work. Humans are doing that work as opposed to a machine. And then of course, the machine that would create the visuals would be building them based on scraping all of the visuals that are already that have already been created by somebody. So again, the remuneration for the work and the attribution of that work because the transparency is really important. And then again, I don't, I don't suspect it's, I don't suspect anybody knows where every single image in every piece of text was ever created because that's what's out there and that's what's being scraped and that's what's creating, you know, the foundation of the A I which then creates visuals and text and scripts and everything else. Now, Alex at CAA, you've come up with a pretty interesting and innovative way to manage the thorny issue of digital doubles. And you've created something called the CAA Vault, which allows your clients, your actors to create their own digital doubles and then have control over how, when they used and be paid to them. Can you talk us a bit through how that came about? Sure. So it's no surprise to anyone in this room that a few years ago, we noticed that on the one hand, there was this rampant misuse of our client's name, image likeness, voice, body of work without their consent. And on the other hand, we were noticing interesting opportunities in companies who wanted to work with our clients and their digital rights, but didn't have a way to do that in an ethical talent based mechanism. And so we decided to launch what we call the CIA Vault. It is on the one hand, we are proactively creating our talents, digital likeness, we are scanning their image, we're scanning their voice, we're scanning their likeness. Um And we are then storing that on their behalf. Um The purpose of this is on the one hand, we know that the law is going to take time to catch up. And so this is a mechanism for our clients to actually create and own and have permissions around their digital identities. And we think over time that will actually help the law catch up faster because now there is a legitimate way to work with one of our clients. There is a legitimate way to compensate them and to give them credit for their work. Um And on the opportunity side, um for those who are interested and not all are, but for those who are interested, um this provides a way for us to help set a precedent for anyone who wants to work with one of our clients and their digital identity. There is a mechanism to have them be compensated. There is a mechanism to work with them in the right way and unlock opportunities. Have you had to convince your clients to take advantage of this is some people skeptical what's been the take up? Absolutely. Uh It runs the gamut. On the one hand, you have clients who are very skeptical of this space and on the other side, you have those who are quite interested and thinking about how to take advantage of this space. And the clients that we're scanning are actors and actresses. But it is also musicians and athletes and digital influencers and politicians. It, it runs the gamut because we think that by starting and starting to set the precedent that we think this will ultimately benefit everybody. Um We all know sort of the conversations we were talking as we were walking in about some of the conversations over the last year or so. Um We can't just stop at the top in any field. It has to be a place where we can set the precedent that everyone benefits from one more question to you. And then Linda and Josh, I'm gonna bring you in on this subject. You talked about remuneration. How is it calculated? If one of these digital doubles is used by a studio, what are the metrics for deciding what the client should be paid for that use? It's a great question and the market is, is forming to be honest, uh it is happening in real time. But the idea is that if you're to work with somebody's digital double, you aren't working with that because you think you can work for that person in a more cheap way that it's creating some big cost efficiency for you at the end of the day, if you are working with somebody, the the value of that person to a brand, for example, um if it's a brand endorsement deal, the value is in that person representing your brand, whether it is them fully in person and performing, whether it is using some of these A I tools powered by a digital double to do post production fixes or to help enhance the value um to think about localization of content, for example. OK. So it's more a scheduling or convenience tool rather than a cost cutting measure. Linda Josh, what do you make of this, Linda? Would you be encouraging your members to get involved I think if you, you have status or profile in the industry, there's probably a very good reason to sort all that side of things out, you know, and I'm sure it's going on, but I represent 50,000 members, not of all whom you will know who they are, et cetera. Some just starting out in the industry and they won't have the power, et cetera to be able to, to work through those problems as well. You know, uh all the financial wherewithal to do that. Um So those are the issues around making sure that everybody's protected added to which dry, say the other people who are not in the room to be able to defend themselves are those who are no longer with us where somebody's image and voice, et cetera, who is, who is dead, who is then being brought back to life without the consent, without their consent so that it's states are trying to manage that. Well, yes. Uh But there are also the other thing, of course, when a lot of programs were made in the seventies, eighties, nineties, what was going on? There was no A I so within what we have is called collective agreements, there was nothing to control the use of those images and rights because back then, as you know, we were dealing with C DS and cassettes and everybody's cell phone or mobile phone was the size of a brick. So have changed now. Uh and unfortunately relying on the agreements that were in place and the contracts that were signed, something has to be updated. So, are you speaking to the government about this? Yes, we are. Yes, there's a, there's a number of fronts on this one. There's the intellectual property side of things and there's also GDPR as well. Uh There's a number of routes plus, of course, if they could adopt one B, option one B of the Beijing treaty, that would be useful because so much of our work in English speaking countries, we work a lot with the USA. What would that entail? Well, basically, we, we work with our collective agreements uh because we obviously all the time, um the USA and Canada film over here, et cetera and our actors work over there and there's a kind of multiplicity around that and it would just ease the problems around uh property rights, et cetera. OK. Um Josh, you were saying backstage that you were in L A around the time that there was the S A afra strikes last year um which those strikes were about the streaming economy. They were also about then lack of regulation around A I and on the whole, it seems that humans won as it were, there's now guardrails around what can happen with A I in a writer's room and also when it comes to talents doubles, did, how do you feel about the outcome of the strikes? And maybe what could we learn from them here in the UK. First of all, I think it's too early to know what the outcome is. I, I think the headline sounded good, um, for the actors and for the writers and it was good that the studios finally capitulated and, and did something because for too long they were immovable on the subject and it cost a lot of people, you know, a lot of, a lot of work and a lot of money that they desperately needed a lot more than the studios who were putting them in that position. And, you know, honestly, they could have, they could have gotten to that deal months faster in, in my view. But um but aside from that, I still think it's, it's too early because if you calculate also the cost of the strike uh in lost business for everybody. I mean, you know, uh Warner Brothers Discovery uh restated their numbers based on the strike impact and it, the, the, the number were, the numbers were horrendous. And again, you know, if they had worked that into their negotiating position, again, David Zaslav would have pushed a lot faster. I think I, I would have thought so. And um but uh so I think it's too early to do the cost benefit and it's, it's sort of a step in the direction of not resolution but just some motive vivendi while we see what happens with A I and how A I is is going to be used. Uh So po more positive than negative because there was a deal. Um I mean, the, the real negative case was just that kind of stand off for all that time and there was an acknowledgment among, among the studios that for example, if you write something with A I, you can't, you know, a I can't be the credit who write if anything, it's, it's gotta be a human being. Um I mean, there's just interesting data most recently just with CEO si mean half of CEO S now are using A I and, and passing off that work is their own, which you probably saw just in the last couple of days. So, I mean, the, the fact is this tool is going to be used by many, many, many people um including in our, in our industry and we need to figure out how to, again how to, how to pay people. There's numerous court cases at the moment between big tech companies and the New York Times or the Authors Guild um over the fact that original source material that's used to train the A I is never credited. So I guess it's also an IP law question as well. Um I'm gonna open it up to the audience now to see if anyone has a question for our panel. If you do. Um please raise your hand. Um We will come to you. If not, I will continue with my questions for now. Ok. I, oh no, we do have one question and please state your name and the company that you're from. Thank you. Hello, thank you. My name is Jack Dane. I'm the podcast producer for global government forum. I just want to sort of pitch three scenarios and ask the panel how plausible they think they will be looking forward into the future with the ability to take the likenesses of celebrities deceased. Though it comes with ethical problems or still alive and create kind of 3d models of them. How plausible is it that we'll see, say the Beatles headlining in Glastonbury in 2035 2nd scenario, um, could actresses and actresses based on the sort of work that you're doing with them at the moment potentially work forever and if that's the case, well, I guess like Children really would never have to work again. But the point being, could that actually be, is that plausible if the value that they put on their work isn't that they do it in person, but that they simply bring their likeness and their, their data to it? And I guess the third would be, do you think it's plausible that public figures may want to take advantage of that too? Might we live one day in a world of immortal presidents and prime ministers? Ok. Why don't we? That's a scary thought. Sounds horrific. Um, let's have each of you take one of them. So Alex, maybe if you start with the Beatles headlining Glastonbury question. Yeah. So they're, they're fascinating questions and I think these technologies are, are only going to continue leading to this explosion of creativity. I think we're only scratching the surface for what's possible in the long run. Um Certainly thinking through how the technology is applied and thinking through the human centric element is, is paramount. Um But I think that world where, you know, you think about the legacy of somebody, you think about their ability to continue making impact years and years and years to come. I do think it is an interesting one. I equate it very much to when, you know, digital cameras were coming out. It's my favorite analogy with this space because that didn't get rid of the traditional art form of painting and the traditional kind of in person artwork. It just created this whole new incremental set of work and it sort of expanded the pie in many ways and grew the pie. And so I very much think that, you know, is there a scenario such as the, the Beatles example? I'm not sure we're seeing versions of that with even here in the UK, with Abba Voyage. Um which I think is a fascinating one where if you think about the dynamics of a group of people that otherwise may not be comfortable traveling, may not all be able to be in the same place, they're still able to reach fans and engage with fans in the right way, but they were in control of that. And it's, it's a model that puts them front and center. I think those sorts of experiences and ways to continue reaching fans for generations to come, I do think is, is a powerful opportunity. And then let Linda briefly on the question of active actresses working forever. Yeah, I mean, I, I understand where you're coming from with that kind of thing. But the truth is it's, this is an industry that demands change and innovation on a constant basis, there's always a fresh new face, whatever being looked out for. So whilst there is a potential, I guess for somebody to be playing, you know, the Harry Potter Kid forever and a day, the point being is that in the end that you the audiences will demand different faces changes to those things, we we'll move on, you know, Laurence Olivier is no longer with us. We've enjoyed looking at his films, et cetera, but we want fresh faces, we want different, we want other younger people coming through. Uh there could be the chance of, you know, you you never age, you know, the Peter Pan effect. That would be an interesting one. But, but overall, II I think it's in our collective agreements, write it in there, pay as well and send it on to the families et cetera. But in the end, you the audience will tire of that repetition. Trust me. I want to end on a more upbeat note. Has anyone here got an example in mind of a piece of art that's been created using a I that they think is spectacular and wouldn't otherwise have come to be. Yes, Josh, I thought you were gonna ask me that question about the politicians. I mean, can I just, can I just answer it very quickly if the questioner asked that question of Donald Trump, he'd say yes, I wanna live and be the president forever. That was the first thought. And that's like the biggest nightmare in history. Um So said as an American, um uh what was the other question? The way A A I is the need for good? And Damien Hirst did a, an NFT something called the currency, which was really cool and his machine created, but he did another series. I forget what it's called. The spun paintings or the spun colors. I mean, they're really, really beautiful and they're, I, and you can, you can kind of build your own actually and sort of tell the machine what you want and you can see and, you know, he puts his name on it as, you know, as he does and he's good at that. But um they, they really are stunning actually. And that, those, that's a ir and there's a marketplace now for that, a rair in the NFT space. Uh Josh Alex LT, that's all we've got time for. It's been a joy speaking to you. Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you. Go over here, I've got the.