When actors have another "copy
Let's set a situation where actors come to the studio for a day, have their faces and bodies scanned and voice samples taken. Then, using AI, their digital version can say unspoken sentences, perform unfilmed actions, and even appear in new products.
Should the actor then be paid for a working day, a movie, or all the times the "copy" continues to appear?
What used to be like a science fiction story is becoming a real-life labor problem of the film industry.
Talking to Lao Dong, Meritorious Artist Hanh Thuy said that if currently a producer proposes digitizing her face and voice to create a copy to continue acting without her needing to go to the studio, the answer is no.
At least in the current period, I will not agree," Hanh Thuy said.
The reason is not simply about money. "Because I think myself in the current period is a unique value," the female artist shared.
According to Hanh Thuy, initially providing data to AI may bring benefits. But as technology continues to be upgraded and more and more data is owned about artists themselves, copies are likely to compete against the original.
It is very likely that I myself will no longer be valuable," she said.
Therefore, before the question of how much money actors must be paid when using their faces or voices, Hanh Thuy said that it is necessary to solve a more important issue: how much protection is there for artists' rights to these data.
The female artist pointed out that images and voices of celebrities can now be copied to advertise products that they do not participate in. According to her, a "solid legal corridor" is needed to both protect artists and help the public distinguish real people from products created by AI.
Director Zun Bin has a fairly open mind about technology. He is willing to consider making a film in which the main role is real people, and partly supporting roles, extras are created by AI.
However, the principle he set out is that "the use of images, voice or identifying features of a real actor must have clear consent and agreement".
How many scans are used?
Director Pham Vinh Khuong also believes that the source of images, voice and consensus must be clarified when AI goes deep into film production. Participants need to know how their data is used and how benefits are calculated.
This is the point that makes the "digital copy" different from a normal scene. A film scene has a relatively clear scope, while facial, voice, and movement data can become materials to create performances that artists have never directly performed.
Producer Kevin Huynh sees AI first and foremost as a tool to support tasks such as large crowds, graphics or effects. However, he does not support technology replacing human emotions.
What AI cannot replace is that emotions in every action come from real people," he said.
Similar debate has caused Hollywood to set barriers to the use of digital copies.
According to SAG-AFTRA agreements, a producer who wants to create a "digital replica" of an actor must meet the requirements for notification, consent and remuneration. When a copy is used outside the agreed scope, the producer does not automatically have the right to continue exploitation.
These protection principles also apply to extras. The purpose of using a copy needs to be specifically defined instead of turning consent into a general clause allowing unlimited exploitation.
The problem is even more complicated when an artist passes away. Digital copies in theory may continue to appear on screen for many years after the real person is gone, raising the question of who has the right to decide on the use of their images.
Thus, the acting profession in the future may have a new type of asset: the digital version of the artist himself.
Actors not only sell their labor during their days on set but can also license faces, voices and movements. If well controlled, this can become a new source of income. But if one data scan is synonymous with prolonged exploitation rights, that copy can become an opponent of the real person.
Hanh Thuy believes that artists must also protect their own values through creativity. When AI can learn from what an actor has done, artists must continue to create new things that technology does not have data to copy.
