What do we want?
>> Shut down.
Where do we want it?
>> Down.
>> Hollywood is on the brink of a shutdown.
With signs at the ready, members of the Screen Actors Guild
could soon join striking members of the Writers Guild on picket lines.
SAG's current contract with studios expires at midnight Wednesday.
>> That's right.
Members of the Screen Actors Guild could be hit the picket line as soon
as tomorrow if their union and the major studios fail to agree to a new contract.
Now, much like their fellow colleagues in the Writers Guild of America,
the actors are concerned about the impact of AI technology and
what it might do to their jobs.
But there are other issues at hand, including how streaming has already
impacted their livelihoods and their ability to make money.
So the streaming services, as you all know,
have been producing a lot more content,
which I think some would assume would lead to more opportunities and more money.
But that has not been the case,
because streaming services do not pay out as much as residuals do.
So for more on that, why don't we go to More Perfect Union,
which did excellent coverage on this issue?
Let's watch.
>> So a residual is something when the show re-airs somewhere or
it gets sold to another outlet, we get a check.
Sometimes those checks are pretty good,
maybe you get a $1,000 one day in the mail that you weren't expecting.
Sometimes those checks are literally $0.1.
>> Biggest thing I was in, I was on a show on Netflix called Bonding,
my show was originally an independent series, and
then Netflix bought it, and put it on their platform, which was amazing.
And more people saw it than I ever anticipated, like millions and
millions of people.
The way the contracts were set up because the budget was so
low, was that there was no residuals involved in it.
As residuals are going down and as these shows are being pulled off platforms or
not aired, actors aren't receiving any residuals from them,
which leads them to not be able to often make their health insurance.
>> So the issue with residuals was also brought up
among those in the Writers Guild of America.
I do think it's a legitimate concern, I just don't know what the solution is for
it, right?
Because the landscape is completely different,
streaming has disrupted the way we consume our media, and
it really depends on how much revenue they're making.
Now, if you look at the amount of money or profits, I should say,
some of the executives at these studios are raking in,
it gives you a sense of how some of that wealth could certainly be shared.
But I don't know if it's the amount necessary to make up for
how much they're losing now that residuals are becoming obsolete.
>> Yeah, so this is a difficult question, but
I think that there are some rational answers here.
So first off, is it right to strike?
Well, it depends, of course, it depends, right?
And we're all amped up against giant corporate power, so
we wanna encourage folks to take power back, right, employees to take power back.
But does it matter if it's the context, are they making money or
are they not making money?
Are they a big company or are they a small company, etc, right?
So in this case, we have a conundrum because they're giant companies,
but they're actually not making money.
Well, that makes it more difficult.
So if you say, all right,
now I wanna add a ton of cost to your business that already is not profitable,
well, okay, then if they think nobody makes money, right?
So that's why it's a little bit complicated.
Does that mean I don't support the potential strike?
No, that doesn't mean that at all.
In fact, I do, okay?
But when Netflix says, look, I'm not making money yet,
for a very long time, Amazon didn't make money.
And that's because people were piling in knowing that they would eventually have
a near monopoly and make trillions of dollars which did happen, right 0.
And so if at the time Amazon wasn't making money, they're like, golly, gee,
we're just a small to mid-sized company and we're losing money.
Well, that's true in a lot of cases, but not in Amazon's case,
they were a giant company,
right, that was planning to make all these billions of dollars, and they did, Right.
So how do you solve that problem?
It's mainly a timing problem, right?
And I would solve it with some sort of percentage,
kind of like the way the sports leagues do, right?
Okay, we don't know how much the Grizzlies are gonna make, and
the Lakers are gonna make, and the Spurs are gonna make, but
we allot a certain percentage of our revenue to the players.
Most of the sports leagues do this.
So instead of doing residuals, which kind of made sense
in the old days, right, now it's antiquated, right?
So when the studios say that, I don't think they're lying about that, and we can
see in their public records that they're not lying that they're losing money for
the moment being, but that is not the whole picture, right?
So now, okay, you want me to not get residuals while you're losing money,
okay, but am I sharing in the upside when you do make money, okay.
So I think that's the way to resolve this.
I don't know if they're going in that direction, but
that's what I would encourage.
>> Well, one of the other sticking points I wanna get to, because I think this is
a more fascinating angle to the contract negotiations, is the topic of AI, right?
So the writers are concerned about how AI might be used to replace them.
And the actors, believe it or not, are concerned about the exact same
thing because there is this effort to use their likeness in films,
in TV shows using AI without the actor or actress even having to do anything, right?
They want some of the big names to kind of sign off on it, so
the studios can use their likeness.
They'll get a check because their likeness is being used, but
that does have an impact on some of the smaller name entertainers,
smaller name actors and actresses.
Because if they don't already have a big name, and they're not giving
an opportunity to really show their skill and their acting chops, well,
they're not gonna o get the opportunity to sign off on these contracts where studios
get to use their likeness and they make money that way, right?
It's really a short sighted way of doing things, they see this,
which is why they want the union to address it.
And so SAG-AFTRA has long been working to promote state laws that
safeguard a person's right of publicity so they can't,
for instance, be used to promote a product they didn't agree to.
We are also working with lawmakers on legislation to protect voice and
likeness on a federal level.
So that's something that the national executive director and
chief negotiator for SAG-AFTRA is saying.
We are promoting stronger federal copyright protections for humans.
We believe using copyrighted works to train generative AI is
infringement and that AI created work cannot be copyrighted.
And this is really the area where it appears, based on what the union is
saying, that the studios are not really willing to negotiate on good faith.
[LAUGH] They're basically saying, like, listen,
we're willing to have discussions about this.
We'll meet with you guys regularly about what we're doing with AI, what we plan to
do with AI, but that's not anywhere close to what the actors want addressed here.
>> Yeah, so look, whether we like it or not,
I understand the inevitability of business.
And so AI is going to take over a ton of different job categories,
but that also depends on your category.
So is it mainly a mechanical job in which gives lots of trouble?
Is it mainly online research job?
AI's got it, it's over.
Okay, and you could say, no, I don't like it, etc, but it is what it is,
and that's the direction they're gonna go.
When it gets into entertainment, well, I have a couple of different takes on that.
Number one is at some point, the studios are gonna try AI with people that are not
the big names, not actors, and they got permission to use their likeness,
but they're gonna try and a full boat AI, and then they're gonna see if it works.
And then the market is gonna decide if we all hate it, nobody's gonna watch it,
they're not gonna make money, and they're gonna go away from it.
If people kind of like it,
they're gonna do a lot more because they're gonna make a profit.
Okay, so that's just a reality, and we don't like that, but that is a reality.
>> Well, interesting that you bring that up,
because the new Indiana Jones film apparently does rely on AI.
So Indiana Jones and the Deal of Destiny, recently released in theaters,
features an extended flashback sequence of a de aged Harrison Ford,
and they did that using artificial intelligence.
The film bombed in the box office.
>> Nah, that was way more complicated, it did great international, I saw it.
The whole time, you're looking at Harrison Ford, you're like,
I know it's AI I know it's AI, it's super distracting, but it does kind of work.
If you had no idea who Harrison Ford was and you were watching the movie, you might
think that that's what he actually looks like, it's like a younger version of him.
But that gets into the third and final category, which is somebody gives you
permission, Harrison Ford's getting paid a Gazillion dollars to do that movie.
He says, yeah, make a younger version of me for the early part of the scenes,
I don't have any problem with that.
If somebody's paying you for your likeness,
that's between them and you, and I have nothing to do with it.
So it depends with AI on how you view it.
Guys, we want to push back and try to protect the humans, of course, right?
But some fights will win, and some fights will be harder,
that's what I'm telling you in this regard.
>> And the final thing I'll mention is, while it appears that this strike among
those in the Screen Actors Guild is very close to happening,
this could happen tomorrow.
There are some optics issues with union leadership.
Okay, so apparently the president of SAG, Fran Drescher,
I didn't even know she was the president of SAG.
Basically says, look, we're making great progress on these negotiations.
Now, the rank and file would say otherwise, but nonetheless, she's arguing,
no, we are making some progress, don't worry.
Now, it turns out that she's been in Italy because Kim Kardashian posted
a photo of the two of them on Sunday, I wanna show that photo to you.
And apparently, they were at the Dolce & Gabbana Fashion Show in Italy.
And here's what the union had to say in response to the members who were less
than happy to see that photo.
SAG-AFTRA said Drescher was working as a brand ambassador for Dolce & Gabbana on
location in Italy, and her commitment was fully known to the negotiating committee.
She has been in negotiations every day, either in-person or via video conference.
President Drescher is managing a physically demanding schedule across three
time zones, overseeing negotiations and
working on location daily, as well as managing her parent's needs in Florida.
She's returning to the States and will be on the ground in LA tomorrow, and
will continue to chair our negotiations.
So look, I agree that it looks bad optically,
I don't know what the SAG-AFTRA statement indicates is full of lies,
I'll give her the benefit of the doubt.
I do believe that you can be in one place in a different country and
still engage in these negotiations through teleconferencing or whatever.
>> Yeah, I have no idea if she's actually a brand ambassador, and is getting paid to
do that, and that's part of her contract, and hence she has no choice.
It's possible, and it's possible that it's BS.
So it is what it is, that's the statement.
But more importantly to the core issue, I know a couple of actors and
they are not pleased with how Fran Drescher is handling these negotiations.
You can say it's anecdotal, but
they seem to think that other actors are also greatly dissatisfied.
And for a while, Fran Drescher, this is a fact, Fran Drescher said that
the negotiations were going really well and very productive.
>> Yeah, and that does not appear to be the case.
>> Yeah, there was a massive pushback from that publicly where people were like,
no they're not, I don't know what you're talking about and
I don't know why you're saying that.
>> Look, if she's the president of the union, not a good look to play patty cakes
and pretend like things are going great when they're not.
At the same time,
I don't know what she's supposed to say that would have been better, right?
Things are terrible, we're not making any headway, no progress at all.
You know what I'm saying?
I feel like she just kind of gave a throwaway statement of like, yeah,
we're making progress.
>> I do. Look, these things are always hard, right?
First of all, whenever you're a public figure and
it's such a high impact situation with a lot of lives on the line,
you're gonna get criticism from a lot of different ends.
So that doesn't necessarily mean you're doing it poorly, but
sometimes it does, right?
>> Yeah. >> And in this case, people are definitely
dissatisfied with how it's going, but obviously, we'll see how it ends, and
that's when knock on wood for everybody involved that it does end well, obviously.
But if it doesn't, then, of course, there's gonna be more questions.
And to people's point about being dissatisfied with her, there's a general
feeling of by a lot of union members and a lot of different unions, not just
SAG-AFTRA that union leadership often makes pretty cozy deals over the last 10,
20, 30 years with management and people are starting to get really dissatisfied.
>> Yeah, that's definitely true.
And that was just very clear in the negotiations that were taking
place between the rail workers unions and the rail companies.
So that might be the case here, yearly the rank and
file are not happy with Fran Drescher.
So we'll keep updating you on the story as we learn more details.