ReportWire

Tag: the industry

  • Disney’s New CEO Already Has Parks Fans Worried

    [ad_1]

    An emphasis on microtransactions and questionable cost cutting are among their concerns.
    Photo: Handout/Getty Images

    You can exhale now, Bob Iger. This week, Disney named Josh D’Amaro as its next CEO, and he will be taking the Mickey mantle in March. As we noted earlier this week, the future head of a multibillion-dollar company making TV shows and movies has “no real experience making TV shows and movies.” He has, however, worked at Disney for 28 years, most recently as chairman of Disney Experiences, so in some ways, D’Amaro is Mister Experience. Crowning the guy who runs Disney’s theme parks, cruise ships, and hotels to head the entire company telegraphs how the megacorporation envisions its future; it is one of the last major Hollywood studios, but it might see other arms of its business as bigger priorities. You would think theme-park heads would welcome the news, but on Reddit and Twitter, Disney adults are raising concerns. If D’Amaro is going to run the Studios the way he runs the Parks, then it’s worth looking into why, exactly, fans of Disney World and Disneyland might be upset.

    For decades, Disney Parks’ FastPass system was free to all theme-park guests, allowing them to nab passes (first paper, then digital) to wait in shorter lines for rides and attractions. It was a perk available to all who could get past the learning curve. In 2021, one year into D’Amaro’s tenure and following COVID shutdowns, Disney did away with FastPass and introduced a confounding and very costly series of pay-to-skip passes, which require timing advanced booking of limited slots in these formerly free-to-enter shorter lines. Lightning Lane Multi Passes, for example, can cost over $40 a day to skip the lines on certain attractions sorted into different tiers, excluding the best and busiest ones, which will require a Lightning Lane Single Pass (those range from $12 to over $20 per attraction). If the thought of staring at your phone all day at Disneyland, frantically booking ride slots like you’re using Resy, sounds horrible, you can now also buy a Lightning Lane Premiere Pass, which ranges from $129 to $449, per person, per day, plus tax, on top of your park tickets. On the busiest days, such as holidays, at the most popular parks like the Magic Kingdom and Disneyland, these baseline tickets can now cost over $200.

    Now imagine doing this for a family of four on a three-day vacation. And imagine how expensive that vacation already is, as over the past few years, Disney has stripped away additional perks like the airport bus service and extended park hours, in favor of more points of purchase and labor-cost savings. The emphasis on microtransactions makes it so that the wealthy can afford to skip lines, creates hours-long waits for everyone else, and incentivizes even more people to pay up out of desperation and to make their limited time in the parks “worth it.” Defunctland has a brilliant video about how this experience is ruining theme parks for visitors, although it’s clear to see why Disney loves this model. Could D’Amaro be planning to apply these extractive pricing strategies to more products at the company? It’s not a stretch to imagine Disney+ adding an upcharge to stream Andor during “peak hours” or something.

    Last year, Disney made the decision to tear down Jim Henson’s final completed work, a testament to the American pioneer’s humor and innovation, Muppet*Vision 3D, to replace it with a Monsters, Inc.–themed ride, despite there being so much underused space in that particular theme park, Disney’s Hollywood Studios. D’Amaro has since voiced his commitment to the Muppets, but it will be hard to overcome him overseeing this moment of betrayal to the Muppet community. The past few years have seen Imagineers’ artistic vision and thematic cohesion stripped away from parks like Epcot and Animal Kingdom in the name of making room for more profitable IP, in less thoughtfully executed attractions. Along the way, Disney’s attention to detail and historic trust in Imagineers like Joe Rhode has been decimated, and does not bode well for how much free rein Disney will or will not allow its creatives across divisions.

    Whatever kind of slump you think the Marvel Cinematic Universe is in, Marvel’s Disneyland Universe has it worse. Under D’Amaro, Disney opened Avengers Campus in Disney’s California Adventure, and it is the sorriest concrete wasteland ever seen in a theme park: It demonstrates a callous cost-cutting approach in how Disney builds new major projects from the ground up — slapping logos on architecture that resembles an industrial business park. Under D’Amaro’s tenure, it wasn’t about creating a delightful atmosphere so long as the profitable IP was represented in the most perfunctory way possible. You can see the same turn away from ambition and whimsy in the newest Disney Resort hotels and in sad, airport Holiday Inn–level renovations of their existing hotels, compared to the mad creativity and beauty of the Michael Eisner era.

    To be fair, D’Amaro is not single-handedly responsible for any of these Disney Parks’ problems. But it is hard to point to particularly amazing things that have happened in Disney Experiences under his reign: The two new coasters that have opened in Walt Disney World in the past five years are excellent additions, and they’ve vastly expanded the cruise-ship fleet, if that’s your speed. But do those wins say anything about how he will run such a vast entertainment company?

    He did get Michael Eisner’s seal of approval, as the Old Master declared D’Amaro to be a “wise pick” and cautioned him to “keep close the words of Walt Disney: ‘We love to entertain kings and queens, but the vital thing to remember is this — every guest receives the VIP treatment.’” I will take that as subtle Lightning Lane shade. Eisner also points at the promotion of Dana Walden to president and chief creative officer as great news for the company. If the new CEO and his leadership can heed this advice, maybe the future of Disney still holds a great, big, beautiful D’Amaro.

    [ad_2]

    Rebecca Alter

    Source link

  • Netflix Shows David Zaslav the Money

    [ad_1]

    Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos and Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav, as spotted at this month’s Golden Globes.
    Photo: Neilson Barnard/Getty Images

    Netflix is taking its Warner Bros. Discovery fight to Paramount. On the heels of a splashy Times interview last week meant to reassure skeptics of its theatrical intentions, the streaming giant has amended its bid for Warner Bros.’s streaming and studios business into an all-cash offer — one meant to counter Paramount’s hostile push to take over the company. Netflix’s ticket price that won the original bidding war for WBD still stands unchanged at $82.7 billion (or $27.75 per share), but the tweaked offer “provides enhanced certainty around the value WBD stockholders will receive at closing, eliminating market-based variability,” Netflix and WBD said in a joint statement.

    One of the risks of Netflix’s earlier cash-and-stock offer was that a remainder of the final payout to shareholders could fluctuate when WBD was ultimately sold. Netflix’s change eliminates that concern and brings its bid more in line with Paramount’s $108.4 billion bid (or $30 per share), which seeks to buy not just Warner’s streaming and studios business but its declining cable assets known as Discovery Global. Netflix tweaked its offer in one other way, according to a proxy statement filed to the SEC this morning by WBD: It will reduce the debt load on Discovery Global by about $260 million, “in light of the stronger than previously anticipated 2025 cash flow performance of Discovery Global.”

    Netflix is putting its money where its mouth is, in other words. The adjustment was expected after Paramount CEO David Ellison launched a hostile-takeover bid and proxy fight, suing WBD for info about how it valued the cable assets. Netflix’s amended bid landed in inboxes the morning ahead of its latest quarterly earnings report, covering the tail end of 2025, and its timing feels strategic in another way: Though any victor in this war will have to pass regulatory hurdles, WBD and Netflix’s joint statement touts a “faster path to a stockholder vote” expected by April 2026. Is it an acknowledgment that everyone’s tired of talking about this?

    [ad_2]

    Eric Vilas-Boas

    Source link

  • What Is Disney Thinking?

    [ad_1]

    “If the goal was to simmer down the temperature, it didn’t. It became volcanic.”
    Photo-Illustration: Vulture; Photos: Getty Images

    Bob Iger and Disney are used to dealing with all manner of PR crises; it comes with the territory when you’re operating one of the best known and most beloved brands in the world. But what has happened with Jimmy Kimmel over the past 24 hours has been something far different (and scarier) than a mere public-relations kerfuffle: FCC chairman Brendan Carr, a MAGA loyalist, threatened to damage a key part of Disney’s broadcast-TV business if its ABC network didn’t “take action” against Kimmel to address his concerns over a few sentences from his September 15 episode that the right-wing outrage machine had deemed problematic. Within hours, ABC announced that Kimmel’s show was being pulled from its lineup “indefinitely,” his future at the network suddenly became unclear — and Iger’s legacy as CEO was very much at risk.

    Keep in mind the timeline of how this madness has played out: On Monday night, Kimmel delivered his monologue, which included a small, admittedly awkward sentence. On Tuesday, Fox News posted video from the monologue; by Wednesday morning, podcaster Benny Johnson, a key ally of the Trump White House, released a podcast with this YouTube subject line: “Jimmy Kimmel LIES About Charlie Kirk Killer, Blames Charlie For His Murder!? Disney Must Fire Kimmel.” The guest of honor on the pod: Carr, who said ABC could “do this the easy way or the hard way.” The rest played out in front of our eyes last night: Nexstar announced it was pulling Kimmel’s show, Sinclair quickly followed suit, and within 15 minutes, an ABC publicist was texting reporters its now-famous seven-word statement: “Jimmy Kimmel Live will be preempted indefinitely.”

    This story is far from over, and it is too soon to render judgment about What It All Means. As of Thursday afternoon, Kimmel’s show had not been canceled and he is still an employee of the Walt Disney Company, despite Donald Trump celebrating the comedian’s demise Wednesday night. Indeed, according to a person familiar with the matter, the whole purpose of ABC’s vague statement was to give the network, Kimmel, and ABC’s major-affiliated-station groups time to react to Carr’s threats in a way that ensured the show remained on the air. “There is a desire to find, and folks are working toward, what a path forward looks like for the show,” one Disney insider says of the company’s thinking. Another person familiar with the matter says that Iger and Disney TV boss Dana Walden jointly made the decision to cancel the show’s Wednesday taping, with Walden personally calling Kimmel to deliver the news. Sources say the talks between Kimmel and Disney continued on Thursday with the goal of finding a way for the host to get back on TV “as soon as possible.”

    All this may sound like spin from Disney, and if this ends with Kimmel leaving the network, that is surely how it will be interpreted in many quarters. The courts of social media and punditocracy have already — and somewhat understandably — charged and convicted ABC with bending the knee to the Trump administration. Whatever happens next, there is no taking back the decision to pull Kimmel’s show, for any length of time, in response to a coordinated, deliberate attack on him and ABC by Carr and right-wing influencers and podcasters.

    But you don’t have to excuse what Disney did Wednesday to accept the possibility that the purpose of its actions were not to punish Kimmel but to get through this crisis with Jimmy Kimmel Live! standing. One veteran Hollywood insider not connected to Disney said the utter blandness of ABC’s Wednesday statement is evidence that the company was winging it and essentially stalling for time. “There was not an ounce of spin in what they said,” this person says. “That means they had nothing to say that could please the government, their employees, the affiliates, or talent. And I don’t blame them. I probably would have done the same.”

    While folks on the right celebrated what they deemed a victory, ABC’s move ended up turning a story mostly limited to the right-wing information bubble into international news. Countless Democratic officials, including former president Barack Obama, denounced what had happened; cable news offered nonstop coverage for hours; creators threatened to boycott Disney unless Kimmel returned to the air; Jon Stewart decided he would host a special edition of The Daily Show Thursday to respond. “Now what you have is a cascading effect,” the veteran Hollywood exec says. “If the goal was to simmer down the temperature, it didn’t. It became volcanic.”

    Nobody should be pulling out the violins for Iger or Disney, but U.S. corporations do not have a ton of experience dealing with a government as ruthless and shameless at going after its targets as this Trump White House has been. While Trump’s bluster was plenty loud during his first term, folks like Carr literally wrote a playbook —  Project 2025 — on how to learn from the mistakes of that administration and better execute their vision of America. With Carr, networks now have not an objective regulator, or even someone with a partisan agenda, but something unprecedented in recent history: a mercenary who seems intent on using the regulatory state to serve the personal whims of the president. Trump perceives late-night comedians and network newscasters as his enemies; Carr has gone after both within his first year on the job.

    Even people outside Disney are shocked at what he has done. “Brendan Carr is drunk with power and glee,” a longtime TV-industry executive says. “He’s like the nerd who was bullied in high school, gets power, and has gone crazy with it.” Furthermore, a person familiar with the matter says that as right-wing outrage over Kimmel’s comments grew, employees inside ABC began getting threats to their personal safety. That has factored into Disney’s handling of the situation, a person with knowledge of the situation said.

    Still, it’s not as if Iger & Co. have not had time now to prepare for these sorts of incidents and devise a clear strategy to fight back. Even if this ends with Kimmel back on the air, Iger’s silence has caused at least some short-term damage to Disney’s brand and his personal image. He has long been regarded as among the most talent-friendly of CEOs, and Kimmel has been among the most loyal of Disney soldiers. Would it have really hurt the cause for Iger (or Walden) to come out with a statement Thursday morning defending Kimmel while showing sensitivity to Charlie Kirk’s death?

    But Disney clearly decided to play things safe and not add any fuel to the fire by saying anything until it decides what comes next. While nobody from Disney or Kimmel’s team would comment on Thursday afternoon, it seems likely the two sides have been in discussions about what, if anything, Kimmel needs to say to make ABC comfortable with putting him back on the air. (The show will remain off the air Thursday night.) Just as important, the network is likely in discussions with Nexstar and other affiliate groups about what they will require in order for them to resume airing Kimmel’s show. ABC would want to get both of them back onboard, but Nexstar — which is trying to get a huge merger deal approved by the FCC — in particular has proved it’s in full suck-up mode to Carr and Trump. “Nexstar saw all this as an opportunity to score points with the FCC,” an industry insider says. And with fellow affiliate group Sinclair joining the Kimmel pile on, it has even more leverage with Disney.

    That said, if ABC can come to an agreement with Kimmel over an appropriate response, Disney could, in theory, decide to just live with Nexstar and Sinclair boycotting Kimmel’s show. While it would mean some loss of ad revenue, it’s not as if late night is a giant profit center for networks; just the opposite. This isn’t 1995, or even 2005, where a Kimmel blackout in, say, 20 percent of the country would be a financial disaster. Much of Kimmel’s viewership now takes place on YouTube and Hulu. Disney could even go with a nuclear option and just make Jimmy Kimmel Live! a Hulu exclusive and let affiliates fill the hour with local news. CBS’s decision to cancel The Late Show With Stephen Colbert at the end of this season makes such a move even less risky, since it’s not as if ABC would be the lone big-three network without a late-night show.

    Regardless of the outcome, what is becoming sadly clear is that this will not be the last time big media companies are forced to deal with the MAGA machine moving swiftly, and with full government support, to achieve its goals. And broadcasters like ABC will keep butting up against this dynamic again and again because they program not only prime-time entertainment shows but topical talk series and newscasts. “It’s the worst time ever to be at a broadcast network, especially if you work in PR. Literally every day now, someone is going to say something,” the Hollywood veteran says. And while such controversies happened long before Trump, the mood in Hollywood is different now. “Before, when you had a backlash, it felt like social justice. Now, it feels like the full power of the U.S. government coming for you.”

    [ad_2]

    Josef Adalian

    Source link

  • What Paramount Buying Warner Bros. Could Mean for Hollywood

    [ad_1]

    Photo-Illustration: Vulture; Photos: Getty Images

    Paramount Skydance, backed by the family of CEO David Ellison, is getting ready to make a bid to take over all of Warner Bros. Discovery before the two companies can go through with their plan to split, per a new report from The Wall Street Journal. If such a deal happens, it would put networks as diverse as CBS, CNN, TCM, and MTV under one roof and result in the combination of two historic Hollywood studios, Paramount Pictures and Warner Bros. There has been speculation in multiple media outlets for months about something like this happening — the idea of HBO Max and Paramount+ combining into a single app is a no-brainer — but the speed with which it could be coming together, so soon after Skydance closed its deal for Paramount, does feel a tad surprising. Deadline is also confirming the WSJ story, though it throws a bit of cold water on how much urgency there is to the bid: “Nothing new there, he’s just taking a closer look, assessing the pros and cons,” says a Paramount source quoted by the trade outlet.

    We’re probably still a long way away from such a deal actually becoming reality (if it does), and to be clear: No offer has been made. It’s also not clear how WBD management and shareholders would react — though WBD stock soared nearly 30 percent after the WSJ story broke — or whether news of this possible bid brings out other potential buyers. It’s still early days.

    That said, given how much Hollywood loves a merger these days, it’s always worth thinking about what comes next and what such a mash-up of media giants might bring — for good and (mostly ill). Some immediate questions and thoughts about the possibility of Para Bros.:

    ➼ If the Ellisons get control of WBD, they get control of CNN. Given how much Paramount has pushed CBS News rightward in the past couple weeks, it’s easy to imagine the Trump White House won’t stand in the way of the Ellisons taking over WBD. In fact, one could see it happily pushing for a deal that would put CNN in the hands of owners even more accommodating than its current overseers.

    ➼ Bari Weiss, founder of the right-wing outlet The Free Press, is rumored to be in line for a major gig at CBS News. If this deal happens, will she end up overseeing a CBS News powered by CNN — or all of a combined CNN-CBS News?

    ➼ Will the studio attrition from five major studios to a mere four accelerate moviedom’s seemingly endless doom cycle of sequels, reboots, and tired IP retreads? Coming just a half-dozen years after Disney’s $71.3 billion swallowing of 21st Century Fox, the Para Bros. merger would necessarily trigger a cascade of industry executive layoffs but also drastically reduce the number of studio suitors vying for hot, original movie projects. That would leave less room for new filmic voices and engender frictionless pushback against the kind of corporate groupthink responsible for the boring sameness behind our current multiplex malaise. (Exhibit A: This summer delivered the worst cumulative box-office returns since 1981 adjusted for inflation and discounting COVID lockouts.)

    ➼ Given the trend toward streaming consolidation (see Hulu on Disney+), importing the relatively small content offering of Paramount+ into HBO Max feels like a given under any merger scenario. That said, David Ellison has already started working to dramatically improve the tech of Paramount+ and HBO Max has had its own user-experience issues. It’s quite possible the end result of a deal would be the creation of a totally new platform with, yes, another new name. HBO Max, we hardly knew ye.

    ➼ The amount of layoffs that would result from this merger is depressing to consider. As it is, Paramount Skydance is already planning to pink-slip thousands of employees this fall. The pain will be real and deep.

    ➼ Will putting DC and Star Trek in the same corporate family give us the Star TrekSuperman crossover some Trekkers have fantasized about? Who knows, but the IP-sharing potential of a Warners/Paramount combo is huge. The same company would control The Godfather and The Sopranos, Top Gun and Barbie, I Love Lucy and Friends.

    ➼ Assuming Para Bros. stays in the cable business, would ancient enemies Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network team up to give the new entity enough IP to better take on Disney? Or would the new company care about kids and animation at all?

    ➼ And the most important question of all: Will David Zaslav, fresh off his role in the new Sphere remix of The Wizard of Oz, get himself a cameo in the next Yellowstone spinoff? Or will he ride off into the retirement sunset, having successfully added tens of millions to his net work this decade?

    Chris Lee contributed to this report.


    See All



    [ad_2]

    Josef Adalian

    Source link

  • The Evolutions of Emma Stone

    The Evolutions of Emma Stone

    [ad_1]

    Photo-Illustration: Lola Dupre/LOLA_DUPRE

    This article was originally published on December 22, 2023. Emma Stone has since won her second Oscar for the leading role in Poor Things and reportedly shaved her head for her fourth collaboration with director Yorgos Lanthimos, set to release in 2025.

    The quintessential Emma Stone acting choice comes near the end of Battle of the Sexes, a solid but unremarkable 2017 tennis bio-drama in which she plays Billie Jean King to Steve Carell’s Bobby Riggs. King is all nerves before their famous match; as attendants carry her down a hallway on a garish throne, preparing for a grand entrance, she is visibly fretful over the reputational damage of agreeing to this in the first place. She ducks her head as she enters the stadium — and looks up as she emerges into the light, smiling like a superstar.

    It’s a split-second reveal of the machinery behind preternatural charisma. Stone has always known how to let you in on a metamorphosis. Her best roles are those in which her character transforms and ascends: an unknown actress becomes a movie star, a newcomer to the queen’s court acquires power, a talented tennis player turns icon. She doesn’t disappear into her roles; she makes you aware of the games her characters are playing. In All About Eve terms, she’s Bette Davis and she’s Anne Baxter. With her giant eyes — which can project vulnerability or shift into unearthly confidence — and her raspy voice, Stone locates the star inside the striver and vice versa.

    More recently, though, she has expanded into roles that distort these tropes. This winter, she stars in both the Showtime series The Curse, as a deluded house flipper who yearns for basic-cable celebrity, and Yorgos Lanthimos’s film Poor Things, as a woman implanted with the brain of an infant who goes on a journey of steampunk self-discovery. In both, the actress seems to be winking at the narratives that defined her earlier work — and it’s clear that she is hitting a new, more experimental high.

    Stone, 35, made her name with a distinctly millennial kind of role: the sardonic yet earnest girl next door. For a while, her go-to interview anecdote was about how, as a teenager, she had made a PowerPoint to try to convince her parents she needed to move to L.A. to pursue acting. (As she later explained it, “I make presentations because when I feel strongly about something, I cry.”) After scattered roles in comedies like Superbad, her star-is-born moment was Will Gluck’s 2010 film Easy A, a twee teen update of The Scarlet Letter, in which her character, Olive, pretends to have sex with her gay classmate to help him convince everyone he’s straight. Then she pretends to do it with a bunch more people, too, for the social cachet and just for the hell of it. On paper, it’s an impossible role; she has to be an outcast and a smart aleck and a vlogger as well as charming enough that we believe her classmates believe she could hook up with half the school. That’s where Stone excels. When Olive decides to embrace her identity as a woman of ill repute, strutting down a walkway in Ray-Bans while she mugs and blows kisses, she’s doing an uncool person’s imitation of “cool and hot” in addition to being actually cool and hot. Stone makes Olive relatable: You get that she thinks high-school popularity is dumb and that she wants it anyway.

    With Nathan Fielder in The Curse.
    Photo: Richard Foreman Jr./SHOWTIME/Richard Foreman Jr./A24/Paramount+ with SHOWTIME

    Easy A took Stone to a new echelon. She was nominated for a Golden Globe (they love an ingénue), won an MTV Movie Award, and hosted Saturday Night Live for the first time. For a while, her career looked like an attempt to follow the path of early-’90s Julia Roberts, another star with megawatt charisma who knows how to let you in on the joke. Stone kept on doing comedies. She took a tiny role in Gluck’s next movie, Friends With Benefits. She starred opposite Ryan Gosling in Crazy, Stupid, Love. She was Gwen Stacy in the rom-comish The Amazing Spider-Man. Her role as the protagonist’s daughter in Alejandro González Iñárritu’s Birdman, from 2014, earned Stone her first Oscar nomination, but the performance, like a lot of that film, is pitched to 11, manic and attention-grabbing without being artful. Her most infamous role may be that of Allison Ng — whose father is supposed to be half-Chinese and half-Hawaiian — in Cameron Crowe’s directionless 2015 comedy, Aloha. (Stone has apologized for this informally: When Sandra Oh made a joke about it onstage at the 2019 Golden Globes, Stone shouted from her seat, “I’m sorry!”)

    After Aloha, Stone’s prospects looked uncertain. Studio comedies were on the wane. She wasn’t an obvious choice for dramas, nor was she an indie darling. But Stone picked up a part in La La Land, Damien Chazelle’s reconstructed Hollywood love-story musical. As Mia, a barista and wannabe actress, Stone portrayed the apotheosis of a striver. Mia may cloak her ambition in wry self-deprecation, especially when she flirts with Gosling’s Über-serious jazz musician, but the movie depends on the idea that she deserves to be discovered. Stone’s Oscar win for the role seemed almost inevitable from the scene in which Mia auditions for a big Hollywood film. Over the course of one song, she goes from a shrinking unknown — who cites her aunt who “used to live in Paris” as the dreamer who imparted her love of art — to a star and back, her voice gaining power as she builds through the bridge. In a long take, Chazelle brings us close to Stone as emotion overtakes her face, her eyes glimmering; the camera circles her, and when it comes back around she’s suddenly someone else. Maybe it’s a trick of eyeline: A novice looks down and away from the camera; the star, just above and beyond it.

    Stone had her Oscar, but where do you go from there? She did Battle of the Sexes and Netflix’s Maniac, a curio of a series quickly buried by algorithmic churn. But it was during her first collaboration with Lanthimos, in 2018’s The Favourite, when she uncovered a fruitful new valence for her career. She played Abigail, the new girl in the 18th-century court of Olivia Colman’s Queen Anne, who uses her natural star power to scheme her way into the queen’s affections while trying to outflank Anne’s standby, Rachel Weisz. In her most memorable gambit, Stone monologues about her plans while jerking off a young nobleman played by Joe Alwyn. Lanthimos pushes the camera toward Stone’s face, the candlelight bringing out its shadows. Abigail thinks of herself as a victim — “My life is like a maze I continually think I’ve gotten out of,” she mutters — but it’s clear she’s also seizing control of her situation and, literally, of Alwyn.

    The Favourite unlocked a darkness in Stone’s performances. While she had always made her characters self-aware, she began to lean harder into deviousness and delusion. On repeat visits to SNL, Stone explored fully unleashed defensiveness as the mother of a sensitive boy in 2016 and, in 2019, as an actress obsessed with finding the truth of her minor character in a gay porno. When she announces, as the star of 2021’s Cruella, that she was “born brilliant, born bad, and a little bit mad,” she plays it cocky, comedic, and entirely heartfelt, pointing herself in a different, possibly freeing, direction: The dreamer becomes a villain. In an interview about that film — a 101 Dalmatians prequel that barely justifies its existence outside Stone’s go-for-broke performance — she admitted that she had been “asking myself a lot of questions about that charm offensive or ingénue idea in my own life.” She was excited by “this phase of playing these women who are much less concerned with what people think about them.”

    Now when she plays a woman obsessed with likability, Stone knows she can treat it like a joke — or a trap. In The Curse, her character Whitney’s belief in her own charm is just one of her many self-deceptions. She is the daughter of slumlords who, along with her husband, Asher (Nathan Fielder), runs a house-flipping operation in New Mexico. They build “passive homes” that are obvious rip-offs of other people’s designs and that Whitney tries to fill with work by a Native artist who finds her cringe-inducing. Whitney wants her show to be called Green Queen. She is convinced that she deserves what would amount to HGTV stardom.

    It’s a self-immolating role — not least because Stone is from Arizona and played a white savior in The Help. Whitney has all the obliviousness of someone who would take that part in Aloha. In a defining scene, she and Asher stumble into a genuinely sweet moment when he tries to help her out of a sweater and it gets stuck around her head. They collapse into giggles. “This is us, Ash,” Whitney says, then adds, “I wish the network could see this.” She scurries across the room, grabs her phone, and tries to get him to re-create the scene on-camera.

    In Poor Things.
    Photo: Searchlight Pictures

    In Poor Things, Stone performs the most literal kind of becoming. She is Bella Baxter, a once-dead woman who has been zapped back to life but with the brain of a baby and must now grow into a worldly, self-actualized individual. The film has its surreal and twisted qualities as well as its obvious ones; the script and direction tend to overemphasize their points about misogyny. As Bella, though, Stone progresses through this strange personal growth without judgment in a performance that has made her an Oscar front-runner. She works with technical precision: As Bella’s brain ages inside her adult body, her gait changes from stilted lumbering to a posture of confidence and control. Her face, which she can spread open with wonder, scrambles with confusion and interest at new ideas and experiences, especially once she heads out to traipse across Europe in search of enlightenment. She’s gloriously uninhibited in the bedroom or while scarfing down her first pastel de nata. On the dance floor with Mark Ruffalo, she cavorts like a Victorian Raggedy Ann. Although Stone has always been good in close-up — and she’s especially good here, those watery irises offset by that jet-black hair — Bella’s discovery comes through her whole physical being.

    The film invites allegorical readings. You could interpret it as a comment on what it can be like to chart your own way as a woman in Hollywood or how to find some sense of self even when forced into a role. But it’s also, of all Stone’s metamorphoses, one of the simplest — and the most internal. Olive, Mia, Abigail, and even Whitney long for social acceptance. Bella’s hunger, in the end, isn’t social. What she wants from life is pleasure and knowledge, especially of her body’s forgotten history. She’s trying to become herself.


    See All



    [ad_2]

    Jackson McHenry

    Source link

  • Disney and DirecTV Still Haven’t Made Up

    Disney and DirecTV Still Haven’t Made Up

    [ad_1]

    Photo-Illustration: Vulture; Photos: Disney, DirecTV

    What do Hudson Yards, Hooters, a gym, and a JetBlue flight have in common? People on social media have posted about seeing screens at all these locations go dark this week due to DirecTV’s ongoing spat with Disney. Since the two parties haven’t been able to negotiate a new carriage contract yet, September 4 marks the fourth day of a DirecTV blackout on Disney-owned channels including ESPN, ABC, Freeform, and more. For some frustrated fans, that means the U.S. Open was closed, LSU and USC’s college football game never kicked off, and The Bachelorette star Jenn Tran never had to relive that finale proposal (though to be fair, she might have preferred that).

    If you’re one of the satellite service’s estimated 11.3 million subscribers and have been affected by the outages, DirecTV is offering a $20 bill credit … as long as you fill out this form and request it yourself. But who’s responsible for this situation in the first place? Naturally, the corporations are blaming each other. DirecTV has claimed that it’s trying to push back against profit-driven, anti-consumer bundles stuffed with channels that people don’t want; Disney is suggesting that it has actually offered DirecTV some nice, flexible options that would be healthy for the market.

    Even as NFL season begins and the presidential debate approaches, DirecTV doesn’t seem ready to give in yet. Per The Wrap, DirecTV’s CFO told investors on Tuesday that the company is not playing a “short-term game,” further claiming that this dispute is about “changing the model in a way that gives everyone confidence that this industry can survive.” We get the feeling that when it comes to the lawsuit over Disney’s planned sports-streaming bundle with Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery, DirecTV might be Team Fubo.

    [ad_2]

    Jennifer Zhan

    Source link

  • It’s Tough to Hand Off the Mickey Ears

    It’s Tough to Hand Off the Mickey Ears

    [ad_1]

    Illustration: Zohar Lazar; Photo Getty Images

    While eight men have taken turns guiding The Walt Disney Company over the course of its roughly 100 years of existence, arguably only three have managed to make a real and lasting impact: current CEO Bob Iger, Michael Eisner, and of course, the icon for whom the company is named, Walt Disney himself. All three ruled the Magic Kingdom for at least two decades, oversaw creative and commercial renaissances at the company, and to varying degrees became celebrities in their own right. And yet for all their positive attributes, Disney, Eisner, and Iger had one other thing in common: They were really bad at figuring out who would succeed them as CEO.

    We saw this play out recently with Iger, who had to return as CEO of the company barely a year after formally departing it because his own handpicked successor turned out to be a disaster. But Disney’s succession curse actually stretches back to the mid-1960s, when Walt’s untimely death left Disney wandering the cultural wilderness for decades. And while Eisner’s handoff to Iger in 2005 turned out brilliantly for the company, it came only after many years of dawdling and delays and only after a very public shareholder revolt forced Eisner’s hand.

    So why have Disney’s best CEOs done such a lousy job with such a critical task? “Being the head of Disney is a very strong drug and it’s very hard to let go,” as The Hollywood Reporter’s Kim Masters tells us in the episode. “Leaving Disney — it’s a big deal. It’s a very identity-defining thing.” In the fifth episode of Land of the Giants: The Disney Dilemma, hosted by Vulture TV reporter and Buffering columnist Joe Adalian, we explore why it is that Disney’s most successful leaders have done such a bad job making sure the company would be able to survive — and thrive — without them.

    [ad_2]

    Josef Adalian

    Source link

  • All 3 Major Labels Are Suing AI Start-ups for Copyright Infringement

    All 3 Major Labels Are Suing AI Start-ups for Copyright Infringement

    [ad_1]

    Photo-Illustration: Vulture; Photos: Suno, Udio

    The recording industry’s three major label groups are uniting in their fight against artificial intelligence. Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner Music Group are suing Suno and Udio, two AI start-ups, for copyright infringement. The labels, aided by the Recording Industry Association of America, claim the firms have engaged in “willful copyright infringement at an almost unimaginable scale” by copying their music to train AI on it. Both Suno and Udio use AI to generate songs from users’ text prompts. In responses filed August 1, both Suno and Udio admitted their models trained on copyrighted songs, but claimed that training was legal under fair use. The RIAA called their admissions “a major concession of facts they spent months trying to hide and acknowledged only when forced by a lawsuit.”

    The labels are seeking both an injunction to stop the companies from training on their music and damages for the songs they have trained on. The lawsuits argue that by flouting copyright, Suno and Udio “threaten enduring and irreparable harm to recording artists, record labels, and the music industry, inevitably reducing the quality of new music available to consumers and diminishing our shared culture.” Below, the latest response and everything we know so far.

    The subject of the labels’ lawsuits are two of the biggest names in AI music creation. Both models allow users to generate songs based on prompts, like “a jazz song about New York,” as Udio suggests in its guide. The models can make songs in a number of genres, either using lyrics written by the user or generated by AI. Suno was released in December 2023 with a Microsoft partnership, and recently announced a $125 million round of funding in May. Udio was released on April 10 and counts musicians will.i.am, Common, and Tay Keith among its investors. “BBL Drizzy,” the viral song that Metro Boomin flipped into a beat during Kendrick Lamar and Drake’s beef, was created with Udio.

    In very similar lawsuits, the labels allege that Suno and Udio infringed on their copyright by training AI models on the labels’ libraries, which constitute a large chunk of all recorded pop music. “This process involved copying decades worth of the world’s most popular sound recordings and then ingesting those copies [to] generate outputs that imitate the qualities of genuine human sound recordings,” the lawyers claim. The lawsuits say “it is obvious” that Suno and Udio trained on the labels’ libraries and that when tested, both services were able to imitate copyrighted recordings. Specifically, lawyers allege Udio could imitate artists including Bruce Springsteen, Michael Jackson, ABBA, and Lin-Manuel Miranda when given the right prompts, while Suno generated songs imitating the tags for Jason Derulo and producer CashMoneyAP.

    Per the lawsuits, both Suno and Udio claimed “fair use” of the copyrighted music in previous correspondence — which other AI companies like OpenAI have also claimed in their AI training. The doctrine of fair use generally allows copyrighted material to be used without permission for academic, journalistic, and parody purposes. But the lawyers argue Suno and Udio’s training does not fall under that doctrine because it is “imitative machine-generated music — not human creativity or expression,” and thus, it’s use that Suno and Udio needed permission for.

    Suno and Udio have never specified what music their AI models trained on. Antonio Rodriguez, an early Suno investor, told Rolling Stone in March that Suno did not have licenses for the music it trained on, admitting a degree of legal risk. “Honestly, if we had deals with labels when this company got started, I probably wouldn’t have invested in it,” Rodriguez said. “I think that they needed to make this product without the constraints.” Udio’s co-founder, David Ding, told Billboard in May that his company’s AI trained “on publicly available data that we obtained from the internet,” adding it was “good music.”

    Suno admitted that its AI model trained on copyrighted music in a response filed on August 1. However, the company claimed that was legal under fair use. “It is no secret that the tens of millions of recordings that Suno’s model was trained on presumably included recordings whose rights are owned by the Plaintiffs in this case,” Suno’s lawyers wrote, per Rolling Stone. Specifically, Suno argued it was legal to make copies of the labels’ songs for “a back-end technological process,” like AI training, when consumers would not interact with the actual song copies.

    “The outputs generated by Suno are new sounds, informed precisely by the ‘styles, arrangements and tones’ of previous ones,” Suno’s lawyers said. “They are per se lawful.” Suno reiterated these points in a public blog post also published on August 1, claiming major labels see its AI “as a threat to their business.” In the post, Suno also claimed prior to the suit the company was “having productive discussions” with labels “to find ways of expanding the pie for music together.”

    Suno CEO Mikey Shulman previously claimed in a statement that Suno does not allow users to copy music. “Our technology is transformative; it is designed to generate completely new outputs, not to memorize and regurgitate pre-existing content,” Shulman told Billboard. “That is why we don’t allow user prompts that reference specific artists.”

    Similar to Suno, Udio also admitted to training its AI on copyrighted songs in its legal response, per Reuters, on August 1. “What Udio has done — use existing sound recordings as data to mine and analyze for the purpose of identifying patterns in the sounds of various musical styles, all to enable people to make their own new creations — is a quintessential ‘fair use,’” its lawyers wrote. Udio additionally reiterated the “back-end technological process” argument. Udio further characterized the labels’ lawsuit as an “anticompetitive” action.

    Following the initial filing, a representative for Udio directed Vulture to a blog post titled “AI and the Future of Music” that did not directly address the lawsuit. “Just as students listen to music and study scores, our model has ‘listened’ to and learned from a large collection of recorded music,” Udio said. The “musical ideas” its AI model learned, the company added, “are owned by no one,” and its model is focused on creating “new” music. “We are completely uninterested in reproducing content in our training set, and in fact, have implemented and continue to refine state-of-the-art filters to ensure our model does not reproduce copyrighted works or artists’ voices,” Udio continued. An RIAA spokesperson said Udio made “a startling admission of illegal and unethical conduct” by saying its model trained on recorded music, “and they should be held accountable.”

    The lawsuits make three specific requests. First, they are asking Suno and Udio to admit their AI models trained on their libraries of music. Second, they want injunctions to stop that alleged training. And last, they are seeking damages of up to $150,000 per song — which could quickly add up to nine figures or more. The lawsuits argue the damages match the companies’ “massive and ongoing infringement.”

    These lawsuits are the biggest action taken yet against AI-generated music. It’s an especially loud and notable show of power for all three major labels to be working together on the lawsuits. Last year, Universal Music Group sued Anthropic PBC, another AI music company, for copyright infringement in a case that specifically focused on lyrics. But these lawsuits are bigger and broader and could have major implications for AI and the music business. They follow a concern that’s been percolating across the industry after UMG made AI-generated music a sticking point in their TikTok negotiations and a group of musicians spoke out against AI-generated music. Groups including the Recording Academy, the Music Workers Alliance, the National Association of Music Publishers, the American Association of Independent Music, and even SAG-AFTRA have all made statements supporting the lawsuits.

    RIAA’s chairman and CEO, Mitch Glazier, made clear in a statement that this fight is specifically against unauthorized AI. “The music community has embraced AI and we are already partnering and collaborating with responsible developers to build sustainable AI tools centered on human creativity that put artists and songwriters in charge,” he said. “But we can only succeed if developers are willing to work together with us. Unlicensed services like Suno and Udio that claim it’s ‘fair’ to copy an artist’s life’s work and exploit it for their own profit without consent or pay set back the promise of genuinely innovative AI for us all.”

    This post has been updated.

    [ad_2]

    Justin Curto

    Source link

  • All the Girlies Are Going to the 2024 Grammys

    All the Girlies Are Going to the 2024 Grammys

    [ad_1]

    She might kill her ex.
    Photo: Andrew Chin/Getty Images

    The Grammys are for the girls this year. An impressive number of women are nominated for music’s top honors, and now, many of them will be taking the stage too. The boys are performing with girls as well — Brandy is joining Burna Boy along with 21 Savage, while Tracy Chapman will duet her song “Fast Car” with Luke Combs. Grande Girlie Joni Mitchell will take the stage for the very first time in Grammys history. SZA, Billie Eilish, Dua Lipa, and Olivia Rodrigo are also set to perform — as well as Billy Joel, an honorary girlie after Rodrigo name-dropped him in her 2021 song “Deja Vu.” Variety also reported that Miley Cyrus was rehearsing to perform “Flowers,” which was perhaps meant to be a surprise given that she has yet to officially be announced as a performer.

    Meanwhile, SZA, Phoebe Bridgers, and Victoria Monét are some of the night’s top honorees — not to mention Taylor Swift, who’s looking to set some records with Midnights. It all goes down February 4 at Crypto.com Arena in Los Angeles. Below is everything you need to know before you get the girls together to watch.

    SZA leads the Grammy pack with nine nominations for her second album, SOS, including in the top categories of Album, Record, and Song of the Year. Bridgers and Monét are just behind her with seven apiece, followed by the rest of boygenius, Jack Antonoff, Batiste, Brandy Clark, Miley Cyrus, Eilish, Rodrigo, and a little lady named Taylor Swift, all with six each. Women showed up strong when the nominees were announced on November 10, with female artists in seven out of the eight slots for Album, Record, and Song of the Year. SZA has a chance to add some serious hardware, Swift could set a record for Album of the Year wins — or Batiste could surprise us all again after playing the dark horse in 2022. Don’t put it past the Academy.

    Even Burna Boy will be joined by a girlie, when Brandy takes the stage for the first time in decades alongside him and 21 Savage for the Grammys’ first-ever Afrobeats performance. Tracy Chapman will make an even rarer appearance to prove she really does like Combs’s “Fast Car” cover, dueting her hit with him. They’re just two legends scheduled, along with Mitchell (for the first time ever), Joel (for the first time in decades), and U2 (live from the Sphere in Las Vegas). SZA, Rodrigo, Eilish, and Lipa are also among the women performing — and some of the night’s top nominees. They could be part of a few brewing Grammy Moments™: a possible Barbie medley between Eilish and Lipa and a chance for Rodrigo to perform with one of her faves, Joel. Travis Scott will also perform.

    Nope — it’s Trevor Noah again. The comedian is hosting the Grammys for the fourth consecutive year, the Academy announced on December 13. Hey, at least this show can hold down a host. Noah is also up for some hardware himself this year, in Best Comedy Album for I Wish You Would.

    The women are back as announced presenters, however. Christina Aguilera, Meryl Streep, Samara Joy, Taylor Tomlinson, and Oprah Winfrey are all set to present. Oh, and Lionel Richie, Lenny Kravitz, Maluma, and Barbie boy Mark Ronson.

    As usual, most of the Grammy Awards will be given out before the televised show. That happens at the Premiere Ceremony, which streams on February 4 beginning at 3:30 p.m. ET on YouTube. And with a somewhat loaded list of performers, this year’s may actually be worth tuning in to. They’ll include singer-songwriter Clark, a top nominee with six nods, as well as nominees Laufey, Terrace Martin, Robert Glasper, Kirk Franklin, Gaby Moreno, Adam Blackstone, and Bob James. Other performers will include Sheila E., Pentatonix, Larkin Poe, Jordin Sparks, and J. Ivy, plus drummer Harvey Mason Sr., father of the Recording Academy’s own CEO. Songwriter of the Year nominee Justin Tranter will host the preshow; presenters include current nominees Carly Pearce, Natalia Lafourcade, Rufus Wainwright, Patti Austin, and Molly Tuttle, along with Jimmy Jam.

    Quite a lot, actually. Most prominently, the number of nominees in the Big Four categories (Album, Record, and Song of the Year, plus Best New Artist) is being reduced from ten to eight. The Academy had upped the nominees in those categories to ten just two years ago, out of diversity concerns; there had been eight nominees since the 2019 awards. Also, the Non-Classical Producer of the Year and Songwriter of the Year will move to the general category, where all Academy members can vote on those awards. The Grammys are adding three awards this year: Best African Music Performance, Best Pop Dance Recording, and Best Alternative Jazz Album. Oh, and at least you won’t have to worry about AI — the Academy added a rule against contributions by artificial intelligence to submissions.

    The ceremony will air on CBS and Paramount+ With Showtime on February 4, beginning at 8 p.m. ET.

    This story has been updated throughout with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Justin Curto

    Source link

  • Universal Music Group Is Taking Your Favorite Songs Off TikTok

    Universal Music Group Is Taking Your Favorite Songs Off TikTok

    [ad_1]

    Drake and Olivia Rodrigo, two UMG artists who have gone viral on TikTok.
    Photo-Illustration: Vulture; Photos: Prince Williams/Wireimage, Kevin Mazur/Getty Images

    TikTok just got a lot quieter. Universal Music Group, the largest music corporation on the globe, has taken its music off TikTok as it struggles to negotiate a new licensing agreement with the platform. In an open letter to musicians and songwriters on January 30, UMG said TikTok could not come to an agreement on key issues of payment, AI, and safety. The label group said it had an “overriding responsibility to our artists” that outweighed the consequences of leaving the app. “We will always fight for our artists and songwriters and stand up for the creative and commercial value of music,” UMG said. TikTok doubled down in its own response, accusing UMG of “greed” and lying. UMG’s current contract expired on January 31, and afterward, the company’s musicians were no longer available on the app. Artists have taken their music off TikTok before, but a removal at this scale is uncharted territory for musicians and TikTokers alike.

    UMG’s letter cited three concerns: compensation, AI protections, and online safety. UMG said TikTok wants to pay its artists “a fraction of the rate” of other social platforms and only makes up about one percent of the company’s total revenue in the first place. The company also criticized the prominence of AI recordings on TikTok, accusing the app of “nothing short of sponsoring artist replacement by AI.” And UMG is worried about TikTok’s inconsistent content moderation amid “the tidal wave of hate speech, bigotry, bullying and harassment on the platform” that affect their artists.

    UMG claimed TikTok began to resort to intimidation tactics in their negotiations by removing the music of some of its smaller artists. “TikTok attempted to bully us into accepting a deal worth less than the previous deal, far less than fair market value and not reflective of their exponential growth,” the company said. UMG cited “an overriding responsibility to our artists” in taking this stand. In a separate note to songwriters, the company added, “We believe our greatest responsibility to you is to make sure your songs are appropriately compensated, on platforms that respect human creativity, with your music in environments that are safe for all and effectively policed.”

    Most of pop music? UMG is the largest of the Big Three major-label groups (along with Sony and Warner), comprising juggernaut pop labels like Republic, Interscope, Def Jam, Capitol, and Geffen while also distributing music from other labels. In other words, this is way bigger than just one record company. And it doesn’t simply encompass artists signed to UMG labels either — this development will also affect songwriters whose music is published by Universal Music Publishing Group, which includes some artists who are signed to non-UMG labels as performers. That means the list of affected artists is pretty much a who’s who of pop music: Taylor Swift, BTS, Drake, Ariana Grande, Bad Bunny, SZA, Billie Eilish, Adele, Olivia Rodrigo, the Weeknd, and Rihanna, to name only a few. In 2023, 12 of the 19 No. 1 songs on the Hot 100 were by UMG artists, including Morgan Wallen’s record-setting “Last Night.”

    And many UMG artists found success on TikTok. A dance challenge on the app turned the Weeknd’s “Blinding Lights” into the longest-running Hot 100 hit ever; TikTok helped Rodrigo first break out with “drivers license.” Swift revealed her Midnights track list in a series of TikToks, and even Drake got in on the fun in 2020 with the blatantly TikTok-bait song “Toosie Slide” — which immediately hit No. 1. Now, as Swift prepares for a new leg of her Eras tour and Grande readies her seventh album, Eternal Sunshine, UMG risks missing out on prime opportunities.

    Metro Boomin, who’s on Republic, supported the move on Twitter. “I love the creativity and appreciation the kids show for the music on TikTok but I don’t like the forced pandering from artists and labels that results in these lifeless and soulless records,” he wrote, after tweeting a GIF that said “It’s about damn time.”

    In its own, much briefer statement on January 30, the social platform called UMG’s claims “false” and criticized the move. “It is sad and disappointing that Universal Music Group has put their own greed above the interests of their artists and songwriters,” TikTok said. The platform noted that it has deals “with every other label and publisher.” For good measure, TikTok also reminded UMG of its billion-plus users and the “free promotional and discovery vehicle” the company would miss out on. With both companies publicly taking such hard lines, it doesn’t sound like a resolution is coming soon.

    Short answer: We don’t know. TikTok doesn’t make its royalties public, and those rates are different depending on each label group’s deal. (That’s what got us here in the first place.) We do know, though, that UMG isn’t bluffing when it says TikTok is just a fraction of its income. According to Goldman Sachs’s 2023 “Music in the Air” report, which analyzes industry finances from 2022, TikTok made the music industry $220 million in revenue that year. That’s … not a lot. “Emerging platforms” like TikTok only accounted for 6 percent of the industry’s total 2022 revenue, and TikTok was only a 14 percent share of that (up one percent from 2021). Yes, that’s significantly more than YouTube Shorts or Instagram Reels, but less than Facebook or even Peloton. Fourteen percent of 6 percent indeed comes out to a little less than one percent of the music industry’s total revenue. To UMG, which made $10.95 billion in revenue in 2022, that TikTok money is pocket change.

    UMG has been concerned with TikTok’s payments for years. At the 2022 Music Matters conference, UMG’s CEO and chairman, Sir Lucian Grainge, said the industry should “avoid repeating past mistakes” by not advocating for fair pay on TikTok, per Music Business Worldwide, citing previous dynamics with YouTube and MTV. And on UMG’s 2022 Q3 earnings call, Grainge and other leadership expressed hope for a fair deal with TikTok. “When you look at what the funnel that TikTok has, when you look at the billions of views, the rate at which the company has grown, we will fight and determine how our artists get paid and when they get paid, in the same way that we have done throughout the industry for many years,” Grainge said, per Music Business Worldwide. “I have seen this movie before, I know the ending.”

    Yes, but UMG’s concerns about artificial intelligence and TikTok go beyond the platform being “flooded with AI-generated recordings.” In its letter, UMG said the app isn’t just complacent in the AI content boom, but encourages it. The company didn’t specifically mention TikTok’s new AI Song tool, but that probably didn’t help the app’s case. Earlier this month, TikTok began rolling out the feature, which can turn user-written lyrics into a song in one of three chosen genres (pop, hip-hop, and EDM). “It’s not technically an AI song generator,” a spokesperson told the Verge, adding that the name would “likely” be changed. This is just the latest AI tool from TikTok, joining others like Creative Assistant, which uses AI to help creators make videos. TikTok has become more strict about identifying AI-generated content on the platform, though, announcing new requirements for labels on posts involving AI content last fall.

    For its part, UMG is involved in AI too. Last year, for instance, UMG announced a deal with the AI startup Endel through which its artists could use Endel’s AI technology “to create science-backed soundscapes.” When UMG announced that deal, though, its executive vice-president and chief digital officer, Michael Nash, specifically spoke about “the incredible potential of ethical AI” — ethical being the operative word. UMG has run into trouble with AI before, as when the anonymous artist ghostwriter released a song called “Heart on My Sleeve” last year featuring AI dupes of Drake and the Weeknd — both UMG artists. TikTok helped that song go viral, and UMG’s stock suffered about a 20 percent hit afterward. Yeah, it goes back to money: One of the chief issues with AI-generated music, to UMG, is that it could “massively dilute the royalty pool for human artists.”

    Concerns over harmful content on TikTok are nothing new, reaching all the way to Congress, which questioned CEO Shou Zi Chew over the issue in 2023. UMG wrote in the latest letter that TikTok has “no meaningful solutions” to safety concerns. While the label is referring to hate speech and harassment, it says this also extends to “content adjacency issues,” or ads running alongside inappropriate content. Unsafe content is particularly salient to UMG at the moment as Twitter cracks down on AI-generated nudes of Taylor Swift; the letter cited “pornographic deepfakes of artists” as an example of harmful content. UMG went on to call TikTok’s approach to moderation “the digital equivalent of ‘Whack a Mole,’” referring to “the monumentally cumbersome and inefficient process” of asking for a post to be taken down. TikTok has claimed it uses tens of thousands of moderators, along with an AI algorithm, but even some of those moderators have criticized the app’s processes.

    All of the Big Three label groups have been negotiating with TikTok since 2022, Bloomberg reported. Warner Music Group — the smallest, covering artists like Dua Lipa and Zach Bryan — struck “a wide-ranging, first-of-its-kind partnership” with TikTok last July. A press release was scant on details, but touted increased partnership between the companies, like finding “new ways to harness TikTok’s revenue generation and promotional capabilities” for Warner’s musicians. Good news for your “Training Season” TikTok plans.

    But UMG isn’t the only group with concerns. Sony Music Group, which has artists like Beyoncé, Doja Cat, and Miley Cyrus, has expressed an interest in higher payment for short-form video. Chairman Rob Stringer didn’t specifically mention TikTok at the company’s 2023 investor presentation, where he said Sony is “aggressively leaning into” short-form video, Music Business Worldwide reported. “It doesn’t take a scientist to realize that we are being underpaid by some of those content providers,” Stringer added.

    UMG’s deal with TikTok was up January 31, and its artists’ music is off the app as of February 1. If you attempt to use a UMG artist’s song on TikTok, it says “music is not available.” If you’ve been sitting on any SwiftTok ideas, looks like you’ll have to keep waiting.

    This is a developing story.



    [ad_2]

    Justin Curto

    Source link