Hasbro launches AI studio, allowing third parties to license Hasbro IP

Hasbro is launching its own AI studio, with an aim to license out its various IPs to third parties while sticking within company guidelines. Today, Hasbro announced that it was launching Sixth Wall, a new AI studio that will use Hasbro's slate of IP characters, such as Optimus Prime, Mr. Potato Head, and the cast of Clue, all voiced by real voice actors. According to Sixth Wall's CEO, the company was founded out of a desire to limit "unauthorized versions" of their character by offering versions that could be licensed out in various ways. The company has created its own platform called CharacterOS, with characters acting within guardrails set by the company. According to Sixth Wall's website, the initial cast of characters available include Mr. Potato Head, Mister Monopoly, four characters from Transformers, Cobra Commander, and the cast of Clue. More characters will be added after launch, although Hasbro did not indicate what IPs they'd be pulled from. EN World has reached out to Wizards for clarification.

Hasbro CEO Chris Cocks has long been an advocate of AI, although not all of Hasbro's studios has supported AI integration. Most notably, Wizards of the Coast has said that it prohibited generative AI to be used by freelancers in the making of either Dungeons & Dragons and Magic: The Gathering and has further stressed that both games are made "by people, for people."

 

[Blue]

Yeah. And meanwhile they never have to hire you to perform ever again once the algorithm is created. Congratulations, you're never needed in the industry again.

Since the AI residuals to talent was one of the things SAG-AFTRA fought for, I'm going to assume that the union striking to protect it's members knows what they are talking about.

EDIT: @Byrd I see you asking something like this in a more reasonable way. I don't know how good of a job explaining them I could do because I'm not a VA, but I have faith that the lawyers for Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, negotiating during a huge strike, do know what it means for their members. Basically, I'm content to trust the experts on this one

 

[Dire Bare]

Since the AI residuals to talent was one of the things SAG-AFTRA fought for, I'm going to assume that the union striking to protect it's members knows what they are talking about.

EDIT: @Byrd I see you asking something like this in a more reasonable way. I don't know how good of a job explaining them I could do because I'm not a VA, but I have faith that the lawyers for Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, negotiating during a huge strike, do know what it means for their members. Basically, I'm content to trust the experts on this one

Yes, but . . .

As with most negotiated union contracts, the final contract isn't perfect nor addresses all concerns. And not all union members will agree that the contract is "good" or goes far enough . . . I've heard various actors upset with SAG over the latest negotiated contract . . . and I've heard actors who are pretty happy with how things have gone . . .

 

[Umbran]

I might be misunderstanding you, but no it wouldn't? If I, as a voice actor, sign a contract for you to use my voice for an Optimus Prime AI character . . . no one is pirating or scraping anything, we've entered into a contract with clear terms. One I wouldn't sign unless I was compensated fairly for the use of my voice.

It would be the same, because copyright is a license, and licenses are contracts. There is already extant a contract for every single book in existence - all written work, actually - that the Big Companies chose to ignore, for which they've faced basically bupkis in consequences.

So, why do you figure they'd not violate the contract they have with you for Optimus Prime? Because they have such a good record for holding up their ends of contracts?

That a thing could hypothetically, in a world in which all parties act ethically, be okay is not an argument for our practical world.

In our practical world, Amnesty International has come out asserting that generative AI as used today is not compatible with international human rights law...

Unlawful by design: Exposing the human rights costs of generative AI - Amnesty International

This briefing examines how standalone generative AI systems, based on unlawful web scraping, are in conflict with international human rights law (IHRL) and standards through their design, development and deployment. While these technologies promise sophisticated automation and efficiency, they...

www.amnesty.org

...which is gonna make it hard for, "Really, it can be okay!" to get traction.

 

[Blue]

It would be the same, because copyright is a license, and licenses are contracts. There is already extant a contract for every single book in existence - all written work, actually - that the Big Companies chose to ignore, for which they've faced basically bupkis in consequences.

So, why do you figure they'd not violate the contract they have with you for Optimus Prime? Because they have such a good record for holding up their ends of contracts?

I would figure that they wouldn't violate SAG-AFTRA contracts because they make movies, video games, and other things where there would be drastic repercussions in the future if they did.

There can be a difference between the companies that unscrupulously and unethically training generative AI models on materials they don't have rights to, and what Hasbro does with the voice talent it directly contracts with, has clauses in their contract about this so it's easily legally actionable, and Hasbro needs to work with their union in the future.

I'm not a fan of Hasbro, but saying because a different company ignored the law that Hasbro will ignore it's own contracts, especially when it will be a lot easier for legal repercussions to fall on them as well as potentially getting blacklisted by SAG-AFTRA, doesn't follow.

 

[Minion X]

Until those big companies step back and act ethically, why on this good green Earth should anyone stan the tech based on the vague, distant possibility of it being used ethically?

There are companies using AI for real things that are not trained monkey chatbots. Whether they do so to streamline their production lines or order systems is ethical is probably moot, but at least they are doing something productive with it.

 

[Barantor]

Inevitable, really. I hate it.

Not inevitable. They are still betting it'll be profitable.

If enough of us don't buy into it, they'll back off quick.

I've already had friends lose jobs to this as even school districts think they can just use generative AI to make graphic arts positions obsolete. It'll bust in a big way if enough of us reject it, they can sell to companies sure, but as this stuff filters down they can't just keep selling to each other in a circle.

 

[Dire Bare]

It would be the same, because copyright is a license, and licenses are contracts. There is already extant a contract for every single book in existence - all written work, actually - that the Big Companies chose to ignore, for which they've faced basically bupkis in consequences.

So, why do you figure they'd not violate the contract they have with you for Optimus Prime? Because they have such a good record for holding up their ends of contracts?

That a thing could hypothetically, in a world in which all parties act ethically, be okay is not an argument for our practical world.

In our practical world, Amnesty International has come out asserting that generative AI as used today is not compatible with international human rights law...

Unlawful by design: Exposing the human rights costs of generative AI - Amnesty International

This briefing examines how standalone generative AI systems, based on unlawful web scraping, are in conflict with international human rights law (IHRL) and standards through their design, development and deployment. While these technologies promise sophisticated automation and efficiency, they...

www.amnesty.org

...which is gonna make it hard for, "Really, it can be okay!" to get traction.

Okay, if I get you . . . even if the deal voice actors are getting seems fair, you're concerned that Hasbro will not honor the deal and take advantage anyway. Right?

Reasonable fear, considering how big corporations tend to operate. But corporations, large and small, are made of people who push and pull between profit-at-all-costs and being-compassionate-humans. And then there is liability, fear of litigation.

If actors are taken advantage of in such otherwise fair seeming deals . . . folks are watching, and lawsuits will be filed. Not a guarantee against bad behavior, but it is a check.

I'm hoping that voice actors involved will speak up about their experiences and opinions . . . we'll see how it goes.

 

[JDR]

So glad I've been done with Hasbro/Wizards

 

[Umbran]

Okay, if I get you . . . even if the deal voice actors are getting seems fair, you're concerned that Hasbro will not honor the deal and take advantage anyway. Right?

Well, I'm citing the companies that actually make generative AIs as the ones who really fail to honor copyright, so I am more concerned with that. You make a deal with Hasbro, Hasbro works with AI, and whoops! your voice is now training AIs, and things that sound a lot like you can turn up anywhere...

If actors are taken advantage of in such otherwise fair seeming deals . . . folks are watching, and lawsuits will be filed. Not a guarantee against bad behavior, but it is a check.

The union, actors, and our legal system, are not currently prepared to audit training data to see if your voice has been included without your express consent or contractual payment.

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

Ok, stupid question here. What is an "AI studio"? I mean, I get that it uses AI somehow. But, what does that actually mean?