Josh Hartnett To Headline Netflix's Newfoundland Limited Series; Jessica Rhoades Joins As EP
Josh Hartnett (Oppenheimer) has been tapped for the lead of Netflix's untitled Newfoundland limited series from creator Jesse McKeown. Hartnett will executive produce the six-episode series, which takes place and will film in Newfoundland, Canada. Also boarding the project as executive producer is Jessica Rhoades (Black Mirror).
In the series, when a mysterious sea creature terrorizes a remote Newfoundland town, a hard-bitten fisherman (Hartnett) must fight to protect his family, his community, and his vanishing way of life.
More from Deadline
Robert Langdon TV Series Based On 'The Secret of Secrets' Ordered By Netflix From Dan Brown & Carlton Cuse
HBO Nabs 'Baby Queen' Drama For Development From Alex Metcalf, Jessica Rhoades & Media Res
Comedian Steph Tolev Inks Netflix Deal For 'Filth Queen,' Her First Special For Streamer
McKeown will serve as showrunner. He executive produces with Rhoades through her company Pacesetter UK, Chris Hatcher, Hartnett, Jamie Childs, Louise Sutton, and Sharon Hall. The series' writing team includes Karen Walton, Perry Chafe and Natty Zavitz; Jamie Childs, Helen Shaver and Stephen Dunn will direct.
Hartnett and Rhoades previously worked together on the 'Beyond the Sea' episode of Netflix's Black Mirror, which starred Hartnett. He co-starred in Oppenheimer, sharing in the film's SAG Award for motion picture ensemble. Hartnett recently headlined Trap and Fight or Flight and next stars in Verity opposite Anne Hathaway. On TV, he recently guest starred on FX's The Bear. Hartnett is repped by Verve, Entertainment 360 and Sloane, Offer, Weber & Dern.
Best of Deadline
Every 'The Voice' Winner Since Season 1, Including 9 Team Blake Champions
Everything We Know About 'Jurassic World: Rebirth' So Far
'Nine Perfect Strangers' Season 2 Release Schedule: When Do New Episodes Come Out?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
24 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Released WWE Star R-Truth Has Strong Interest From Top Promotion: Report
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The recent WWE departure of beloved veteran R-Truth was reportedly a financial decision made by the company. According to Dave Meltzer in the latest Wrestling Observer Newsletter, R-Truth's contract was so high that for the level they were using him they felt it made no sense to renew it. This news surprised some. He had literally just come off a program that led to a high-profile match with WWE Champ John Cena at Saturday Night's Main Event. Meltzer reported that the news of his exit was met with significant unhappiness within the WWE locker room. There were a lot of wrestlers who were very unhappy because he was so popular with the talent. WWE fans also voiced their support, with chants for R-Truth on the June 2nd episode of Raw after his departure became public. The situation was reportedly handled carefully backstage. Meltzer noted, "Talent was reportedly told no R-Truth T-shirts on Raw, but Rhea Ripley was wearing one backstage and took it off before going on TV." INGLEWOOD, CALIFORNIA - JANUARY 06: R-Truth attends Netflix's Debut of WWE Monday Night Raw at Intuit Dome on January 06, 2025 in Inglewood, California INGLEWOOD, CALIFORNIA - JANUARY 06: R-Truth attends Netflix's Debut of WWE Monday Night Raw at Intuit Dome on January 06, 2025 in Inglewood, California More news: WWE News: Steve Austin Reveals Real-Life Vince McMahon Confrontation Looking ahead, a return to a former home could be in the cards for R-Truth. Meltzer stated that those in TNA have already said that they want to make him an offer, and for that company, he'll come in fairly hot. This would mark a significant homecoming for the star. Truth had a historic run in TNA from 2002 to 2007 between his WWE stints. Wrestling as Ron "The Truth" Killings, he became a main event player in TNA. In August 2002, he made history by defeating Ken Shamrock to become the first-ever recognized African-American NWA World Heavyweight Champion. It was a title he would go on to hold a second time. During his TNA tenure, he also showcased his charisma as a founding member of the popular 3Live Kru faction alongside Konnan and B.G. James (formerly Road Dogg in WWE). TNA is where he also held tag team gold. His time in TNA featured a more serious and aggressive persona compared to the comedic character he later perfected in his second, lengthy WWE run. It would also give him a chance to return to WWE if he so wanted to do so one day as TNA and WWE have a working relationship. More WWE News: For more on WWE, head to Newsweek Sports.
Associated Press
37 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Film Festival showcases what artificial intelligence can do on the big screen
NEW YORK (AP) — Artificial intelligence 's use in movie making is exploding. And a young film festival, now in its junior year, is showcasing what this technology can do on screen today. The annual AI Film Festival organized by Runway, a company that specializes in AI-generated video, kicked off in New York Thursday night with ten short films from around the world making their debut on the big screen. 'Three years ago, this was such a crazy idea,' Runway CEO Cristóbal Valenzuela told the crowd. 'Today, millions of people are making billions of videos using tools we only dreamed of.' The film festival itself has grown significantly since its 2023 debut. About 300 people submitted films when it first began, Valenzuela said, compared to about 6,000 submissions received this year. The one and half-hour lineup stretched across a range of creative styles and ambitious themes — with Jacob Alder's ' Total Pixel Space " taking home the festival's top prize. The 9-minute and 28-second film questions how many possible images — real or not — exist in the digital space, and uses math to calculate a colossal number. A stunning series of images, ranging from the familiar life moments to those that completely bend reality, gives viewers a glimpse of what's out there. Meanwhile, Andrew Salter's 'Jailbird,' which snagged second place, chronicles a chicken's journey — from the bird's perspective — to a human prison in the United Kingdom to take part in a joint-rehabilitation program. And 'One,' a futuristic story by Ricardo Villavicencio and Edward Saatchi about interplanetary travel followed in third place. The 10 films shown were finalists selected from thousands submitted to Runway's AI Film Festival this year. The shorts will also be shown at screenings held in Los Angeles and Paris next week. How AI is used and executed is a factor judges evaluate when determining festival winners. But not every film entered was made entirely using AI. While submission criteria requires each movie include the use of AI-generated video, there's no set threshold, meaning some films can take a more 'mixed media' approach — such as combining live shots of actors or real-life images and sounds with AI-generated elements. 'We're trying to encourage people to explore and experiment with it,' Valenzuela said in an interview prior to Thursday's screening. Creating a coherent film using generative AI is no easy feat. It can take a long list of directions and numerous, detailed prompts to get even a short scene to make sense and look consistent. Still, the scope of what this kind of technology can do has grown significantly since Runway's first AI Film Festival in 2023 — and Valenzuela says that's reflected in today's submissions. While there are still limits, AI-generated video is becoming more and more life-like and realistic. Runway encourages the use of its own AI tools for films entered into its festival, but creators are also allowed to turn to other resources and tools as they put together the films — and across the industry, tools that use AI to create videos spanning from text, image and/or audio prompts have rapidly improved over recent years, while becoming increasingly available. 'The way (this technology) has lived within film and media culture, and pop culture, has really accelerated,' said Joshua Glick, an associate professor of film and electronic arts at Bard College. He adds that Runway's film fest, which is among a handful of showcases aimed at spotlighting AI's creative capabilities, arrives as companies in this space are searching for heightened 'legitimacy and recognition' for the tools they are creating — with aims to cement partnerships in Hollywood as a result. AI's presence in Hollywood is already far-reaching, and perhaps more expansive than many moviegoers realize. Beyond 'headline-grabbing' (and at times controversial) applications that big-budget films have done to 'de-age' actors or create eye-catching stunts, Glick notes, this technology is often incorporated in an array of post-production editing, digital touch-ups and additional behind-the-scenes work like sorting footage. Industry executives repeatedly point to how AI can improve efficiency in the movie making process — allowing creatives to perform a task that once took hours, for example, in a matter of minutes — and foster further innovation. Still, AI's rapid growth and adoption has also heightened anxieties around the burgeoning technology — notably its implications for workers. The International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees — which represents behind-the-scenes entertainment workers in the U.S. and Canada — has 'long embraced new technologies that enhance storytelling,' Vanessa Holtgrewe, IATSE's international vice president, said in an emailed statement. 'But we've also been clear: AI must not be used to undermine workers' rights or livelihoods.' IATSE and other unions have continued to meet with major studios and establish provisions in efforts to provide guardrails around the use of AI. The Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists has also been vocal about AI protections for its members, a key sticking point in recent labor actions. For Runway's AI Film Festival, Valenzuela hopes screening films that incorporate AI-generated video can showcase what's possible — and how he says this technology can help, not hurt, creatives in the work they do today. 'It's natural to fear change ... (But) it's important to understand what you can do with it,' Valenzuela said. Even filmmaking, he adds, was born 'because of scientific breakthroughs that at the time were very uncomfortable for many people.'
Forbes
40 minutes ago
- Forbes
What Suno And Udio's AI Licensing Deals With Music Majors Could Mean For Creators Rights
In the space of a year, the major record labels have shifted from legal crusaders to would-be business partners. When Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and Sony Music filed copyright-infringement suits against AI up-starts Suno and Udio last summer, the industry assumed a bruising court fight was inevitable. Nine months later, the same companies are at the table hammering out AI music licensing deals that would let the startups keep training on label catalogues, provided the labels, and eventually their artists, get paid. These talks are not just about settling a lawsuit. They are about setting the rules, or perhaps abandoning them, for how copyrighted music is used in training AI, how future licensing structures might look, and who gets to be in the room when those decisions are made. For many artists, this is déjà vu, and not the good kind. The pivot is striking. Just months ago, the majors accused Suno and Udio of having trained their models on copyrighted sound recordings 'at an almost unimaginable scale,' offering prompts that could generate near-identical copies of existing songs. The Recording Industry Association of America alleged 'mass infringement' and sought sweeping legal remedies. Now, according to The Wall Street Journal, the labels are seeking licensing fees, compensation for past use, and minority equity stakes in both companies. In return, the startups would receive the right to continue using major-label catalogs to train their models with new controls and attribution systems in place. Among the key conditions: a fingerprinting and attribution layer modeled after YouTube's Content ID system. This technology, if feasible, would enable Suno and Udio to trace how and when songs influence AI outputs, allowing rights holders to track usage and collect revenue accordingly. The labels also want veto power over future AI music tools, including voice-cloning features and remix suites, a position one executive compared to the 'controls labels already exercise in sync deals.' But even as these negotiations accelerate, one truth remains unaddressed: labels don't control everything. As Gadi Oron, CEO of CISAC, the global body representing authors' societies, points out: 'Negotiating solely with the majors will not provide the full set of rights required by AI companies. Labels can only license the rights they control, which are the rights in the master recordings.' Underlying compositions and lyrics, the lifeblood of songs, are typically managed by collective management organizations, and these rights have not been part of the current licensing discussions. Oron warns: 'To use music lawfully, especially for training or generating new content, AI companies also need to obtain rights to the underlying compositions and lyrics. These rights are typically managed by CMOs on behalf of songwriters and publishers. Without separate agreements with CMOs for the compositions and lyrics, AI companies would infringe the rights of music creators, which is the current situation in the market.' Loredana Cacciotti, founder of Future Play Music, a company specialised in digital licensing strategies for labels and distributors, echoes this concern, and places it in historical context: 'History has taught us that the major labels often act based on short-term financial gain rather than long-term protections for artists and the industry as a whole. And that concerns me. We may once again find ourselves locked into licensing frameworks that fail to account for the deeper implications, both in terms of creative control and economic fairness for the independent community when a unified voice should be front and center when responding to disruptive innovation." She adds: 'Yet, given the fragmented nature of our industry, there's a real risk that we will once again be passively swept into a new era, one shaped by decisions in which much of the music community has had little to no voice.' To artist advocates and collectives such as the Musicians' Union and the Ivors Academy, the exclusion of songwriters and performers is both predictable and dangerous. Many are sounding the alarm that history is repeating itself, only this time, it's not just the distribution of music that's being reshaped, but the right to exist as a creative identity. Phil Kear, Assistant General Secretary of the UK's Musicians' Union, asked pointedly: 'Will the consent of the music creators be sought? What share of the licensing revenue will they receive, if any?' Meanwhile, Ivors Academy Chair Tom Gray warned that these agreements 'appear to not offer creators an 'opt-in', an 'opt-out' or any control, whatsoever, of their work within AI.' Gray added: 'The same companies who have stated they wish to 'make it fair' seem instead to be 'on the make.'' And Oron's concern extends beyond who is in the room, it is about how the economic pie is being divided: 'In the early days of the digital music market, some services operated without the required licenses, but at a later stage, negotiated deals with the major record labels in exchange for the lion's share of income… With AI, the connection to the underlying musical works is even more essential, and should entitle creators to a larger share of the makes it all the more important for composers and lyricists to be included in licensing negotiations from the start, with a clear stake in the outcomes. Failing to recognize this reality risks repeating past mistakes and marginalizing the very creators whose work underpins these technologies.' Cacciotti agrees. She warns, 'These developments carry a distinct sense of déjà vu. We've been here before—most notably during the rise of streaming, when rights holders had to decide between fighting the tide or shaping it. But this time, the stakes are arguably even higher." This isn't theoretical. GEMA, the German authors' society and a CISAC member, has already filed suit against Suno, citing exactly this disconnect. These are not trivial or speculative technologies. Suno and Udio have evolved from experimental demos to near-production-level toolsets. Suno's June 2025 update allows users to upload full tracks, manipulate them with 'weirdness' and 'reference' sliders, and export 12 multitrack stems to a digital audio workstation. Udio's most recent build added 'intro/verse/drop' sectioning, faster generation times, and support for hybrid genre compositions. But these features are only possible because the underlying models were trained on enormous datasets, including, by many indications, commercially released music without permission. And while Suno claims its models don't memorize or reproduce music, evidence from lawsuits shows that, when prompted, they've generated lyrics and melodies 'identical or nearly identical' to protected songs. The urgency behind licensing negotiations between the major music companies and AI startups like Suno and Udio isn't coincidental. Several structural pressures are converging to make this a uniquely combustible moment, one in which both the music industry and AI companies may see a narrow window to shape the future before external forces lock it in for them. First, regulatory uncertainty looms large. The recent and abrupt firing of U.S. Copyright Office Director Shira Perlmutter, who had pushed back against broad "fair use" exemptions for AI training, sent a chill through the creative industries. Her removal has raised fears that a new Trump-appointed director could reshape federal copyright policy in favor of AI developers, weakening enforcement mechanisms for rightsholders and potentially legitimizing unlicensed dataset training. Then there's investor pressure. Suno's $125 million raise in 2024, which valued the company at $500 million, reflects both excitement and risk. Venture capital firms increasingly want 'clean' AI pipelines, ones backed by licensed data and clear rights frameworks. That means unresolved litigation is now a liability. For companies like Suno and Udio looking to scale or exit, licensing deals are no longer optional; they are the precondition for long-term capital access. Finally, international policy is catching up. The European Union's AI Act and the UK's stalled exceptions for text and data mining both signal that the days of unregulated scraping in Western markets may be numbered. Compliance obligations, audit trails, and provenance disclosure could soon become mandatory. For Suno and Udio, this is likely the last best moment to secure cooperative licensing arrangements before governments impose restrictions that could limit how and what their models are allowed to ingest. What's emerging from these negotiations is a licensing framework that strongly resembles the major labels' approach during previous tech disruptions, most notably their transition from suing Napster to licensing Spotify. At the top of their list is the demand for fingerprinting at the model layer. Labels want systems that can not only detect direct sample reuse but also flag stylistic derivations within generative model outputs. The ambition is to move beyond surface-level detection and toward embedded attribution systems, although whether that's technically feasible with current diffusion models remains an open question. As Mike Pelczynski, Head of Licensing and Industry Relations at Sureel AI, which builds instant attribution systems for generative content explains: 'Attribution systems are fundamentally more powerful than traditional content ID in the age of AI because the sheer scale and speed of new content creation make it impossible to track every instance of reuse manually. Only neutral attribution frameworks can identify relevant works, respect opt-outs, and give rightsholders real-time visibility and control.' Next, the majors are pushing for commercial veto rights over product features. This would mean that any future tools released by Suno or Udio, from voice-cloning plugins to remix engines, would require prior approval. It's a mechanism similar to the one labels have long enforced in sync and advertising licenses. Financially, the proposed package includes cash settlements for past use, usage-based royalties going forward, and minority equity stakes in both AI startups. This echoes the labels' early equity positions in Spotify, which later became highly lucrative, but also controversial, as artists had little visibility or participation in those deals. One reason the majors are negotiating from a position of strength: many have likely registered copyrights with the U.S. Copyright Office that they believe Suno and Udio used for training. If proven, that could expose the startups to statutory damages, potentially amounting to hundreds of millions in liability. 'The crucial point in the Suno and Udio licensing discussions,' said Liz Cimarelli, Head of Business Development at Cosynd, a platform that simplifies copyright registration and ownership tracking for creators, 'is that the major labels have likely registered copyrights with the Copyright Office that they believe these companies used for training their AI models. Given the potential statutory damages of $150,000 per willful infringement, this could serve as a significant negotiating advantage for the majors.' But she also warned: 'The risk for the wider industry is that the major labels might agree to terms that set a low standard for everyone else. Without new legislation, policy changes, or infrastructure, this could diminish the economic opportunities that AI should offer. Generative AI has already been predicted to cost music creators $22B in income over the next five years. How low can we go?'. Lastly, there's a nod toward creator control: artist opt-outs for certain use cases such as vocal cloning. But crucially, there's no sign yet of a rights framework that would allow artists to license (or deny) their work directly, nor clarity on how royalties will be tracked or distributed at the artist level. For many creators, this feels less like consent and more like default inclusion with an escape clause. And as Oron makes clear, none of this addresses songwriters' rights: 'AI companies must seek permission from all relevant rights holders, not just the labels. Without compositions and lyrics written by humans, there's nothing for SUNO or Udio to offer.' For attribution advocates, the stakes are higher than just tracking AI training inputs, it's about future leverage. 'Flat licensing without attribution is blind licensing,' said Dr. Tamay Aykut, founder and CEO of Sureel AI. 'Artists (and their labels) would lose control and could end up competing against their own AI derivatives. Labels can't price what they can't measure, and AI can't avoid what it can't track. Attribution is the difference between knowing and guessing and if they are indeed pursuing licenses, then neutral attribution can only strengthen their hand with the AI companies who want to do the right thing.' Aileen Crowley, co-president of Sureel AI, added: 'As an industry, we must come together to demand that licensing only happen when an independent attribution system is in place. Any future licensing deals must guarantee that rights holders can clearly and effectively exclude their works, and only attribution technology can deliver this level of control and transparency.' That sentiment was echoed by Benji Rogers, also co-president at Sureel AI: 'Opt-in and opt-out rights must be non-negotiable, and only neutral attribution can provide this level of transparency and protection.' These licensing negotiations could define not only the outcome of current litigation but the licensing infrastructure for AI music globally. Three distinct scenarios are emerging: In one scenario, licensed acceleration, the majors strike a deal this summer. Suno and Udio integrate attribution and payment systems, and AI-generated remix tools launch inside premium tiers. Labels win a new revenue line, and high-profile artists who embrace the tech gain visibility. But those who opt out, or were never consulted, get left behind. In a second, stalemate, negotiations collapse and lawsuits drag on. If Trump-era regulators tilt toward AI-friendly fair use policies, case law may erode the legal basis for any future licensing obligations. In the third, patchwork, one or two majors settle, others hold out, and AI companies develop regionalized tools trained on different catalogs. The result is a fragmented landscape that mirrors the dysfunctional world of sync licensing. Amid all the strategy, five foundational questions remain unanswered: This is not just a music industry story. It's a proxy for how every creative sector, from writing to voice acting to film, navigates the shift from human artistry to machine synthesis. For the majors, this may feel like the inevitable next step in monetizing technological disruption. But for the artists, songwriters, and composers whose music trained the machines, this is about power, authorship, and cultural survival. As with the rise of streaming, the question isn't whether the business will change, it's whether the people who make the music will be allowed to shape that change. As AI music licensing negotiations between AI startups and major rights holders quietly unfold, songwriters, composers, and performers are once again fighting for a seat at a table where their work is the main asset, but their voices remain Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment were contacted for comment. As of publication, neither had responded.
