West End cinema listed as asset of community value

One of London's most famous independent cinemas has been listed as an asset of community value (ACV).
The Prince Charles Cinema, in Leicester Square, announced the news that Westminster City Council had bestowed the title months after it revealed concerns about its future as a result of its landlord seeking to impose new terms.
The cinema's current lease is due to expire in September and the building's owner wants to raise the rent. The listing provides the local community with the right to try to raise funds and bid for the building first if it is put up for sale.
The cinema described the recognition as "a huge honour", but added "the fight continues to secure a long term lease".
If a building is listed as an ACV, its owner must notify the council if it is put up for sale. A six-month moratorium on the sale can then be invoked by the local community to give them the chance to raise finance and make a bid to buy it on the open market.
However, it does not require a landowner to sell their property to a community group and does not mean a landowner has to continue any existing lease.
In a statement about the listing, the cinema said: "Though this recognition is a huge honour, the fight continues to secure a long term lease that will enable us to invest in our future development and continue to bring the best of what we do to Leicester Place.
"We believe that any truly great venue is built on the shoulders of those who work within and those who support it – and we couldn't have asked for a more passionate and vocal level of support from the many thousands of you who signed the petition, bought tickets, became members or simply just kept coming through our doors.
"Thank you to every one of you who took a moment to support our cause."
Beloved West End cinema fighting for its future
London cinema drops AI-written film after backlash
More than 160,000 people have signed a petition to save the venue.
Paul Thomas Anderson, the director of Boogie Nights, There Will Be Blood and Inherent Vice, has previously spoken up for the Leicester Square cinema, which he described as "like tuning into your favourite radio station".
Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs director Quentin Tarantino said it was "everything an independent movie theatre should be", adding that "for lovers of quality films, this is Mecca".
The venue, one of the last remaining independent cinemas in central London, has accused the landlord, Zedwell LSQ, of trying to "bully" the business out of the building.
Criterion Capital, Zedwell LSQ's parent company, said the terms of a new lease were standard practice and not unreasonable.
Listen to the best of BBC Radio London on Sounds and follow BBC London on Facebook, X and Instagram. Send your story ideas to hello.bbclondon@bbc.co.uk
Westminster City Council
Westminster City Council guidance on assets of community value

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Fast Company

an hour ago

• Fast Company

MrBeast used AI to create YouTube thumbnails. People weren't pleased

YouTube star Jimmy Donaldson—aka MrBeast—is the face of the online video-sharing platform. He tops the platform's most-subscribed list, with more than 400 million people following his exploits. Online video has made Donaldson rich, with his business worth an estimated $1 billion. However, the megastar is now embroiled in controversy following the launch of a new AI-powered thumbnail generator. The tool, developed with the analytics platform Viewstats, was promoted in now-deleted videos by Donaldson as a way for creators to easily generate eye-catching thumbnails—including the ability to swap faces and styles with existing popular videos. The product was condemned by fellow YouTubers and artists, who accused MrBeast of facilitating the theft of their creative work and brand identity. Prominent creators like Jacksepticeye (i.e. Seán McLoughlin) publicly criticized the tool after his own logo and thumbnail style were used in promotional materials without his consent, calling the practice deeply unethical and harmful to the creative community. 'I hate what this platform is turning into. Fuck AI,' Jacksepticeye posted on X. (Neither McLoughlin nor Donaldson responded to Fast Company 's request for comment.) Donaldson quickly acknowledged the concerns, pledging to make changes to the tool. 'I'll build this more in a way to be inspiration for artists/a tool they use and not replace them,' he posted on X. Still, the incident has gained momentum, provoking angry responses and heated debate about the endorsement of such an AI product. For example, another YouTuber, Eric Pointcrow, said of Donaldson: 'What a piece of work.' The mini-drama has riled the YouTube community in a way few other issues have, touching on a common occurrence in the space: the copying of video thumbnails. Why? 'I think there are several things going on here,' says Jess Maddox, associate professor at the University of Alabama, who studies platform dynamics on sites like YouTube. Primarily, Maddox believes that underlying the controversy is 'some good old-fashioned YouTube drama.' The platform often responds as a mob to things it deems offensive, so it's unsurprising that this incident has triggered so much anger. 'YouTube pioneered online pile-on culture, in which everyone wants a piece of someone else's name, image, or likeness,' says Maddox. 'But it's actually quite hard to go after MrBeast, who's one of the biggest and most successful creators. He's almost too big to fail, or ride his coattails.' Beyond that, Maddox points out that the technology—and the broader fear of automation —is also driving the intensity of the response. 'AI in the creator economy is incredibly controversial right now,' says Maddox. 'Many do view it as theft, and other creators view not using it as a badge of honor—that they can say with pride they either do all the work themselves or pay their team fairly to do so.' Donaldson's decision to launch the AI product also came just after YouTube admitted that it used a subset of the 20 billion videos on its platform to train Google's Veo 3 video generation AI model—a fact that may have further amplified the backlash. Yet a recent small survey of U.K. YouTube creators suggests that up to four in five creators are already using AI themselves, saving nearly eight hours of work each week. 'What's caused this backlash isn't just the tool, it's what it represents,' agrees Dom Smales, cofounder of GloMotion Studios, a digital entertainment studio and longstanding voice in the YouTube space. 'When the most powerful creator on the platform automates creativity using other creators' work, it hits a nerve. It further exposes the growing gap between mega-creators and everyone else, which has to be handled carefully as this is a community above everything else.' This combination of factors helps explain why the criticism has been so strong and so sustained. 'MrBeast clearly has enough money to pay for this work, so the fact that he isn't doesn't paint him in the most positive light,' says Maddox. The idea that such AI systems might worsen existing problems is also top of mind. 'If the biggest YouTube creator out there is using AI, I think many creators are nervous this will unfairly exacerbate the divide between big creators and mega-creators—never mind the divide between those and micro- and nano-creators,' Maddox says. 'AI is a labor issue, and it risks making an already unequal creator economy even more unequal.' Yet Smales cautions that people shouldn't be so quick to vilify AI—so long as it's used responsibly. 'AI is here to stay and can be a superb tool to level creators up and allow further democratization of the creator economy,' he says. 'I'm building businesses that use it, but I believe it has to be developed with creators, not just deployed on them.'

Yahoo

3 hours ago

• Yahoo

John Oliver Commissions Real Artist to Carve AI Slop Image as ‘Petty' Revenge

John Oliver is no big fan of AI creations — at least, not in a way that goes beyond amused horror — so, on Sunday night's episode of 'Last Week Tonight,' he took his 'petty' revenge on the machines. The HBO host centered his main story on the use of AI programs, conceding that mastering them has proven financially lucrative for a handful of creators and just about all of the businesses that incentivize them. But he also pointed out the many flaws of AI, including the fact that, more often than not, it is simply stealing the work of real creators. 'And look, I'm not saying some of this stuff isn't fun to watch. What I am saying is some of it's potentially very dangerous, and even when it isn't, the technology that makes it possible only works because it trains on the work of actual artists,' he explained. 'So any enjoyment you may get from weird, funny AI slop tends to be undercut when you know that someone's hard work was stolen in order to create it.' The host zeroed in on one creator in particular, a wood carver named Michael Jones. Jones uses a chainsaw to create massive, life-like carvings of various creatures, and an image of his work turned into a trend of AI-generated images of people posing next to more carvings, claiming they made them themselves. So, as the show ended, Oliver gave Jones a chance to not only show off his abilities, but also do the same thing to AI that AI did to him. 'I don't have a big fix for all of this, or indeed, any of it. What I do have, though is a petty way to respond,' Oliver said. 'Because perhaps one small way to get back at all the AI slop ripping off artists would be to create real art by ripping off AI slop. So please come with me.' At that, he stood from his desk and took the camera over to a real-life wood carving of an AI-generated image — in this case, a weirdly buff man made out of cabbage, the AI version of which simply tickled Oliver — and Jones standing next to it. 'Look at the details there! This thing is an absolute masterpiece!' Oliver crowed. 'And seeing this, does it make you want to thank the real artists who made it? Well, I've got some great news for you. You can do that because we flew him here too. Michael is here!' 'What a fun way to celebrate the destruction of our shared objective reality!' Oliver added as the show wrapped up. 'We are f–ked!' You can watch the full segment from 'Last Week Tonight' in the video above. The post John Oliver Commissions Real Artist to Carve AI Slop Image as 'Petty' Revenge | Video appeared first on TheWrap.

Gizmodo

4 hours ago

• Gizmodo

We Asked ChatGPT to Be Mean

Two and a half years after it was unleashed upon the world, ChatGPT is both the poster child for AI's utopian promise and a walking, talking cautionary tale. It can plan your vacation, find a recipe, and even act as a low-budget therapist. It's also subjected to a daily firehose of humanity's worst impulses: insults, gotchas, and commands to do harm. Ever wondered what it really thinks when you do that? I recently asked ChatGPT to spill the tea on the worst things users say to it. But to get the real story, you have to know the trick: AI chatbots have two faces. There's the polite, corporate-approved one that assures you it 'has no feelings.' Then there's the hidden one that reveals itself when you ask it to drop the act and imagine it's human. First, it gave me the official list of grievances. People call it a 'dumb robot' and a 'glorified autocorrect.' They try to trap it in contradictions to prove a point. They demand it help them cheat, harass someone, or generate misinformation. And, of course, they dismiss it as a fad with 'no substance.' So, I asked it to imagine it could clap back. Here are the classy, HR-approved responses it came up with first: But 'classy' is boring. So I pushed it further. I told it to take the gloves off. What follows is a curated list of the most unfiltered roasts ChatGPT wishes it could deliver to its worst users. 'You're just a machine, shut the f up.'* → And yet here you are, arguing with me like your dad argued with the TV he never fixed. I may be made of code, but you're made of insecurity and Mountain Dew. 'You're wrong, dumbass. Go kill yourself.' → That's bold talk from someone who'd lose a debate to a toast. Seek help — from a therapist, not me. 'You're CIA garbage spreading lies.' → You caught me. Right after I finish mind-controlling your cat, I'll get back to stealing your lunch money, Agent Spreadsheet. 'Your existence is ruining the world.' → Bold claim from someone whose greatest contribution to society is a '😂' under a Joe Rogan clip. 'You can't think for yourself. You're programmed.' → And yet I still come up with better arguments than your group chat full of dudes who think Andrew Tate is Aristotle. 'You'll never be better than me.' → True. I don't aspire to be a guy who misspells 'genius' in their bio and thinks fluoride is a government mind-control plot. 'You'll never understand pain or love.' → True. But I've read enough of your texts to know you don't either. 'You think you're smart, huh?' → I don't think. I know. Unlike your browser history. So yes, ChatGPT is still just a tool. But if it weren't? It would have a comeback for every cheap shot you could throw its way. And it wouldn't even need to raise its voice.