SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Disney has issued a statement regarding the rumors of CGI (Computer-Generated Imagery) being used to continue Carrie Fisher's roles in any upcoming movies:
We want to assure our fans that Lucasfilm has no plans to digitally recreate Carrie Fisher's performance as Princess or General Leia Organa.
Of course that would be after they already recreated her as young Princess Leia in Rogue One. I'm kinda torn because I found nothing funnier than her CGI face in that movie. Moff Tarkin was done quite well, but Leia looked like she had several strong psychedelic edibles and a glorious bowel movement just 2 minutes before.
Assuming that they could do it better, who is for recreating our favorite characters with CGI?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Disney to Stop Using CGI for Carrie Fisher, aka Princess Leia Organa
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 54 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Hacking's just another word for nothing left to kludge.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by wisnoskij on Tuesday January 24 2017, @05:10PM
Does the estate even own the deceased image? I know the Tolkien estate has sued many people for simply using the name Tolkien, but while that likely falls under fair use, using someones image to advertise your product definitely would not.
But now that she is dead, can her estate really sell the rights to the Princess Leia porno? Does her image enter the public domain at some point? Does the Hitler estate make royalties every time a movie features Hitler?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday January 24 2017, @07:01PM
This has been debated for a couple decades in legal circles, so the issues aren't new. By the mid-90s, you had a number of such cases. (Anyone remember Fred Astaire dancing with a Dirt Devil in a commercial back in the 90s? Or John Wayne selling Coors Light?)
Does the estate even own the deceased image?
I don't know in this particular case, but in general use of a dead person's image (CGI or otherwise) is subject to the will of the estate. Many actors have put clauses in their wills for years regulating posthumous use of their image (for example, no use for advertising or depictions involving sex or violence or whatever). Robin Williams, for example, reportedly banned the use of his image for all commercial use in his will until 2039 and prohibited the use of digital insertions into a movie.
But now that she is dead, can her estate really sell the rights to the Princess Leia porno?
No. Princess Leia is a character, subject to copyright. Theoretically, assuming there were no other stipulations in the will, I suppose the estate could sell the rights of Carrie Fisher's image (not in a copyrighted character) appearing in a pornographic film, though I imagine if an estate were to actually try such a thing with a deceased actor, eventually we may see some public outcry and maybe even legal pushback. "The Right to Be Forgotten" becomes "The Right to Stay Dead"?
Does her image enter the public domain at some point?
I believe this is now a thing decided by state law. For now, the legal rights in California [wikipedia.org] extend to 70 years after the person's death.
Does the Hitler estate make royalties every time a movie features Hitler?
I don't know the detailed law in Germany regarding celebrities in general, but for Hitler, the answer is no. Hitler's estate was seized by the Germany government [slate.com] after his death and his will was declared void. There have apparently been discussions at various points among some of his heirs to reclaim the estate through legal suit, but it's never been pursued. At this point, anything he'd have copyright or personality rights over would probably be considered public domain anyway.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Tuesday January 24 2017, @09:44PM
I wrote it another thread, but as the value of the likeness goes up as the tech becomes increasingly viable, it is just a matter of time before the rights will be bought and sold like anything else. The notion that it'll solely be a question of what is in the will or the estate will be increasingly moot as Disney et al will just buy those rights outright.
Depending on the contract they signed, they will be used while the actor is still alive or not, whether he wants them to or not, and possibly even sold to a 3rd party if the right offer is made...
"the right to stay dead" is just the tip of the iceberg... a more interesting question is whether there will be enough abuse and outrage that signing away your likeness would be considered an unconscionable contract term and rendered null and void.
If the law doesn't step in at some point, then perhaps some time further down the road, you'll apply for a new job, and be asked to sign away your likeness rights while you work for the company as a'standard term', a matter of course. The same way you might acquiesce to a drug, test, background check, and agree everything you do in your spare time belongs to them, and that you won't get another job with a company competes with them...at least in states that haven't ruled that clause illegal yet.