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?
(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.