• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Ethics of Digitizing Dead Actors

I think it is disgusting, and I dont care if money is paid to whoever owns the rights to my personal brand after I am dead.

Let me die with dignity.
 
MaggieD said:
Jet, you raise excellent points re an actor consenting to a role, being comfortable with lines, etc. My immediate reaction is that being able to use a digital image of an actor ought to depend upon getting that actor's release to do so. IOW, if Carrie Fisher had signed a release saying her digital likeness could be used in the future for $X on future Star Wars films, it's A-OK. Sans that? I think it's the equivalent of unlawful use.
Click to expand...

How about if she was under contract to do X more Star Wars films? She certainly didn't know she was going to die young and she was a material asset of 20th Century Fox and subsidiaries. Would it then be ethical if her estate was paid whatever she would have been paid but it would be her digital likeness instead of her?
 
Goshin said:
Most actors could give a **** about art, they're too busy trying to get paid.



Let's take Peter Cushing, aka Grand Moff Tarkin. Now this ol' boy was in a lot of movies in his career.... big roles, small roles, good movies, B-movies and a few stinkers. In fact he was in a LOT of B-movies and stinkers.... have a look: Peter Cushing - IMDb



Doesn't seem like, in life, he was overly concerned with "art" or his "legacy"... or he wouldn't have been in Frankenstein Created Woman or Dr. Phibes Rises Again. Looks to me like he was mostly interested in getting paid... like the vast majority of actors.


Pretty sure he'd have no objection to digitized Tarkin, if he were alive today. Might even be flattered. I doubt he'd ask anything other than maybe "Are my heirs getting paid?"
Click to expand...

This seems a tad overly cynical to me.
 
AlbqOwl said:
How about if she was under contract to do X more Star Wars films? She certainly didn't know she was going to die young and she was a material asset of 20th Century Fox and subsidiaries. Would it then be ethical if her estate was paid whatever she would have been paid but it would be her digital likeness instead of her?
Click to expand...

That sounds fair enough to. I suspect there's some law that needs to be carved out here.
 
Goshin said:
Most actors could give a **** about art, they're too busy trying to get paid.
Click to expand...

No. I work with actors every day.

This is patently untrue.

Everyone does what they have to do to pay the bills. That doesn't mean they don't care about the art.

Also, during the studio system era, most working actors were under contract, and they didn't have any choice which movies they appeared in. They went where the studio told them, just like any other employee would. Studios were movie factories, and actors were labor. So, no, Cushing didn't whore for money. He did his job as assigned to him.
 
Harshaw said:
No. I work with actors every day.

This is patently untrue.

Everyone does what they have to do to pay the bills. That doesn't mean they don't care about the art.

Also, during the studio system era, most working actors were under contract, and they didn't have any choice which movies they appeared in. They went where the studio told them, just like any other employee would. Studios were movie factories, and actors were labor. So, no, Cushing didn't whore for money. He did his job as assigned to him.
Click to expand...


Which is exactly what most people do; what they have to.

And when we are gone, our heirs decide how to dispose of whatever material goods, or arts or crafts, we may have wrought in our lifetime. They will inhabit our house and change it to suit their needs, or sell it to someone who will. They will take things we labored on and sweated to make "just so" and alter them to suit their needs, or discard them if they don't. That painting you're so proud of, the one that was a cumulative result of a decade of hobby-time learning and practice to make, will likely end up in the attic or the trash.

Such is life, and death.


Ok if the actor didn't have a problem with doing what he was told, playing whatever role he was assigned, speaking his lines more or less as written and directed in LIFE, why should anyone particularly worry about his scruples or art when he is no longer living? If the heirs are ok with it then it is ok.... that's the standard for everyone else.
 
Goshin said:
Which is exactly what most people do; what they have to.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't mean they don't give a **** about the art.

You may have to kill someone in law enforcement. That doesn't mean it you're in it because you want to kill people.



And when we are gone, our heirs decide how to dispose of whatever material goods, or arts or crafts, we may have wrought in our lifetime. They will inhabit our house and change it to suit their needs, or sell it to someone who will. They will take things we labored on and sweated to make "just so" and alter them to suit their needs, or discard them if they don't. That painting you're so proud of, the one that was a cumulative result of a decade of hobby-time learning and practice to make, will likely end up in the attic or the trash.
Click to expand...

So? Doesn't have a thing to do with whether or not actors give a **** about art.




Ok if the actor didn't have a problem with doing what he was told, playing whatever role he was assigned, speaking his lines more or less as written and directed in LIFE
Click to expand...

Because that's what they had to do in order to work.

It was the ACTORS who eventually changed the studio system, so yeah, they cared about it.

Besides, you say yourself that Cushing put in superior acting even when working on the terrible stuff. Why would some mercenary who only cared about a paycheck do that.

You're being dismissive of a whole set of people that, I'd have think, you really don't know.
 
This is going to be a bigger issue as technology progresses. Eventually FX will get to the point that a computer simulated actor and the real actor will be indistinguishable to the naked eye and ear. Hell, it might even be cheaper for the studio to use the sim actor.

I'm. It the type of person who thinks dead people should have legal rights. You're dead. But if the actor has a family then the family should own the rights to the likeness if there is no family then the likeness should either be open domain or useable by nobody. A studio shouldn't be able to use an actors likeness forever for any role it deems fit. At least not exclusively.
 
Jetboogieman said:
So I'm assuming many of you have seen Rogue One, recently Lucasfilm has stated outright, that they will not digitally recreate her likeness for any future films:



Lucasfilm: Carrie Fisher won't be digitally recreated - BBC News

There is also this article if you're interested about the legality of using Peter Cushings likeness which seems to be above board:

How Rogue One Re-created Peter Cushing -- Vulture

But the question really becomes, even if in the case of Cushing, who's family or estate probably consented to the portrayal...

Is it ethical, is it right, to use the likeness of someone who is deceased in the manner in which it was done in Rogue One.

Because you are taking a human beings likeness who can no longer consent, even if it's the character you were getting them to portray and getting them to say and do things the person may or may not have consented or agreed to do, or say from an artistic standpoint.

You could even go as far as to say that the actor themselves, in death are being robbed of their artistic expression as they may have disagreed with the director about a certain line, or come up with an idea that enhanced the scene which is often how some of the best film moments happen.

To be honest, from a dumb movie watcher perspective, Cushing and Fishers recreations didn't bother me all that much, they were definitely noticeable, the human eye is capable of detecting fakeness really well, but it wasn't a deal breaker.

But the ethical question is the discussion I'd like to have, what are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

Well, it's interesting.

They don't own the idea of Carrie Fisher, but they do seem to own the concept of Princess Leia. The image. The likeness. The personality. Kind of a gray area. It wouldn't seem to be okay if, for example, they sold the rights to the likeness to a porn outfit that then digitized Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia.

If a performer is already under contract to provide the performance, i think it's justifiable. But you're right that it's an ethical conundrum.
 
Harshaw said:
Which doesn't mean they don't give a **** about the art.

You may have to kill someone in law enforcement. That doesn't mean it you're in it because you want to kill people.





So? Doesn't have a thing to do with whether or not actors give a **** about art.






Because that's what they had to do in order to work.

It was the ACTORS who eventually changed the studio system, so yeah, they cared about it.

Besides, you say yourself that Cushing put in superior acting even when working on the terrible stuff. Why would some mercenary who only cared about a paycheck do that.

You're being dismissive of a whole set of people that, I'd have think, you really don't know.
Click to expand...



Harshaw, I'll grant you that my "they don't give a **** about the art" was excessive and inaccurately expressed.



What I meant to convey was that getting paid apparently took priority for most, rather than being more concerned with whether the role they were playing was in keeping with their art and the legacy they wanted to leave behind. Granted, they aren't all like that, and many get more picky when they attain star-status.


I still think it is up to the heirs to decide, by whatever standard they deem fit, unless the actor's will specified otherwise.
 
Goshin said:
Harshaw, I'll grant you that my "they don't give a **** about the art" was excessive and inaccurately expressed.



What I meant to convey was that getting paid apparently took priority for most, rather than being more concerned with whether the role they were playing was in keeping with their art and the legacy they wanted to leave behind. Granted, they aren't all like that, and many get more picky when they attain star-status.


I still think it is up to the heirs to decide, by whatever standard they deem fit, unless the actor's will specified otherwise.
Click to expand...

You only see a mere fraction of what they do, though.

Almost 100% of actors do things you'll never hear of and never see because they want to nurture their art and craft. They'll do plays. They'll do no-budget indie films for which they get paid peanuts, if anything at all. And I do mean almost 100%.

Many of them branch out into writing, producing, and directing, too, because they want to expand their art. Yes, everyone wants and needs to get paid, but even actors who can command higher salaries will work for peanuts if they find the material satisfying. They all want to act, and they all want to act in something meaningful.

No one goes into acting just for the money, because that would be suicide.

Being in the world, I don't think it's artistically sound OR ethical to use an actor's personna after they've passed. It may end up being legal, but being legal isn't synonymous with proper.

And it isn't like someone's painting. That would be a work they created themselves. The proper analogy would be to have someone else create a painting of similar style to that of a painter, and marketing it as an original work BY that painter, as long as the painter's estate said they could.
 
Harshaw said:
You only see a mere fraction of what they do, though.

Almost 100% of actors do things you'll never hear of and never see because they want to nurture their art and craft. They'll do plays. They'll do no-budget indie films for which they get paid peanuts, if anything at all. And I do mean almost 100%.

Many of them branch out into writing, producing, and directing, too, because they want to expand their art. Yes, everyone wants and needs to get paid, but even actors who can command higher salaries will work for peanuts if they find the material satisfying. They all want to act, and they all want to act in something meaningful.

No one goes into acting just for the money, because that would be suicide.

Being in the world, I don't think it's artistically sound OR ethical to use an actor's personna after they've passed. It may end up being legal, but being legal isn't synonymous with proper.

And it isn't like someone's painting. That would be a work they created themselves. The proper analogy would be to have someone else create a painting of similar style to that of a painter, and marketing it as an original work BY that painter, as long as the painter's estate said they could.
Click to expand...



I'll admit I have near-zero involvement in the movie-and-tv industry, and only a casual acquaintance with two actors neither of whom is a "name".


I just don't see it as a major issue, as long as the estate/heirs agree and are compensated to their satisfaction.

The analogy you give isn't accurate either... everyone (well, anyone who cares) knows Peter Cushing is dead and that Grand Moff Tarkin's appearance in R-1 was not an original/new performance by the dead man.


When you're dead, your heirs do what they wish with what you produced in life. That is how it is.
 
Goshin said:
I'll admit I have near-zero involvement in the movie-and-tv industry, and only a casual acquaintance with two actors neither of whom is a "name".


I just don't see it as a major issue, as long as the estate/heirs agree and are compensated to their satisfaction.

The analogy you give isn't accurate either... everyone (well, anyone who cares) knows Peter Cushing is dead and that Grand Moff Tarkin's appearance in R-1 was not an original/new performance by the dead man.


When you're dead, your heirs do what they wish with what you produced in life. That is how it is.
Click to expand...

The appearance in Rogue One was not something he did in his life. A different actor portrayed the character, and they pasted his face on top of him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom