Quick Links
- A Brief Timeline in the Cushing-Rogue One Legal Dispute
- Rogue One and the ‘Right of Publicity’
- Soon, the Dead Will Be Busier Than Living Actors
As someone who has spent a significant part of my life immersed in the world of cinema, this latest development leaves me rather dismayed and somewhat amused at the same time. It seems we are inching closer to a future where the dead will be busier than the living actors, which is quite a twist, isn’t it?
In the future, when we reflect on Disney’s Star Wars collection from a generation’s perspective, Rogue One: A Star Wars Story might appear to us as something other than what it is now – not as a fresh take or stylistic shift, but as an intriguing legal matter. At its release eight years ago, Gareth Edwards’ Rogue One bore little resemblance to the rest of the franchise, focusing on a peripheral plot from the very first movie, Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope, and a key character played by Peter Cushing. Despite Cushing having passed away 20 years prior to filming, Disney managed to navigate that minor hurdle. By employing advanced technology, they were able to bring Cushing’s gaunt visage and resonant voice back to life on screen and audio. However, this wasn’t the end of Disney’s challenges – in fact, it was just the beginning.
The recent development is that Disney found out a court has approved the legal case over their digital recreation of Grand Moff Tarkin, which was created using Peter Cushing’s likeness without his family’s consent. In simpler terms, the issue lies in the unauthorized use of Cushing’s image for a digital character. The team at Industrial Light & Magic, led by John Knoll, combined Cushing’s face with another actor, raising concerns about the ethical and legal implications of such technology. This case might just be the beginning, as more lawsuits and regulations could arise due to the increasing use of AI-generated performers, both living and deceased.
The daily increasing use of digitally altered actors and artificial intelligence by directors is notable, except for a few exceptions. With the groundbreaking film “Rogue One” setting a legal precedent through CGI, Peter Cushing’s legacy may become associated with this trivia, but it was an unavoidable step to establish a legal standard. Here’s what we know about this development and why it matters.
A Brief Timeline in the Cushing-Rogue One Legal Dispute
In the mid-’90s, I, a devoted cinephile, bid farewell to the legendary Peter Cushing. Although his role as Tarkin in the original Star Wars was brief, it was scarcely more than a footnote in his extensive career. Instead, he was widely recognized among film enthusiasts for his recurring roles in Hammer’s horror series. A tireless actor, he continued to grace our screens well into the ’70s and even managed to secure several business deals throughout his career.
It has been claimed by one of Cushing’s business partners, Kevin Francis, that he legally owns the rights to Cushing’s likeness. This allegedly stems from an agreement between them, which was binding. The Sunday Times reported on this matter. In 2016, Disney profited significantly from the reintroduction of the Tarkin character, but according to Francis’s legal claim, his permission and compensation were not obtained for the use of a CGI version of Cushing’s likeness. The trial is set to take place in a London court. Tyburn Film Productions (owned by Francis) aims to recover approximately $650,000 from Lunak Heavy Industries, the production company behind Rogue One, as well as Lucasfilm. This is in connection with their use of motion-captured face swapping, as demonstrated in this video by Industrial Light & Magic.
In addition to Cushing’s family and legal team, Francis has also been drawn into the trial. He claims that all parties violated his rights to the likeness of the English horror actor, Peter Cushing. Disney’s accountants issued a payment of approximately $36,000 to the estate following their complaints about the situation. Disney claimed they were unaware of the legal implications of their CGI adaptation, assuming the commotion was due to something else. Francis contends that the Cushing estate does not have unrestricted legal ownership over licensing rights related to their deceased family member. This is because, as part of a deal for a film titled “A Heritage of Horror,” Cushing transferred his likeness rights to Francis. This transfer is cited in Francis’s lawsuit, suggesting that upon Cushing’s death, the agreement granted sole control to Francis. This unfinished movie lies at the heart of this legal dispute.
Rogue One and the ‘Right of Publicity’
Regardless of how this court case in London concludes, it will have significant, long-lasting effects on the broader entertainment industry. This situation underscores the importance of understanding the law for studios, producers, estate managers, and performers alike – even Disney’s legal team wasn’t immune. Given the current trend, with more actors and musicians selling posthumous rights to their likeness, voice, and persona (often referred to as “Right of Publicity”), this timely lesson couldn’t be more relevant.
Such legal entanglements may cause celebrities to be cautious about them due to potential complications for their estates and ventures – or just to seize an immediate opportunity. As Professor Tyler Ochoa pointed out to Vulture in 2016, sorting out ownership details and determining jurisdiction can be a complex puzzle, hinting at the chaos that lay ahead.
Two states in the U.S., notably New York, do not uphold the right of publicity after death. However, in states that do acknowledge this right, the duration can vary significantly. It could extend from a decade post-death, to as long as 70 years, or even a full century, depending on the state’s laws. Intriguingly, Tennessee has a law that extends the right indefinitely, a result of a statute that was passed following lobbying by the Elvis estate.
The situation seems to be growing more complicated, rather than resolving itself. Contrary to speculation, the rush for CGI celebrity depictions isn’t winding down; instead, it appears to be gaining momentum. Disney regards Francis’s pursuit as an inconsequential matter and may very well prevail, given that the British plaintiff has not produced anything substantial in 35 years according to his IMDb profile, and shows no signs of completing any projects in the near future either. His project, A Heritage of Horror, remains stuck in a significant stage of development limbo, if he ever truly intended to bring it to fruition. However, will this matter in the end?
Soon, the Dead Will Be Busier Than Living Actors
If finding an actor for your project seems unappealing due to scheduling conflicts, ethical concerns, or the fact that they’re alive, I’m sorry, but that’s the way it is. It’s often simpler to work with an actor who isn’t already committed or grappling with personal dilemmas. And as for what happens to your image after you pass away, according to most wills, it becomes property, much like a house or a set of figurines, unless you specifically transferred those rights beforehand.
In a forward-thinking approach, it might become customary to prepare notarized documents detailing who can commercially use a deceased person’s likeness, such as Grandma’s image, to prevent future legal disputes. Some celebrities have already set this precedent posthumously. For instance, Robin Williams and James Earl Jones both had such agreements in place before their deaths. The iconic voice of Darth Vader, previously belonging to the late James Earl Jones, will now be reproduced by an AI program, adding a touch of irony as the symbol of humanity’s last flicker in Star Wars is voiced by an artificial intelligence representing a deceased individual.
Williams, possibly feeling the discomfort of digital replicas of himself appearing during a time when his death was still raw and poignant, chose to postpone all depictions of his likeness for 25 years following his demise. This delay is just a small hint of the cemetery filled with deceased cinema legends and starlets awaiting their artificial intelligence revival. In the United States, works in the public domain are those created 70 years or more after the artist’s death (if copyrighted in 1978 or later) or 95 years after the publication of films. However, it remains unclear how long this concept applies to a person’s true identity. As we approach the day when Marlon Brando and Katharine Hepburn could promote their own cryptocurrency based on furry themes, we enter the dystopian realm of AI-controlled spirits. This ushers in an era where ghosts are manipulated by artificial intelligence.
Read More
Sorry. No data so far.
2024-10-23 04:05