I would say that unless there is a provision it should be up to the estate. It's not like we can ask Carrie what she would have wanted.

Now, having said that the executor of the estate should use their best judgment to decide this. Of course there is no way of knowing if they honestly think that Carrie would be ok with this or if they just want the money.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Isn't that ok? The executor of the estate should be representing the interests of the estate. The estate making money is in the interests of the estate, so long as it is not against the wishes of the deceased. So, if the image was used in a distasteful manner, you would oppose. But, if used in a manner consistent with the life of the person, the estate should be trying to make more money for the estate.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

It's an interesting thought. Although, I doubt the Star Wars brand needs her image to make money anymore.

Most of my gut feeling is it shouldn't be an issue. There are movies all the time of characters based around people from the past; Richard Nixon, Abe Lincoln, and Anne Frank come to mind. Is this conversation brought up for those people? Would it be better for them to recast someone else to play that character? Unless people provide provisions to not appear in anything after they're deceased, why should their likeness not be used? I think it's fine.

I think that the estate should do what they think that the person would have wanted. This, of course, leaves it wide open for misuse.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Certainly it does. But that has always been the case. Look at the Elvis estate, Michael Jackson, Prince, etc. All are faced with the question of whether the individual's image should be used for commercial gain.

So, the concept is the same. But, the technology makes it so much different. It is one thing to see a picture of Elvis on an item. It is another to actually see and hear a deceased actor on the big screen.

This is one of the reasons why I really like my field of practice. The technology creates new and never before considered issues that have to be addressed.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Wow, not only has the movie industry run out of ideas, they're apparently running out of actors too.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Do you know who Bill Watterson is? If not, he is the creator of Calvin and Hobbes cartoons.

He is vehemently opposed to the commercialization of Calvin.

Now, lets say that for some reason Bill does not put a provision in his will saying not to commercialized Calvin. Should his estate be allowed make money on Calvin and put him all over any product? Yes, they should be allowed to do that. Should they actually do it? No, they should not.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Absolutely not. A cute young woman playing Leia would make much more money for the franchise.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

All of those are different. All of those people are public figures. Public figures do not enjoy the same protection as others, including actors. In addition, we are not talking about those people playing themselves. We are talking about taking their image (visual and audio) and making them do something for a movie.

Let's use an extreme example. You could have someone who looks like Leia star in a porn parody of Star Wars. No issue. But, what if they used this technology to actually put young Carrie Fisher in that movie? Now you are talking about something completely different.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Personally, my brain is trying to organize a difference between the estate of an actor and the estate of a musician and how they shouldn't be compared in this conversation. A dead musician cannot make new music as their legacy is being able to create. A dead actor can make new work because their job is to adapt to the character. That's where I'm starting at.

Speaking in terms of CGI that is.

In that case, the executor could be removed for cause and replaced by someone else. The executor must administer the estate to the benefit of the estate, consistent with the wishes of the deceased. So, there is a mechanism for protecting the wishes of the deceased. Those wishes will be honored unless it can be established the deceased was not of sound mind when articulating those wishes (or possibly some other public policy reasons).

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Wait, are we talking about young bikini clad Leia, or old fat Leia?

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

I think you have to come at it from that angle. But, consider this -- what about making "live" music videos with the deceased musician?

Remember when Tupac appeared with Snoop Dog and Dr. Dre in 2012? That was a hologram in its infancy. What happens when the technology is so good, it looks like the person is actually performing live in concert?

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I think the technology is going to change how actor contracts are written and negotiated to include a cgi likeness clause. Without the actors permission, I think cgi-likenesses should be off limits with death. Sorry for your loss.

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

I suppose I would think that his estate should be compensated for that.

But in the case of Carrie Fisher, they would be using her likeness to continue the story that she had a hand in before. I don't think the discussion is using her likeness to start new work. I don't think the story should end because her life did.

I get your point, and it is something that would provide lots of valid thoughts. I just don't think it's an issue in this instance. If they use her likeness outside of Star Wars, that would open up the door to me to compare to the Tupac incident.

Specifically talking about Star Wars, they should just kill her character off. Its not like Leia is still vital to the plot.

Leia was overcome with grief when Han died and took her own life. Done and done.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

I'm sure I'm asking way too much here, but it would really be nice if Hollywood could come up with movies with good stories and effective cinematography that don't have to rely on big name actors and CGI to make the movie good. I'll take a Napoleon Dynamite-esque movie with a bunch of no-names over a shit show with a 10 second cameo by a dead person any day.

---

Travis Rassat
Vector Cycle Works
Noblesville, IN
BikeFit Instructor | FMS | F.I.S.T. | IBFI
Toughman Triathlon Series Ambassador

Can someone actually trademark/copyright/patent/whatever their likeness? What if there is someone that looks very much like Robyn Williams and a company uses the look-a-likes image for profit hoping that everyone will assume its Robyn Williams save the small "This is not Robyn Williams" disclaimer in two point font at the bottom? I honestly don't know the answer. Hopefully someone here does. There used to be a sub shop in the DC area called Jerry's that used to use celebrity impersonators in their radio ads. They seemed to get away with it as long as they ran the superfast "Celebrity voices have been impersonated" legalspeak at the end. If I remember correctly, they survived a couple legal challenges from celebs that didn't want their 'voice' used.

Unless a case makes its way through the courts strictly forbidding the practice if an actor states that they don't want their likeness used after their death, I don't see Hollywood batting an eyelash if they think it will equal more profits for them. Money trumps ethics every time.

Leia was overcome with grief when Han died and took her own life. Done and done
---

Perhaps she'll die from a broken heart, like her mommy

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

But in BLeP's hypo, the wishes of the deceased were not expressed in his will. It's just assumed that those were his wishes based on how he handled his property when alive. So his hypo really goes to how implied or assumed wishes should be handled.

And when looking at it, what technology is around now vs. what may be around in the future complicates the issue. I suspect Peter Cushing had no such restrictions in his will, most likely because he had no idea that kind of technology would even be possible.

Another interesting question is how long those wishes should be followed. How long after someone's death should the person be able to control the use of his or her image. Something like the rule against perpetuities (I got flashback shivers just typing it) or something else?

Broken heart - AKA overdose.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb