RIP Carrie Fisher (1956-2016)

[The Romulan Republic]

I'd think that, as others have said, the family, or whoever inherits control of their estate, would control the use of their likeness (unless a contact previously stipulated otherwise, maybe), but after such and such number of decades, their likeness would become public domain.

[Elheru Aran]

I'd think that, as others have said, the family, or whoever inherits control of their estate, would control the use of their likeness (unless a contact previously stipulated otherwise, maybe), but after such and such number of decades, their likeness would become public domain.

The issue is that right now, IIRC, there are no specific laws governing such a thing; there are only some laws regarding the use of an actor's likeness, and I'm not sure if they say anything about after the actor is deceased. Certainly I don't believe existing public-domain laws regulate the use of one's image after death at all, since that's not been an issue until quite recently. The only thing I can think of might be releasing a movie posthumously, or using archival footage to recreate a deceased actor, as mentioned previously, but those might fall under using previous cinematic material rather than attempting to create original footage with said actor.

[K. A. Pital]

I do feel sad, but on the bright side - she will always live on in the memory of a great many people thanks to Star Wars.

Gotta rewatch the classic trilogy in her honour for the coming New Year holidays.

[Crazedwraith]

I'd think that, as others have said, the family, or whoever inherits control of their estate, would control the use of their likeness (unless a contact previously stipulated otherwise, maybe), but after such and such number of decades, their likeness would become public domain.

Why should someone's likeness ever become public domain?

[The Romulan Republic]

As revolting as people may find the idea, especially in this context, at some point one would imagine that it would.

I mean... would you really be outraged at someone using, oh, King Richard the 1st.'s likeness without contacting his living relatives?

[Elheru Aran]

There is certainly a point at which one's likeness is well removed from whatever current generation of one's family. However at what point that may be is another question.

Some Googling has turned up a possibly relevant link: http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/20 ... onroes.htm

I won't quote the whole thing, but here goes a relevant section:

The California legislature enacted a right of publicity for living persons in 1971; but the California Supreme Court rejected a post-mortem right of publicity under its common law in 1979. The legislature responded by enacting a statutory post-mortem right of publicity in 1984, effective January 1, 1985. At the time, the right lasted for 50 years after the celebrity’s death; it has since been extended to 70 years after the celebrity’s death. Other states have statutory rights of publicity with different durations. For example, in 1994 Indiana enacted a post-mortem right that lasts 100 years after the celebrity’s death (largely at the behest of CMG Worldwide, a celebrity marketing firm based in Indiana).

The rest of the article is a bunch of legalese that I don't quite get, but basically, your image and the rights thereof pass to your legal successors, generally your family. If you are a sufficiently public figure, it's possible for your image to become public domain given enough time, however, certain copyrights may still apply, such as photo copyrights and the like.

In Carrie Fisher's case, the specific image and character of 'Princess Leia' is owned by Lucasfilm/Disney, and to a certain extent, they are permitted to do whatever they want to with the Princess Leia character. When it comes to actual live action depictions, that may be more problematic, but currently the rights to her image and live action depiction reside with her family/heirs as far as I can tell.

[Crazedwraith]

As revolting as people may find the idea, especially in this context, at some point one would imagine that it would.

I mean... would you really be outraged at someone using, oh, King Richard the 1st.'s likeness without contacting his living relatives?

And how long after you're dead would you like to be used in far right/neo-nazi propaganda materials?

It's a dick move to the old actors to involve them in things and causes they might not want to be involved in and it's a dick move to new actors to take work they might otherwise have had.

[Elheru Aran]

... and it's a dick move to new actors to take work they might otherwise have had.

Minor note: As far as I can tell, the process at the moment still requires a live actor doing motion-capture to really be done well. They aren't good enough at full CGI to manipulate the digital recreation of a deceased actor accurately enough. So the services of new actors may still be required, they just may not actually be acknowledged as fully as they would be otherwise.

It's also notable that (at the moment, to do it well) it's still an expensive process, and live actors will always be cheaper. As well, the 'uncanny valley' effect is still there-- while Tarkin is well done, the recreation of young Princess Leia wasn't quite as smooth, and both were discernibly digital versus the other live actors in their scenes.

[Simon_Jester]

Why should someone's likeness ever become public domain?

Because it's hard to find Julius Caesar's estate to pay them for using his likeness if you want to put a statue of Caesar in your video game?

Because if I want to draw a book of cartoons poking fun at the hypocrisy of Thomas Jefferson being hailed as a great hero of American liberty while boinking his slaves on the side, and I use Thomas Jefferson's likeness, it would be counterproductive to force me to track down his heirs and seek their permission to do so?

Because finding Thomas Edison's estate might actually be possible, but is certainly counterproductive, if you're trying to make a motivational picture of him staring at a light bulb? And if his patents on the light bulb itself have expired, shouldn't the (so to speak) patent of him looking at the light bulb?

The rest of the article is a bunch of legalese that I don't quite get, but basically, your image and the rights thereof pass to your legal successors, generally your family. If you are a sufficiently public figure, it's possible for your image to become public domain given enough time, however, certain copyrights may still apply, such as photo copyrights and the like.

In Carrie Fisher's case, the specific image and character of 'Princess Leia' is owned by Lucasfilm/Disney, and to a certain extent, they are permitted to do whatever they want to with the Princess Leia character. When it comes to actual live action depictions, that may be more problematic, but currently the rights to her image and live action depiction reside with her family/heirs as far as I can tell.

This may not be what you meant, but...

There is ample precedent establishing that movie makers have the right to re-cast a position. James Bond has gone through about half a dozen actors. Plenty of characters were portrayed by different actors in sequel movies coming out only a few years before or after the first actor's appearance!

If Disney wants to hire a new actress to dress up as Princess Leia, I'm pretty sure they can. In fact, they'd have to do that anyway, if they ever again want to use Leia in the Rebellion era. Because even if Carrie Fisher hadn't just died, she could no longer convincingly portray a twenty year old space princess, any more than Mark Hamill can convincingly portray a character who should rightly be referred to as "kid."

So they can pick a new actress, put her in the white dress, and do her hair up in wacky side-of-the-head buns. Carrie Fisher's estate owns Carrie Fisher's likeness, but they don't own the IP rights to "Princess Leia."

What they probably can't do legally, and certainly shouldn't be able to do, is take an existing actress, green-screen her scenes, and use CGI to superimpose Carrie Fisher's face on the new actress's body. Or use a synthetic version of Carrie Fisher's voice in lieu of the new actress.

As revolting as people may find the idea, especially in this context, at some point one would imagine that it would.

I mean... would you really be outraged at someone using, oh, King Richard the 1st.'s likeness without contacting his living relatives?

And how long after you're dead would you like to be used in far right/neo-nazi propaganda materials?

It's a dick move to the old actors to involve them in things and causes they might not want to be involved in and it's a dick move to new actors to take work they might otherwise have had.

The question is, are we talking about using artificial recreations of dead actors in new original works? Or are we talking about any and all use of the likeness of a dead actor? Those aren't quite the same thing, as illustrated by the examples above.

Then you have awkward questions that straddle the line. Like "what if I want to use a CGI representation of Julius Caesar?" Caesar was never an actor, and he has no (known) living heirs or (legally relevant) estate. But we know what he looked like because people made statues of him. Would hiring an actor to 'wear' a CGI likeness of Caesar be different, legally, than hiring an actor to wear makeup for the same purpose?

[General Zod]

What they probably can't do legally, and certainly shouldn't be able to do, is take an existing actress, green-screen her scenes, and use CGI to superimpose Carrie Fisher's face on the new actress's body. Or use a synthetic version of Carrie Fisher's voice in lieu of the new actress.

Except that's basically what they did with Peter Cushing so . . .

[Elfdart]

... and it's a dick move to new actors to take work they might otherwise have had.

Minor note: As far as I can tell, the process at the moment still requires a live actor doing motion-capture to really be done well. They aren't good enough at full CGI to manipulate the digital recreation of a deceased actor accurately enough. So the services of new actors may still be required, they just may not actually be acknowledged as fully as they would be otherwise.

It's also notable that (at the moment, to do it well) it's still an expensive process, and live actors will always be cheaper. As well, the 'uncanny valley' effect is still there-- while Tarkin is well done, the recreation of young Princess Leia wasn't quite as smooth, and both were discernibly digital versus the other live actors in their scenes.

I don't see much difference between hiring an actor and using makeup/costumes to make them look like another actor like they did with Alec Guinness, Peter Cushing, Caroline Blakiston in the Prequels (and like they did with Alex McCrindle in Rogue One); and hiring an actor and using CGI "makeup/costumes" to make them look like other actors. The only issue is that since they really did use the images of Fisher and Cushing (not just the characters' hairstyles and costumes) is whether the actor or their estates consented. That seems fairly simple to settle: You should have to get permission. There also needs to be a sunset provision on using someone's likeness even if you did buy the rights. Copyrights, trademarks and patents were only meant to give creators a chance at a fair return on investment, NOT an endless license to print money.

[Crazedwraith]

Why should someone's likeness ever become public domain?

Because it's hard to find Julius Caesar's estate to pay them for using his likeness if you want to put a statue of Caesar in your video game?

Because if I want to draw a book of cartoons poking fun at the hypocrisy of Thomas Jefferson being hailed as a great hero of American liberty while boinking his slaves on the side, and I use Thomas Jefferson's likeness, it would be counterproductive to force me to track down his heirs and seek their permission to do so?

Because finding Thomas Edison's estate might actually be possible, but is certainly counterproductive, if you're trying to make a motivational picture of him staring at a light bulb? And if his patents on the light bulb itself have expired, shouldn't the (so to speak) patent of him looking at the light bulb?

So? Is there any pressing moral imperative that you should be able to put Caesar in your video game? Or make a motivational poster featuring Thomas Edison?

And parody is fair use whether something is in public domain or not. So you can use Thomas Jefferson in a cartoon anyway.

People keep wanting to pivot this on to historical figures for some reason and yet haven't answered the question: how long to you want to be dead before someone does something despicable with your image?

The example of Prominent historical figures seems iffy to me for a couple of reasons: 1) They were in the public eye anyway and that already involves giving up certain rights to your privacy. 2) Any recreation of Ceasar is going to be a lot less accurate than an CGIing Peter Cushing's face on someone from existing footage. An argument can be made that that's not actually Ceasar's likeness. It's an artist's impression on him. Which is sort of different.

[Formless]

The CGI speculation is a moot point. Variety is reporting that she already finished her work on episode 8, which makes it much easier to write her out of Ep. 9 and more likely, much the same way Leonard Nimoy's death was handled in Star Trek: Beyond. They will probably still use her bits, but they'll probably find a way to kill her character. Hopefully they'll find a satisfying way to accomplish that feat.

[TheFeniX]

I'm going to put out there that I much preferred (at the time) Carrie Fisher in "The 'Burbs." It wouldn't be until my early teens that I really became much more of a Star Wars fan as my brother was 10 years older than me so him and my dad had already gone through the ZOMG STAR WARS phase. And since my mom wasn't big on it at all, I was kind of left to my own devices there. I also loved the fact she had no issue lampooning herself or Star Wars such as in Robot Chicken or 30 Rock.

This sucks and it's going to continue to suck. I'm getting to that age where all the actors I loved watching as a kid are going to start dropping off. Not a good feeling.

[The Romulan Republic]

The CGI speculation is a moot point. Variety is reporting that she already finished her work on episode 8, which makes it much easier to write her out of Ep. 9 and more likely, much the same way Leonard Nimoy's death was handled in Star Trek: Beyond. They will probably still use her bits, but they'll probably find a way to kill her character. Hopefully they'll find a satisfying way to accomplish that feat.

I feel that Leia should probably die off-screen between Episodes VIII and IX. Trying to work Leia's death into either film is likely to be awkward, requiring either a last-minute rewrite/re-editing that will likely feel forced and disrupt the flow of the film (if its in Episode VIII), or for her to appear only to die, without actually featuring Carrie Fisher (if its in Episode IX). It would also be impractical for a character with such an integral role to remain alive but not appear, and it should be clear that any recasting or use of CGI would provoke widespread fan fury, even if legally permissible.

Their is no good option, but having Leia die off-screen between films seems the least bad, and perhaps the most respectful to Fisher. Have Episode IX being with her funeral, if they want to acknowledge it in-universe.

[Gaidin]

What they probably can't do legally, and certainly shouldn't be able to do, is take an existing actress, green-screen her scenes, and use CGI to superimpose Carrie Fisher's face on the new actress's body. Or use a synthetic version of Carrie Fisher's voice in lieu of the new actress.

Except that's basically what they did with Peter Cushing so . . .

The estate of Peter Cushing and Carrie Fisher herself gave special permission for Rogue One due to the special context of the movie and its relationship to A New Hope. Pretty understandable. Writing a whole damn new story for the characters on the other hand, I would agree, recasting would be more desirable and ethical.

[Simon_Jester]

So? Is there any pressing moral imperative that you should be able to put Caesar in your video game? Or make a motivational poster featuring Thomas Edison?

Yes. It's the same imperative that drives the very existence of the public domain in the first place. Namely, that at some point, images, information, and cultural traditions stop being private property and start being the shared property of the world at large.

You shouldn't be able to maintain a for-profit copyright on anything forever.

People keep wanting to pivot this on to historical figures for some reason and yet haven't answered the question: how long to you want to be dead before someone does something despicable with your image?

I don't want anyone to do anything despicable with my image, but that doesn't mean I have an indefinite right to claim control of my image in the hands of my heirs. Heirs who may not even exist, after a long enough time has passed.

I mean, Disney doesn't want people doing despicable things with Mickey Mouse, or any things with him aside from "buy Disney's products with Mickey on them." And consequently they keep appealing to get the copyright limits extended, because the character dates back to 1926 and they can't afford to let him go into the public domain.

As a side effect, the public domain is limited to the 1920s and earlier. Most people (aside from copyright-holders who stand to profit) seem to agree that this is a bad thing. Disney shouldn't get an unlimited, eternal license to print money in the 21st and 22nd centuries just because their animators happened to create a popular character in 1926.

And by similar logic, if someone in the year 2150 wants to print my likeness in a book as part of a montage of early 21st century cell phone pictures or something, they shouldn't have to contact my great-great-great-grandkids to ask permission. It's an unreasonable restriction.

The example of Prominent historical figures seems iffy to me for a couple of reasons: 1) They were in the public eye anyway and that already involves giving up certain rights to your privacy.

If you have a right to ask me "what should the legal cutoff beyond which my likeness hits the public domain," I have a right to ask you:

What defines a historical figure in the public eye, as opposed to an actor who is presumably not in the public eye? I mean, the fraction of Americans who now what Arnold Schwarzenegger looks like today is probably much higher than the fraction of Romans who knew what Caesar looked like in his day. How is Ahnuld not in the public eye, in a way that Caesar was?

[Iroscato]

Her mother Debbie Reynolds is now in hospital, apparently after a suspected stroke

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-38455653

US actress Debbie Reynolds has been taken to hospital, the day after death of her daughter Carrie Fisher.

Celebrity news site TMZ reported that she may have had a stroke.

The Hollywood screen legend, 84, is best known for her starring role in 1952 musical Singin' in the Rain, alongside Gene Kelly.

Fisher - renowned for her role as Princess Leia in the Star Wars series - died on Tuesday following a cardiac arrest on a plane.

Ms Reynolds posted a statement about her daughter's death on Facebook on Tuesday: "Thank you to everyone who has embraced the gifts and talents of my beloved and amazing daughter. I am grateful for your thoughts and prayers that are now guiding her to her next stop."

[Borgholio]

She just passed a short while ago.

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/debbi ... 201949432/

What a shitty Christmas for that family.

[Dragon Angel]

To have both a daughter and her mother, in the same family, pass in such a short period of time..... I feel for their family.

Star Wars was one of the founding blocks upon which my interest in sci-fi grew. In peace, may you both rest.

[Isolder74]

Posted here because it is relevant to the topic. This year just is plain sadistic!

Actress Debbie Reynolds has died at age 84

Actress Debbie Reynolds has died at age 84, son says

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Actress Debbie Reynolds, the star of the 1952 classic "Singin' in the Rain," has died. She was 84.

Her son, Todd Fisher, said Reynolds died Wednesday, a day after her daughter, Carrie Fisher, who was 60.

"She's now with Carrie and we're all heartbroken," Fisher said from Cedars-Sinai Medical Cdenter, where his mother was taken by ambulance earlier Wednesday.

He said the stress of his sister's death "was too much" for Reynolds.

Reynolds was not yet 20 when she won a starring role in the Gene Kelly musical "Singin' in the Rain." She was also known for her Oscar-nominated role in another musical, "The Unsinkable Molly Brown."

Her messy divorce from singer Eddie Fisher, who left her for Elizabeth Taylor, made tabloid headlines in the late 1950s.

[Elfdart]

Posted here because it is relevant to the topic. This year just is plain sadistic!

This reminds me of Dec. 2001, when an aunt, an uncle, a cousin who was eight months pregnant and a close friend I had known since I was twelve all died (including the baby) within ten days. It had gotten to the point where I just didn't want to answer the phone anymore because I knew it would be news of another friend or family member dying.

I hate this fucking year. It was bad enough on its own, but now it's dredging up bad memories too. Fuck 2016.

[Elfdart]

On a lighter note, Susie Madrak from Crooks and Liars offers this bit of insight:

2016, PLEASE don't take our next president. Please. It would really sadden us, you can't believe how badly.

[Isolder74]

On a lighter note, Susie Madrak from Crooks and Liars offers this bit of insight:

2016, PLEASE don't take our next president. Please. It would really sadden us, you can't believe how badly.

Perhaps we can convince him to give a 3 hour speech in the rain and ignore his doctor's advice…

Then again that puts Pence as president.

[Crazedwraith]

You shouldn't be able to maintain a for-profit copyright on anything forever.

I'm going to concede this because I think my objections are based more on emotion (using dead people's face is icky!) than logic.