Disney Sued For Peter Cushing's Likeness (Grand Moff Tarkin)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 фев 2025
- uk.news.yahoo....
abc7news.com/p...
www.hollywoodr...
whatculture.co...
Me: linktr.ee/knee...
Support:
Funky Chicken Rescue: funkychickenre...
Lake Tahoe Wildlife Center: ltwc.org/donate
Suisun Wildlife Center: www.suisunwild...
Hidden B Ranch Donkey Rescue: www.hbranchdon...
Ranco Burro Donkey Sanctuary: ranchoburrodon...
#disney #lucasfilms #grandmofftarkin #petercushing #lawsuit #legal #legalnews #entertainment #entertainmentnews #ai #cgi #starwars #rogueone
I agree... once a person is deceased, NO "new content" should be made of them. It stifles creativity, and as Payne said, Blocks new people from creating new things and will stagnate everything
Indeed
Thank you for sharing your thoughts :D
@@kneepayne Thank you for sharing yours as well :D
@bubbles69138. No new content of a decease person??? Does that mean we need to get rid of the statue of Lincoln from the Lincoln Memorial & all the presidents from Mount Rushmore?
He signed a contract. Does it say it's no longer valid after he dies. Sounds like his friend is just stirring up trouble for trouble's sake. Maybe he has some financial angle? Whatever... A contract is a contract.
Disney continues to trample decency into the mud with their fevered pursuit of money.
I could have sworn that in the behind-the-scenes featurette on the Rogue One Blu-ray, they said something about how they worked with Cushing's family on bringing Peter's likeness into the film. I could be totally wrong. I need to go rewatch that featurette. Hearing about this lawsuit surprised me, but possibly because of a false memory.
They may have failed to mention the amount of time the likeness was going to be on screen. The job would have been fine for a brief appearance. I couldn't find out how much screen time he got in the film. But, from when I saw it, it was an uncomfortably large amount of time for such a bad job of CGI.
I read something similar which makes this case interesting. Feels like a T wasn't crossed or an i not dotted somewhere
Good this will push studios to recast or set a rate to reuse a face or voice in the future as per a contract. Have Hope fans!
We can only hope!
@@kneepayne Yes, although, I think more likely what will happen is that they'll just buy those rights for future related films as a part of the contract.
Why now, & not during the Rogue One height of the start of release?
A very good question. Did his immediate family allow it?
I can only guess that they needed time to prepare a case. Going against a company like Disney is something that a one would have to first find a lawfirm willing to take it on, then take the time to put together a case that they are confident in.
@@kneepayne That's my guess, or it may have taken time to find an attorney willing to take it on. This is a rather novel lawsuit as the issue hasn't really come up before. I think the closest would be the Crispin Glover situation from BttF, but that was in the US and the courts in the UK may be different. Plus, there was the whole backlog in the legal system due to the pandemic as well.
I think at the moment it happened, the "AI movement" hadn't really taken off. Now that we have a clearer picture of how this technology is being abused to rob from talent both living and dead and it's both obvious and crystal clear that the fight should have begun farther back up the line, because this was a major escalation in it's usage.
@@kneepayne Here in Canada you can only sue (civil cases) for incidents that are no more than 3 years old. I don't know about the U.S. but I can assure you this case would be rejected in Canada.
I completely agree with you, this era of rebooting, prequels , sequels etc is most certainly leading to decreased creativity. Also, I find it quite creepy. My question is did his family, children etc give the okay for his face to be used after death?
Not sure, hopefully more details come to light later on.
And thanks for stopping by! Love seeing the regulars!
@@kneepayne Your welcome🤗
My opinion: Any person should have absolute and interminable control over the use of their image. HOWEVER, when an actor signs a contract giving a studio or production company the right to use their image in relatation to a particular IP....that is consent, they relinquished that personal control of their image for the purposes specified in that contract. To the best of my knowledge Sir Alec Guinness is the only main cast member of the original film that didn't sign that kind of contract. So, unfortunately Disney sounds like their in the right on this one.
That's probably not relevant here as the parties signing the contract wouldn't have expected this to be a possible use at the time the contract was signed in the late '70s. If we were talking about new depictions for a lunchbox using this technology, Disney would be on better ground.
@SmallSpoonBrigade yes and no. Changes and evolution of media were a thing back then. It was filmed as a movie. Clipped and edited for TV. Bushings performance and out takes could be used in any number of ways. And some things like reducing an actors performance to use the images or footage in a new way was certainly not unknown back in 1977.
Now I will give you the creepy CGI avatar spouting new dialog is something Cushing probably did not imagine. But the transformational nature of the medium as it applied to characters and performances was certainly well known.
Here's an example from Cushings own time. They could have made a Star Wars Saturday Morning Cartoon. Featuring an animated adaption of Cushing's character, and using a much cheaper voice actor to deliver a performance that would be based on Cushings. This was not just a know possibility, but a likely one. And it was without question baked in.
Now comes the tricky part. How is the appearance of Grand Moff Tarken in an animated show based on Cushing different from the CGI character used in Rogue One? One is simply a more advanced and detailed form of animation than the other.
This is actually a trickier question than it seems at first glance.
The one problem that need to be address is how lazy the whole industry is, how they all expect less work for the high salary. Which lead to unambitious and unpassionate creative artists, which is why we all keep getting *BORING and SUBPAR* Quality products.
That's the execs and at this point it's largely the result of nobody having cracked the code in terms of how to deal with the modern economics of the industry. Back in the '40s all the money was made at the box office. And most of the studios would make enough movies that as long as most of the movies were profitable, they didn't have a problem. However, these days, they make some of the money at the domestic box office, a bunch of it overseas at those theaters, then they've got home media, streaming and broadcast rights to make money on. It makes it a lot harder to figure out what's going to make money and an increasing share of the money is coming from massive movies that need to triple their budget in revenue to make a decent profit. There are also a bunch of smaller movies that can fund other movies, but there aren't the sort of medium budget films that are so useful in terms of developing talent and gauging the reaction of the audience to things that are less experimental, but still somewhat risky.
What up Knee Payne! I just subscribed.✌️
Thank you!
Dang it. I was thinking I would do a video and bring in that Crispin Glover case but you beat me to it. Great job, KP.
Don’t let me stop you! You always have a guest or two that offers more insight to these stories
@@kneepayne I had immediately thought about that when I saw the title, however, that was in the US and I don't know that the SAG rules that prevent that apply to the UK. BAFTA may or may not have similar rules.
... I am going to spit out a weird idea. The actor becomes the character. and that means, the family of the actor should receive fair compensation each time used.
But you cant revoke the image of luke skywalker, or grand moff tarkin, or anakin skywalker. they are who they are. But compensation for use is fair.
Once they take on a role, they are preserved forever in film as that role, and on merchandising, and on related media, but they deserve fair compensation that is reasonable to profits earned (before costs of production analysis potentially. potentially not, potentially so, depending on what the costs are and how much of it is... unreasonably inflated or added.)
or with a reasonable flat fee per media or merchandising product for digital masks or alterations in projects where another actor provides the visual movement and speaking that is masked over. Since the actor doing the physical and audible aspects that get masked deserve fair compensation too, the digital mask is understandably less then a actor's fee for being directly in a performance I would assume under most circumstances.
No contracts to forever nullify future earnings from it, as it is a family inheritance of the family 'bloodline traits' and the actor's human values portrayed through his acting abilities..
Thanks for sharing that perspective. Very well thought out. In the case of Rogue One, I feel it made sense and only took issue with the CGI. But if they wanted to do more with the character than do it as a story of a younger Tarkin and use a younger actor.
@@kneepayne im good with different actors for different ages, as long as the image makes sense. if the bone structure is way off... why? or other things.
On the other hand if its a reboot and its "black star wars" ... with a all black cast... I would watch it if they are charismatic and fun. I like parody and I like reimaginings of stories, as long as they have good actors and clever stories im set.
Just dont destroy or stop making the original star wars either.
Thats the mistake with the sequels.
THey should have kept making prequel stuff or original trilogy era media. if they kept making both side by side and both with large budgets, it would have been good and well recieved even if some of the movies didnt make a big return, most the merchandise and movies and games would.
If they don't already they soon will have a "standard" clause in employment contracts giving them full rights to an actor's likeness in perpetuity.
Yes, and it probably won't cost that much as most movies don't get such movies made long enough after the original to require that sort of treatment. So, it'll be a clause that people usually will just ignore because it's not relevant.
BOTH of the CGI Tarken and Leia were strange looking.
Disney can't catch a break. I wonder what is next week lawsuit? 😂
More next day.🎉
I wonder if this will impact the release date for Andor S2? It stands to reason that Tarkin may play a part in the show.
Good question! I never considered this
i really want to see a modern movie or a justifyed remake of a movie with clara bow, gary cooper, buster keaton
People need to realize people's likeness is their identity, and from a business pov, their face is their branding, their "intellectual property they were born with".
What's so weird is how untroubled moviegoers can/should be about a new actor stepping into a classic role without wrecking the suspension of disbelief. In fact, I really enjoy when they manage to land a new talent who pulls it off. I love to give them a chance and see. It happens all the time, and sometimes the audience even likes "the new actor" even more.
This is all about ripping people off. We weren't identifying this correctly at the time in the early days, it's theft. We just thought it was tacky or low taste, etc. Or just a waste of energy. I Dream of Genie, we got a whole new Dick, they didn't even try very hard to "same him up." Red Dwarf, we got a whole new Kristine Kochanski, and she was also great in a totally different way. BFD!
Admittedly, I was very impressed with how well they made Tarkin "look alive" again, and a little less-so Liea. But later, it felt ick. The first thing that began to change my mind is how before they overlayed all the CGI, the actor that was portraying Tarkin was freakin' dead on just standing there! That was even his freakin' voice! I was actually more impressed with the guy filling the role without anything other than him just standing there doing an impression. And after that soaked in, I began to feel very bad for that actor, for being removed. Screw being paid, we all know that's the fall-back for the AI apologists, but that doesn't excuse this one iota.
Something about them paying to use his likeness in a tv movie that wasn't made before being used in the Rogue One movie instead.
Is that correct?
This is the UK, so I don't know that SAG rules apply, but it's been a banned practice in the US since they used a rubber mask to get around having to pay to get Crispin Glover back for Back to the Future 2. I can't imagine that doing it digitally would change that.
Also, considering how bad the effect was, they would have been better off just recasting the roll with the closest actor they could find to his appearance in that movie. There has to be a few people that look like him, and I doubt they would have been worse than the body double + CGI we got.
The big question is if the “likeness rights”are for new films or only for merchandizing. Someone could own someone’s likeness and have them do despicable things on film with said likeness.
It's doubtful that the likeness rights here would extend to this sort of digital mask considering that nobody at the time that the contract was negotiated expected for the technology to exist, let alone be used in this fashion. The contract probably specifies what sorts of things this would cover. If they released a new lunchbox that would almost certainly be covered by the contract, but if they licensed actors to put on prosthetics to look like him for those new rides, that probably wouldn't be covered.
@@SmallSpoonBrigadethat’s what I’m thinking . Lucas got the likeness rights to sell merchandise.
Cushing's family was ok with it, so honestly...this guy should just mind his own business.
I thought they must have had the families consent to do it.
As a fan I like seeing the characters I like even if the actors are deceased. (Anyone remember the Steve Martin movie dead man don’t wear plaid) I think AI can be a benefit to fans. You can still create new characters and stories but why not utilize this tech for everyone’s enjoyment… although the actor wasn’t deceased it was truly a highlight to see ‘80s Indy in action one last time in the dial of destiny. For fans if used properly can be very entertaining.
I am not 100% against digital replicas. There are rare cases where it makes sense, and in the case of Rogue One I actually didn't have an issue with it even tho I didn't buy into the CGI work of Moff Tarkin.
I hope Mr. Cushing's friend Francis wins in the London court. The Disney corporation will do literally anything to make a buck. Common decency dictates letting the dead rest in peace.
I can give BTTF2 a pass because they tried to hide Crispin Glover’s appearance as much as possible, hanging him upside down, only showing him from the back and other methods. They did need him for story reasons, unlike Rogue One where they could easily have replaced him. It was really just out of nostalgia. I do think they need the actor’s consent or the next of kin’s consent. Clearly they had that for bringing back Carrie Fisher in TROS or for Luke Skywalker as they at least had the decency to ask Mark Hamill to do so. For Obi-Wan Kenobi James Earl Jones had signed over the rights to have his voice be used in future Star Wars projects.
Why did they wait until now?
I can only guess that they needed time to prepare a case. Going against a company like Disney is something that a one would have to first find a lawfirm willing to take it on, then take the time to put together a case that they are confident in.
They probably didn't, the courts have been backed up for years due to the pandemic.
This is very difficult. The gut feeling says don't recreate dead actors, period. On the other hand tho a case can be made for keeping a character's likeness consistent throughout a canon. If you think about it, books don't have that problem since they only describe the character in their optimal form within the context of the book. You can make a book series with the same character at different ages or the same age over a span of several decades without thinking about it too much. Not being able to do that in film must feel kinda limiting to the art, and I understand wanting the same freedom if seen from this angle. Maybe treating an actor's likeness as their property that has to be managed by a legal successor after their death is the right thing to do, even tho it sounds rather off-putting I have to admit. But then, would that also mean that you now need to buy a license for the likeness of an actor for cartoon or animated versions of them? Like, Tarkin definitely was recreated in the Clone Wars animated show and I think The Bad Batch had him as well, does that also count as using Peter Cushing's likeness? What about comic books then? Is it even okay for an actor to take over the same role from a different actor or does it depend on how different they look (thinking of Rachel from Nolan's Batman movies)? How do you measure that? Does a dead actor's likeness move into public domain at one point? It feels like this is shaping up to become a sizeable rabbit hole.
James Earl Jones is a bad example as he was just the voice. The actual actor was Davice Prowse as far as the physical portion of the component of the performance goes. So a digital performance of James Earl Jones for the role is a lot more accurate.
This article left out an important detail that I want to cover in another video. JEJ had also retired from voice acting and they used AI and old samples of his voice that were digitally altered. It wasn't the physical part of Darth Vader. Thanks for asking, I subconsciously noted this but forgot to circle back and cover it
How does a deceased performer provide consent?
They wouldn't, but their estate would.
Thx Payne for reporting on this. I did notice something was off when I seen the 2 back to the future but didn't understand till I was older what was going on. Definitely don't support the studio on this. Once someone has passed no one should make money from the likeness. However we know this is just not true since I buy shirts with Marilyn Monroe on them all the time. Movies is a step too far and I never liked rouge one. I thought if u took out Vader it's just soso. But I can't think of anything that makes it a bad film if that makes sense
Grand Muff Diver.
I assumed they would have negotiated with his estate for this?
They did negotiate but Francis is even filing suit against the estate as well (it seems).
Personally I am of the opinion that this should be handled discretionary on a case by case basis. In the absence of a “likeness legacy” document detailing what is allowed and what is not, drawn up by the person in question before his/her death, it should be up to the estate to decide on behalf of the diseased.
For cryin out loud. The way LFL touted the cgi backstory for R1 they had me convinced they actually had the rights from the estate (maybe they used very careful legal-proof lingo to hide that they didn’t intend to honor existing rights contracts).
I think the root issue is studios trying to cut cost corners out of greed. If folks were always properly compensated there would be no issue - in other words, if the likeness is so valuable and you’re going to make a lot of money from it, if you didn’t play the part yourself then don’t think you can just print money from it.
BTTF2 isn’t the first time. In 1978 Leonard Nimoy had an ongoing legal dispute with Paramount that almost killed Star Trek The Motion Picture (my favorite) because they were raking in the dough from his likeness in merchandise and weren’t giving him any compensation.
Someone posted an older article this morning that I am going to cover this morning.
4:50 So tell me again woke isn't fascism at all again? They don't understand the poles flipped... the far left has moved to the far right. 🤣🙃😂
Characters are recast all the time. With different actors playing the same part. Just do that!?
I think it's weird that we're now replacing faces with AI, but I liked Rogue One.
I think this 'friend's' timing makes his whole act disingenuous; I hope he doesn't win in court.
But I see the need for laws around digitally resurrecting actors. I think the one's the article mentioned are an ok base.
I thought there'd be more by now, after Scarlett Johansen sued some company that had trained their AI model on her voice. Obviously, the resulting product sounded like her, so they kinda stole her voice...
Loooove Back to the Future! I had no idea that wasn't Crispin Glover all the way through.
I'm upset... and though my day is not ruined, I do have a little less respect for Crispin and a little more for Jeffrey Weissman.
Been wanting Start Wars to get away from the OG and all existing characters and to have original stories for some years now.
I'm ok with a legacy character handing over the reigns to the next generation. But then they gotta go. Don't be hanging around for the majority of the new trilogy or something...