Disney faces lawsuit over CGI recreation of Peter Cushing in Rogue One

[midian182]

In brief: The ability to recreate the likeness of dead celebrities was always going to be a contentious area. Unsurprisingly, a company is going to trial over the technology being used to add a deceased star to a movie. What is surprising is that the movie in question is Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, which was released back in 2016.

The excellent Rogue One famously used CGI to recreate Grand Moff Tarkin. Horror legend Peter Cushing, who played the character in 1977's Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope, died in 1994 aged 81.

Despite having been released almost a decade ago, Disney is now facing a legal battle over its inclusion of a digital Cushing in Rogue One.

The lawsuit, which was launched in 2019, is being brought by London-based film company Tyburn Film Productions, founded by Kevin Francis, one of Cushing's oldest friends. It is pursuing legal action against Disney-owned Lunak Heavy Industries – producer of Rogue One – as well as Lucasfilm, the since-deceased executors of Cushing's estate, and Associated International Management, the agency that represented the actor until his death.

Tyburn Film Productions claims it entered into an agreement with Cushing shortly before his death that prohibited the use of his likeness using special effects without consent.

Lucasfilm and Lunak Heavy Industries argued that they did not believe they needed permission to recreate Cushing's image based on his contract for A New Hope. The film companies also entered into an agreement with the executors of Cushing's estate to use his image for a fee of around $36,000.

Disney claimed that Francis was seeking "unjust enrichment" with his demand for damages of more than $650,000.

A UK court has rejected a December bid by Lucasfilm and Lunak Heavy Industries to have the claim dismissed. High Court judge Tom Mitcheson KC ruled that a trial should take place. The judge said that although he was "far from persuaded" that Tyburn Film Productions would succeed, the case was not "unarguable" and a "full factual inquiry" was needed.

Actor Guy Henry performed the role of Tarkin in Rogue One, with Cushing's face digitally added afterwards. Many fans say the final result has an uncanny valley effect.

The advancement of deepfake technology means that digital recreations are a lot more realistic these days – unauthorized AI recreations of actors were a big factor behind the SAG-AFTRA strike – so don't be surprised to see more lawsuits of this kind in the future.

Permalink to story:

Disney faces lawsuit over CGI recreation of Peter Cushing in Rogue One

 

[VitalyT]

Dead have no rights. And anyone arguing the opposite is kicking their ashes around for own profit. Relatives however may sue for defamation damages, but this is not the case here.

 

[dangh]

And anyone arguing the opposite is kicking their ashes around for own profit.

Because corporation kicking dead people ashes around for their own profit is absolutely fine... /s

 

[VitalyT]

Because corporation kicking dead people ashes around for their own profit is absolutely fine... /s

Sadly, yes, for as long as it doesn't cause any damage to the living.

 

[Dreadcthulhu]

Because corporation kicking dead people ashes around for their own profit is absolutely fine... /s

Well generally yes, it is fine. Dead people are well dead, and as long as there is no harm to their living relatives (in this specific case Cushing's estate was fine with the film & got paid for it) I don't see what the harm is. I mean, did Michelangelo cause David any harm when he made his famous statue? Now this film company is claiming that Cushing signed an agreement with them that prohibited using his image via special effects, but well one it has to be determined if such agreement actually existed (and if so, did his prior employment contract negate that later agreement), and two, it has to be determined if said agreement, if it did exist, is even legal or does it violate laws again perpetuities; it has long be a legal principle in the UK that legal instruments are only valid for so long after a person's death.

 

[p51d007]

CGI/AI in movies wasn't even around when Cushing died in 1994.


Tyburn Film Productions claims it entered into an agreement with Cushing shortly before his death that prohibited the use of his likeness using special effects without consent.

 

[IMABEARLOL]

Sadly, it was pretty sub par attempt at a CGI recreation. The HAL9000 fan edit of Rogue One demonstrates how amateurs could do it much better.

 

[AlexIL]

I doubt anyone would like to be anyhow portrayed or used in anything after death in such a way as to seem alive saying words he never did and acting he never acted on. Death means what it is, death. Final end of the road in this place and time. CGI/AI use of real people is very different from an actor playing Napoleon or Michelangelo portraying David. Nobody would want chuch a "resurrection".

 

[Gezzer]

What's at issue here is the fact if after death there are no rights to claim. It might or might not be a case of common sense, but courts don't rule on that. They rule on the body of law to date and anything outside that body has to have a ruling to create a precedent which then can be entered into the body. That's what the lawsuit will hopefully do. Either make a person's likeness protected or not even after death.

 

[jeffbert]

Interesting comments ; But nothing to stop animated programs such as FAMILY GUY from using (obviously cartoon) representations of dead people. Though it can be argued that CGI is animated, though appearing lifelike, still animation. Did that make sense?

I suppose it may be a matter of just how closely the animated figure resembles the actual person. Can it pass for the real person?

Perhaps the answer is to post a notice during the credits that such a likeness to certain celebrities is an animation.

 

[Beelzebot]

Interesting comments ; But nothing to stop animated programs such as FAMILY GUY from using (obviously cartoon) representations of dead people.

Family guy should fall under parody for fair use.

 

[Gezzer]

Interesting comments ; But nothing to stop animated programs such as FAMILY GUY from using (obviously cartoon) representations of dead people. Though it can be argued that CGI is animated, though appearing lifelike, still animation. Did that make sense?

I suppose it may be a matter of just how closely the animated figure resembles the actual person. Can it pass for the real person?

Perhaps the answer is to post a notice during the credits that such a likeness to certain celebrities is an animation.

IMHO there's a major difference between having a cartoon likeness of a person and using CGI to replace an actor. And that's the big issue, replacing actors living or dead with CGI replicants. It's in its infancy, but even now it's getting harder to tell the real from the copy. In 10-15 years I can see it being impossible, and then what happens to actors? Especially ones that have struggled to make a name for themselves. Who wants to pay Ryan Gosling millions to star in a production when you can replace him for a fraction of the cost?

 

[jeffbert]

I agree that if they can get away with using a CGI rather than actually paying the REAL person, that would be bad; though there could be both pros & cons to it. I guess it depends on one's perspective. Obviously, the one using the CGI would approve of it, until somebody makes a CGI of him.

How would the credits go?

So & so program, starring a CGI of some famous dead or alive actor?

 

[RXMan123]

Intellectual property has long established protections-- well after the creator's demise. You would think that likeness should have similar protections considering that it is also "derived" from that individual. Another example is that your dead body cannot just be used any old way (e.g., organ donation) without your explicit consent. So, dead is not dead in any other legal circumstance. And there is "harm" to the dead-- by means of reputation. For example, what if the CGI recreation is possibly embarrassing?