While the events of Rogue One: A Star Wars Story may take place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, the film has already had a major impact in the real world. Notably, the production team behind Rogue One made the decision to use new technology to digitally recreate famed actor Peter Cushing twenty years after his death. The choice to return Cushing to the series generated controversy over the individual act, yet the film raises questions for the entirety of the industry. Rogue One was not the first piece of media to digitally recreate an actor; numerous films and advertisements have done so before, with mixed success and reactions. However, the creators of Rogue One have set a new standard for technology, proving that a human being can be realistically created through digital manipulation, thus setting a new precedent in filmmaking. The use of computer generated imagery to fully recreate the likeness of an actor, living or dead, will have a major impact upon the American legal system, social values, and the economy.

To fully comprehend the importance of the advancement of computer generated imagery technology, it is important to briefly look at the historical context of digital manipulation in film. Visual effects first began to be used extensively in the 1980s and 1990s, with films like TRON (1982) including computer generated sequences and Titanic (1997) inserting digital extras into various scenes. With the increasing prevalence of digital effects in film, more studios dedicated to the technology were founded; such production houses furthered the use of computer generated imagery in film, expanding the boundaries of technology and making the process more inexpensive. Entering the early 2000s, The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter series continued the tradition of using digital effects (Keil 143-176). 

Yet it was films like The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) that began to use the technology to manipulate and recreate human likeness. Throughout the film, Brad Pitt’s portrayal of the titular character is digitally altered to appear older or younger (Kel 176-178). A similar process to alter an actor’s age has since been used in Tron Legacy, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and Ant Man (Farrow 1). Benjamin Button also utilized facial replacement to place Cate Blanchett’s face onto a stunt double’s body to give her the appearance of performing advanced ballet. Similar facial replacement was used to alter Natalie Portman in her appearance in Black Swan (Keil 176-180). In the mid to late 2000s, various advertisements, such as Galaxy and MaxFactor, began to take advantage of similar technology to recreate deceased actors’ likenesses to promote their products (Vizard 1). Rogue One (2016) expanded the limits of such effects as, through a combination of a physical stand in for the character and a complicated process of digital manipulation, the artists of Industrial Light & Magic were able to make extensive use of the deceased Peter Cushing’s likeness. While other films had attempted similar exploits, they were often criticized for their creation’s wooden appearance; Cushing’s presence is notable for being the first instance where a film has substantially and realistically recreated an actor (Farrow 1). A few decades ago, the greatest advances in computer generated imagery could only be used for backgrounds or to minorly enhance a scene; now, the technology exists to completely recreate a human being, living or dead.

The legality of digitally recreating a living or deceased actor’s likeness is complicated due to the vagueness and nonuniform nature of currently existing publicity rights. Publicity rights, or personality rights, guarantee the right of a person to control the use of recognizable aspects of their identity, particularly their image or likeness. In the United States, publicity rights fall under state rather than federal jurisdiction, with only twenty-six states recognizing the right to publicity (“Personality Rights” 1). California has one of the most extensive laws directly protecting a deceased actor’s likeness in the Celebrity Rights Act (1985) which grants the right of an individual to sue on the grounds of another for purposefully using a figure’s likeness for unapproved commercial uses. Current California law also protect a public individual’s “name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness” for seventy years following his death. However, California legal code never directly addresses the digital recreation of an actor’s likeness, living or deceased, leaving a potential loophole for exploitation. For example, if a director were to recreate an actor’s voice through the use of technology rather than an actual audio clip of the actor, the law would not have been violated; only if the director were to have directly manipulated a recording of the actor’s speech would the actor’s personality rights be protected under the Celebrity Rights Act (Rothberg 1).

In places where no protection is guaranteed to a deceased public figure, their likeness could theoretically be digitally recreated and manipulated to the full extent of existing technology. In the case of Peter Cushing’s recreation in Rogue One, Disney need not have secured permission from his estate as the actor was born and died in the United Kingdom, which currently has no laws protecting a deceased actor’s publicity rights. Despite the lack of legal code clearly defining and protecting an actor’s likeness, a SAG-AFTRA spokesperson testified to the union’s intention to protect personality rights as “the digital recreation and use of performers in audio-visual works is in the vanguard of our policy efforts to protect performers” (Debruge 1).

After the death of Robin Williams, it was revealed the actor had taken legal action to ensure his likeness could not be used for advertising or film in any form until twenty-five years after his death. Not even his estate, who receive the rights to his likeness post-mortem under California law, can authorize the use of his image until the time period has ended. Williams’ actions bring to light the question of a deceased actor’s consent. In the case of Cushing, and what may have been the case had Williams not ensured protection, the actor had his likeness used in a film he never consented to appear in (Farrow 1). 

An actor’s consent, or lack of it, could potentially affect the living as well. If a performer declined to appear in a film’s sequel, the technology now exists that the individual could be digitally recreated and inserted into a project without their consent. Or, if an actor should decline to appear nude or in a sex scene, filmmakers could potentially determine a way to bypass the actor’s consent in order to digitally render the individual’s face onto a computer-generated body (Debruge 1). Beyond the world of cinema, a figure’s likeness can be used to advertise a product they may never have agreed to promote. Such was the case with Bruce Lee, whose likeness was approved for commercial use by his daughter, and digitally recreated forty years after his death to star in a Chinese whiskey commercial. However, Lee abstained from alcohol in real life, and his approval of the use of his image is highly doubtful (Vizard 1).

Even without actors like Robin Williams protecting their image post-mortem, the process of gaining the rights to an actor’s likeness can be complicated. While under California law publicity rights fall to a deceased actor’s estate, that ‘estate’ may be comprised of family members, attorneys, or corporate licensors, making it difficult to determine exactly who has the authority to negotiate a transference of publicity rights. Depending on how many individuals have a creative stake in the actor’s likeness, such as movie studios or record labels, the number of individuals who may be required to agree to an exchange grows. Such a complex process, further confused due to the questionable legality of digitally recreating an actor’s likeness, could easily result in feuding between the holders of a figure’s publicity rights as well as drawn out lawsuits to determine who is legally owed royalties (Muratore 1).

Beyond legal complications, the recreation of an actor could have social effects upon the estate, the public, and the film industry. Along with a monetary incentive for the estate to allow the use of a deceased’s actors likeness, the return of a beloved figure to screen may be seen as a tribute to their legacy. Audrey Hepburn’s children applauded her digital recreation in a Galaxy advertisement as “perfectly capturing our mother’s playful spirit.” (Vizard 1). Joyce Broughton, a close friend of Peter Cushing in life and current manager of his estate, described witnessing the actor’s return to cinema as an emotional but ultimately positive experience (Debruge 1). Alternatively, the use of a dead actor’s likeness may be offensive to their surviving family, such as when the shoe company Dr. Martens used computer-generated imagery to show Kurt Cobain in heaven wearing their brand, a stunt Cobain’s ex-wife deemed “outrageous” and a “despicable use of her husband’s picture” (Vizard). Filmmakers would need to ensure a rendering of a deceased actor was done with the utmost respect to avoid an outcry from both the estate and the public.

Actors might soon find themselves competing against digital recreations for critical acclaim. Controversy has already arisen in the past regarding using technology to insert a celebrity’s face onto a double’s body to make it appear as if they performed their own stunts, a scandal which began to raise questions over who deserves recognition in such a situation (Keil 179). The presence of a digital likeness further complicates that question. For example, Cushing’s appearance was praised as “one of the best performances in Rogue One”. Yet does Cushing himself deserve that acclaim? Or might the credit for such a brilliant portrayal belong to his body double or the special effects team? While a definitive answer on the issue does not yet exist, it is certain that societal views must change to accommodate for the rapidly blurring line between actors and effects (Farrow 1). 

Digital recreation could have a significant economic impact on all those involved in the film industry. Beyond competition for recognition, living actors may find themselves competing against the digital and the dead. For example, Lucasfilm recently announced that their Star Wars spinoff focusing on the life of Han Solo would feature Alden Ehrenreich in the title role; yet if it were possible to flawlessly generate a digitalized, younger version of Harrison Ford to star in the role, there would be no need for Ehrenreich. Already established actors could theoretically appear in the same role forever, despite aging or even death. This could potentially create a monopoly on acting; the same, already established talents might be highly compensated for their repeated digital appearance in film, while unknown actors never have a chance to gain their footing, thus narrowing the monetary incentive to pursue acting (Farrow 1). 

The digitalized dead could even be used as free labor. Douglass Fairbanks, an American actor who died in California in 1939, has entered the public domain under California law; thus, he could reappear onscreen “for free”. Producers need only pay for the technology to recreate his likeness, rather than paying any licensing fees. For regions without personality rights laws protecting the likenesses of the deceased, an actor would theoretically be available for public use immediately following their death. With the lack of copyright laws and potential to appeal to audience’s nostalgia, filmmakers might find it more profitable to make use of deceased actors rather than live ones. Given Rogue One’s three hundred and fifty million dollar gross in less than a week following it’s premier, Hollywood might take such a resounding success as proof of the deceased’s value (Rothberg 1).

The future structure of the film industry is further complicated by consideration of what rights a digital recreation has. Does a likeness, living or dead, need a talent agent? Should they be considered part of a union? Would SAG-AFTRA or other union fees need to be paid to allow the likeness to continue “working”? No decision has yet been made on these issues, despite rapidly advancing technology (Rothberg 1).

The licensing of a likeness could potentially supply a significant income to the estate and to those they allow licensing rights. For example, if Patrick Stewart were to arrange for his image to be sold or were to ensure personality rights were granted to his estate, he could provide economic stability to his surviving family. Given that an actor’s likeness could theoretically be recreated forever, and as so little law currently exists governing the nature of personality rights, an actor’s descendants might hypothetically receive compensation for generations (“Is it Ethical to Resurrect Dead Actors?”). Richard W. Taylor II, former vice-chair of the Visual Effects Society, confirmed that many actors have already begun the process, stating “There’s a whole new phenomenon where famous actors are getting themselves scanned in order to provide for their family and their family’s trust in perpetuity, so that they can be recreated in films in the future” (Debruge 1).

 Such an income could potentially be a fortune; in one year alone, the Marilyn Monroe brand made over eleven million dollars from licensing her image (Vizard 1). Numerous advertisers have already resurrected beloved figures to promote their products and earn their companies a fortune. As of 2014, the marketing of dead celebrities is an estimated three-billion-dollar industry; with a twenty percent increase between 2012 and 2014 alone in payments made to an icon’s beneficiaries, the commercial value of the deceased may further increase in the years to come (Muratore 1).

A counterpoint has been made that further advancements in computer-generated imagery should not be a cause for concern. John Knoll, the visual effects supervisor for Rogue One, publicly addressed fears about the precedent the film has set, stating “I don't imagine that [it will soon be] happening [on a wider scale]... It is extremely labor-intensive and expensive to do.” (Farrow 1). Yet as seen by the growth of the digital effects industry in the 1980s and 1990s, when a technology advances and has a potential for profit, further investment will be made as production companies and effects studios adapt to include the advancement; with further experimentation and increased usage, a technology becomes cheaper and more readily available. Simply because computer-generated likenesses are currently labor-intensive and expensive does not guarantee such will be the case in the near future. In 1993, the height and most expensive of digital alterations was the enhancing of physical effects and recreation of animals in Jurassic Park; over twenty years later, technology has far surpassed that point and become cheaper than ever (Keil 143-186). Digitally recreated likeness of actors, living or deceased, will have significant effects that go beyond the silver screen to impact general audiences everywhere. Given the ambiguity of current publicity rights laws, the legal system will clearly require reconsideration and reform. Social values must either accept or reject the appearance of digital likenesses. With the advancing technology, the economic prospects of the film industry will transform as traditional structures change to adapt to new techniques. The technology exists. Actors will have their likenesses recreated digitally; all that is left to determine is how the public will react to the changes to come.
