I saw him at a small convention he was a bit disappointed that his real face wasn't used. (during the filming it wasn't certain if the tech was capable of it)
Well considering Disney tried the ol' "well you singed up for a Disney+ account so you can't sue us" when someone DIED because of them it does not surprise me that they're pulling out "well he signed a piece of paper 30+ years ago for a remaster of a film that doesn't apply to this other film after he died"
@@OCinneideDisney doesn’t even own that restaurant: they lease the land to the owners. And going to court very well may be a Pyrrhic victory as it’ll take far longer than arbitration.
When Disney brought back Carrie Fisher, Harrison Ford, and Mark Hamill to reprise their roles, they didn’t hold them to the contracts from the 70’s regarding their compensation. They negotiated new contracts for them to film new material. Disney should have done the same thing with Cushing’s estate. But instead, they trusted their attorneys who advised them no such negotiation was needed. Disney should admit their error, enter into settlement negotiations and fire the attorneys who gave bad advice. They won’t, but they should.
@@Ariaelyne That sucks. From what I understand, Cushing's estate is mostly made up of Cushing's former secretary/assistant and her children. They took care of him as he got older. By all accounts, he loved them like family. Cushing had no children and his wife died before him.
Between this and the disney+ signup needing arbitration and disney can buy the rights and not have follow the liabilites. I'm starting to wonder if somone high up in disney's legal team is trying to sabatoge the company.
To clarify: they DID get permission from Cushing's estate to use his likeness. Cushing's estate is a co-defendent alongside Disney because the claimant is trying to say that Cushing's estate doesn't own the rights to his likeness, that he does because supposedly Cushing gave him said rights. It sounds like a shakedown.
You could also say: Who does care who uses you likeness after you are dead in a product that makes them money? You? No you will be dead. It's just the greed of the heirs who want their cut. It goes both ways.
The estate still gets royalties. If Cushing left family behind, it means the family still gets the benefit of the valuable image that the actor created by work.
Yeah but we live in the future things are different I have to agree it should be a lot more money and have contracts specifically detailing stuff like this I see no problem with owning their face tho kinda weird but it’s their right
@@kirkdarling4120 We cannot be certain Cushing would agree with even his own family profiting from his face decades after his death. At some point, you just have to let people go. Enjoy the content he made when he was alive, don't use his likeness after he is dead like some kind of string puppet.
@@LinkfinI‘d agree with that more than Charles Dance playing Tarkin. Dance‘s voice is much more suited to imitating Sir Christopher Lee than Peter Cushing, whereas Guy Henry nails Peter Cushing‘s voice.
Disney paid the Cushing estate for the right to use his image in the film. A production company however claims Cushing handed them image rights just before his death. They're suing both Disney & the Cushing estate. They have offered up no proof they have any such rights so the lawsuit looks like a classic shakedown by this company.
Sure, but then again, Disney just recently tried to say someone's wrongful death at their theme park isn't their fault because the family signed up to a free trial of Disney+. So I'd say that, If anybody deserves a shakedown, it's the House of Mouse.
@@arandompasserby7940 Sure, but then again, two wrongs don't make a right. If you want to throw out the disney+ TOS scandal, throw it out in THAT case. Don't throw it out in a completely separate case. I am so sick of people's utter contempt for justice, the courts aren't seen as a tool to fairly apply the law but a political cudgel. This is what Magna Carta was all about, the western world was built on everyone playing by the same rules, not a massive popularity contest.
@@TreblainePlease don't quote Magna Carta 🫣 that's absolutely not what it was about - it's virtually meaningless to modern society and certainly outside of England
Good, this needs to stop now. Digitally trotting out the dead every time some big company wants to use their likeness for a quick buck is sick, we should enjoy their performances, honour them and remember them for what they achieved in life. However if you need a character to appear again on screen, recast it, give a new generation the opportunity to take the character forward and to create more great performances we can all remember and celebrate.
Depends on the case. It's a gray area. In the case of something like this, yeah, it's questionable. In the case of someone like Vader? James Earl Jones - may he rest in peace - loved the role from what I understood and took great joy in the fact that his performance made other people happy. More to the point we've had other voice actors and while some came close none of them quite nailed it in the same way he did - so if Jones went out of his way to give them permission to use AI voice sampling? I'd say go for it in that case. It's very much a moral gray area and IMO you really have to take it on a case by case basis. If you don't have permission from the original actor, then yeah, you absolutely deserve to get in trouble for pulling something like this. If you've got explicit written permission, though? Whole other can of worms.
This was in the infancy of the technology, and the law this was against wasn't around at the time, so I would be more forgiving of this instance (though they should reach a settlement with the estate). Moving forward, however, this needs to be a strict no-no. Just re-cast the part.
@@slate8409 I see no gray area. I only see souless technology being enjoyed through the lens of nostalgia. Just the fake shadows of an once real past. May us live with the good memory of the originals, and let the living create new greatness to be remembered.
The real headache is for people like me that can actually spell “Rogue One”. We’ve had nearly eight years of “Rouge One” typos at this point, get it together people!
@@johngordon6526 I never played WoW, but even by the time that came out purposely misspelling things in mmo chat was en vogue. It was a passive form of harassment towards spelling and grammar nazis that was oh, so satisfying.
The remasters were released in 1997. I think he signed beforehand. I doubt this case will work, as laws apply to actions following the publication of them.
Curious, do you mean opportunistic in the sense that the lawsuit was brought forward now because Disney has been taking it on the chin lately? It appears that the lawsuit goes back to 2016 it just took that long to finally come up. I'd imagine British courts grind slowly, an all too common issue.
While I can see this as being bad on both sides, I lean more towards Cushing's estate that using the likeness of te late actor is unnecessary and violates the need to clear it with the estate. It was different when Rogue One used Carrie Fisher's image for Leia, because it was meant to "complete" the appearance of the character to link with A New Hope whereas Revenge of the Sith used a "look alike" for the brief appearance, which they could have done here and only used a "vocal likeness" than a visual one
@@andrewmalinowski6673 I have to disagree. I don't think it was any better of Disney to use Fisher's image for Leia. Even if the reasoning was "better", they're still taking a dead person and slapping their likeness into a movie. You argue they could've used a look alike for Cushing as they did in RotS, yet they could've done the same thing for Carrie at the end of Rogue One, but they didn't.
Episode 3 Tarkin was actor Wayne Pygram in a prosthetic mask and make up. It looked excellent. The deep fakes and digital licence to use them has to stop 🛑 Not ethical at all.
1:07 Because that is how the law works? It doesn't matter if people couldn't foresee this. Disney has the legal right to use Cushing's likeness, a right that they paid his estate for.
Legally there could be a difference between "appearance" and "likeness." The clipped response by Disney clearly only says appearance. So they could legally reuse images of him, but they may not have the right to create a likeness of him.
@@tk-6967 it all depends on the specifics of the contract. The clipped Disney response does nothing to prove their argument against the case being brought.
I hated all of the facial CGI in Rogue One. If you look at Peter Cushing's performance as Grand Moff Tarkin, he is very expressive, smiles a lot and uses a fairly humourous performance to underline the character's evil. The Grand Moff Tarkin that we see in Rogue One is stiff, humourless, and has zero expression (and don't even get me started on the grotesque, bloated Princess Leia they created at the end.
This would have been thrown out of court so fast in the U.S. He wouldn’t have standing, there’s an expiration date for how long those rights can be extended. His likeness, especially since he’s just a friend, can’t be protected in perpetuity.
Imho the rights to ones own likeness should only be able to be signed away on a per case basis by the person themselves during their lifetime. No blanket agreements, no surviving family selling granddads face off, etc
The problem is that actors in the SW universe commonly give away rights to their likeness for action figures and stuff, just like Star Trek. So if Disney wants to sell a Tarkin action figure they have his likeness. One could argue because each added pixel to the FX is an artistic interpretation of his face and not a direct mapping of his face, whether or not it could still be legally called his face. Lawsuits in the US that use AI image enhancement on images as evidence often throw out the photos because it adds pixels to the original image. It would be interesting to see how this lawsuit interacts with things like action figures, contracts and what is still considered someone's face.
Film budget : ~250 000 000 $, Benefits : ~500 000 000 $ USA, ~1 000 000 000 $ worldwide. Ain't it obvious there not enough money to give another ~50 000 $ to the family of a dead actor we included in the film ? Well, the motion capture for Tarkin and the voice acting did cost a lot since he wasn't there ! Maybe we should sue the family since he didn't honour this old contract that does no apply here. 🙄🙄🙄 Honestly I don't even understand how this could even go to court. Being the judge, the case would be sorted pretty quickly, adding charges to Disney to be using the legal system for stupid cases when there's a whole bunch of other problems to deal with.
I had always been under the impression Disney just ASKED someone for permission to use the likeness, like Cushing's estate or whoever was in charge of it. I should have known better, this is the Mouse we're talking about after all...
The court stated the friend really didn't do anything to convince them they would win in court but they basically said if he wants to waste his time and money then so be it
Title is misleading, as Disney was removed from the case last year. The suit is between Tyburn Film Productions Limited and the Cushing estate, his former agent, Lucasfilm, and Lunak Heavy Industries Ltd.
I think we're finally going to see a ruling on the "In Perpetuity, on any current or future forms of technology, throughout the known or unknown universe" Contract line.
I'm no fan of Disney but they were simply trying to recreate a character. They weren't doing anyone any harm. Especially a dead man. This guy is just a money seeking opportunist.
legal precedent is clear, you cannot put the face of actor A on actor B without the permission of actor A or their estate. This actually predates CG too as there was a lawsuit involving Back to the Future II where they recast old George McFly but used the original actors face prosthetic on the new actor this violating his likeness rights.
@@llynellyn Hmm well if it's legal i guess that's it. And Disney proceeded without contacting the estate coz they knew the relatives would try to screw them financially for the rights.
It's all about greed. His friend discovered that there was a possibility of suing, so he did. Peter Cushing's image was used with great respect and attention to detail, and his corpse doesn't benefit from any monetary compensation anyway. His memory benefits from the image quite a lot though. It sent shivers down my spine, and I went back and rewatched some of the old Peter Cushing movies after that. My view of the new Disney corporate pandering machine is negative though, so I hope they pay.
I guess that's a fair enough viewpoint. However, at the same time, I think there is something inherently scummy about using a CGI recreation of a person who is dead, and died before this technology was ever invented, just so his computer-crafted meatsuit can be puppeted by another actor in a franchise movie. I think it's different if an actor today, with a knowledge of this tech, consents to their likeness being recreated, but nobody today, not even Peter Cushing's friend, can say with 100% certainty how the man would have felt about this.
I actually agree with this viewpoint I don’t see the actions of the person suing as positive at all. Unless they donate all of the money to charity or something. HOWEVER, even though I think the representation in this instance was a respectable one, I don’t like the idea of actors post mortem being used like this. Unless they sign a modern day contract saying “yes, you may use my CGI likeness” other than that, I would prefer it not to happen.
@@arandompasserby7940 As a basic principle, it's not scummy if actors' heirs can continue to earn a living from the valuable image those actors have created. That's something actors have fought to attain.
They could've just gotten Wayne Pygram, who played Tarkin Briefly in Episode 3, to act as the actor stand-in/replacement again as opposed to digital recreation. Dude's still around, though he is most known for playing Scorpius in Farscape. But I guess nothing in Disney Star Wars can be handled smartly.
I am so confused right now after watching this. I was under the impression after seeing something in the press that his family consented in the past before Rogue One went into production and gave Disney their permission to use his face for the film. Anyone else hear the same thing in the press back in 2014? 2 years before the film was released.
The idea that Disney did not address this issue ahead of time feels negligent and disrespectful. Even if they did feel confident that they could use the likeness of a dead man without paying by law, that's pretty ghoulish of them.
"How can a 35 yr old contract foresee new technology making it possible to use his likeness in this way?" Idk, how can a company making a movie foresee a different set of laws 8 years later. I don't get how new laws are being enforced retroactively here.
Since there was an agreement to use his likeness in the re-release of A New Hope, most courts would need to take a sort of grandfather clause into consideration. I would expect Disney's attorneys to make that claim in addition to the claim that this is all new territory. Additionally, they would likely be looking for the 1993 agreement to be in writing or have additional witnesses, as it's strange that Cushing's friend has those rights from 1993 - when no one could even envision where technology would progress to - but Cushings estate was paid out in 1998.
This was the last channel/video I expected to find Mirror's Edge music in. I had to double-take to make sure I didn't accidentally turn on my music player.
They didn't frak up anything. They did seek permission from Cushing's estate, and got it. There was a Variety magazine article in 2016 about having secured permission and everything. I don't know what's prompted Broughton to sue Disney now, but it's not actually about a lack of permission about the usage of Cushing's likeness, because that permission was expressly given by the people who actually control it.
@@RogueShadows If that's true, then that needs to be made clear. The way this was presented makes it look like someone took a shortcut and didn't make sure all the legal boxes were ticked off.
The video states that the laws in the UK changed recently 0:51, this implies previously there were no grounds for the lawsuit previously in 2016, but now they do have grounds for the lawsuit.
One of the stores I go to used to have these little flyers? Pamphlets? Whatever, advertising the latest movies that were playing in the cinema. One particular I remember was about a guy who allows a corporation to create a digital replica of him and use it as they please. Can't remember the title but the concept stuck with me. .... Big tech should stop taking inspiration from cautionary tales
And funnier than that the actor has a strong facial likeness of late Peter Cushing, he is also a damn good character actor, Guy Henry. Let the guy do what he does best and act.
Apparently, Peter Cushing was able to foresee the technology getting to a point where his likeness could be used without his permission after his death.
I hope the laws that deep fakes and AI end up screwing Disney over royally, because remember they paid millions of dollars to keep the voice actor for Darth Vader alive indefinitely by recording his voice for several hours and training an AI off of it. I hope that they paid him millions of dollars, and that these laws force them to continue paying his family too. Also, you have to admit that it’s interesting how Anakin was a good person who was twisted by a dark entity to become a robotic minion for a dark empire, and the voice actor for Darth Vader was a good person who got manipulated by a dark company to sell off his rights and become a literal robot for a dismal empire.
The man who played Scorpius in Farscape wanted to play as Tarkin AND is spot on AND the fans really wanted it.. But Disney not wanting to pay people is typical.
Wayne Pygram. If I'm not mistaken, didn't he actually portray Tarkin at the very end of Revenge of the Sith, when Tarkin, Palpatine, and Vader are observing the Death Star under construction?
what exactly do they expect to do. The movie is already out and as said its been out for eight years. What do they want Disney to do put money into making reshoots just to change out the CGI Tarken to a look alike?
Besides the ethics of a megacorps owning people's likenesses, you should just be happy that Disney can potentially lose more money. There's literally no need to look any deeper than that.
It was said at the time that Disney did get the Cushing estate's permission...and even had the prior permission of Cushing himself. Now this "friend" comes out of left field claiming Cushing had given him control of those rights...who would have known? I think the fight is going to be between the estate and this friend...who really has control?
I always thought Lucas had everybody sign over their ‘likeness’ to him because he had his eyes on the merchandising rights, of which he owned 100%. I’m sure the actors all signed this just to get the money up front as nobody expected Star Wars to be anything more than a silly kids movie. Alec Guinness had a different contract to the others which granted him a percentage of the film’s revenue, which at the time was thought to be a bad deal as the movie was expected to be a flop.
Everyone who has ever appeared in a SW movie signed over the likelessness over the GL when the signed up so that they can make action figures. The only two who didn't were the twin ladies from the Catina scene. Hence, you don't have action figures of them. This is a bunk lawsuit, so I am going to go with Disney on this.
Honestly, I wish they'd go back and touch up the facial CG for Peter Cushing to make him seem less fake. There are a few moments where the CG is good, but it could be better and more natural looking with some more work. Also, they never should have shown Carrie Fisher's face when the soldier hands her the Death Star data tape. She should have remained with her back to the camera so that when she answers the soldier as to what the data tape is all about, we would have seen the soldier's reaction to her saying "hope". That would have been a more impactful scene and would have saved a ton of money of what has turned out to be poorly aging facial CG.
Perhaps after a rousing bout of legal proceedings Disney will hopefully learn that it's better, and cheaper, to hire actors instead of committing acts of digital necromancy
True that Disney had a contract but I bet it didn’t specify such details of the likeness and I bet if tarkin knew how much he was offered for his face it would be an insult I bet most actors would sell their body for millions if not billions
AI and deepfake laws have nothing to do with this. The issue would be whether or not the contract for using his likeness in the remaster of A New Hope covered future uses of his likeness or if it was specifically granting rights for the remaster and nothing beyond that. If the contract extended to all future uses of his likeness, whether or not AI is used to accomplish that is irrelevant.
His "friend" waited 8 years because he finally realized he could make money off of this. Also, why is anyone still treating Kotaku like a reliable source of information . . . ?
Hate to side with Disney on this one but claiming that a 1997 contract could not foresee the use of a digital likeness, but a 1993 agreement did, doesn't make sense.
![เขามัทรี - เอ็กซ์ ศุภกฤต - จอนนี่มิวสิค [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AS9ufKuQIVs/mqdefault.jpg)
The actor they chose looks so much like Cushing, they should have just used his natural face
I saw him at a small convention he was a bit disappointed that his real face wasn't used. (during the filming it wasn't certain if the tech was capable of it)
no he doesnt lmao.
@@intothezombieapocalypse i think enough makeup could have easily done it. main differences are hair, eye color, and complexion anyway.
@@intothezombieapocalypse can you name an actor that has a better resemblance?
The actor was his grand-nephew.
Well considering Disney tried the ol' "well you singed up for a Disney+ account so you can't sue us" when someone DIED because of them it does not surprise me that they're pulling out "well he signed a piece of paper 30+ years ago for a remaster of a film that doesn't apply to this other film after he died"
I mean it depends on what the paper says. If it says they can use his likeness into the future, then they can.
Get it right. The thing D+ stated was that they must have all legal matters heard in arbitration before taking things to trial.
@@iloveeveryone8611 .... because he had a trial period with D+ (which is the CRUX OF THE ISSUE)
@@OCinneideDisney doesn’t even own that restaurant: they lease the land to the owners. And going to court very well may be a Pyrrhic victory as it’ll take far longer than arbitration.
Two VERY different situations...
But hey, anything to just keep hating on Disney, instead of, you know, getting an actual life...
Good thing Peter Cushing never had a Disney+ subscription 👀 scummy business practices are scummy
I imagine Cushing would throw his remote, smash the TV, and go “F*** this shit” like a boss!
Imagine that the family gave the blessing.
scummy? you mean evil.
@@carlopanella5855not exclusive
This is actually really messed up, but the biggest takeaway from this for me personally was that rogue one was EIGHT years ago.
The biggest takeaway I had was that Rogue One was the last (specifically) critically acclaimed Star Wars film. #ProduceDueloftheFates
barely any good star wars content since then, thats the sad part
@@TheWretchedEgg12 true
The lawsuit has been going on since 2019.
Disney was dropped from it last year incidentally.
@@downix had no idea
When Disney brought back Carrie Fisher, Harrison Ford, and Mark Hamill to reprise their roles, they didn’t hold them to the contracts from the 70’s regarding their compensation. They negotiated new contracts for them to film new material. Disney should have done the same thing with Cushing’s estate. But instead, they trusted their attorneys who advised them no such negotiation was needed. Disney should admit their error, enter into settlement negotiations and fire the attorneys who gave bad advice. They won’t, but they should.
That would be a great outcome if it weren't for the fact that Cushings estate is also getting sued alongside Disney.
@@Ariaelyne That sucks. From what I understand, Cushing's estate is mostly made up of Cushing's former secretary/assistant and her children. They took care of him as he got older. By all accounts, he loved them like family. Cushing had no children and his wife died before him.
Between this and the disney+ signup needing arbitration and disney can buy the rights and not have follow the liabilites. I'm starting to wonder if somone high up in disney's legal team is trying to sabatoge the company.
JEJ signed a contract with them to keep using his material after he died.
To clarify: they DID get permission from Cushing's estate to use his likeness. Cushing's estate is a co-defendent alongside Disney because the claimant is trying to say that Cushing's estate doesn't own the rights to his likeness, that he does because supposedly Cushing gave him said rights. It sounds like a shakedown.
It is kind of gross when you think about it. Some ruthless corporation now owns your face. Very dystopian.
You could also say: Who does care who uses you likeness after you are dead in a product that makes them money? You? No you will be dead.
It's just the greed of the heirs who want their cut.
It goes both ways.
The estate still gets royalties. If Cushing left family behind, it means the family still gets the benefit of the valuable image that the actor created by work.
Yeah but we live in the future things are different I have to agree it should be a lot more money and have contracts specifically detailing stuff like this I see no problem with owning their face tho kinda weird but it’s their right
@@kirkdarling4120 We cannot be certain Cushing would agree with even his own family profiting from his face decades after his death. At some point, you just have to let people go. Enjoy the content he made when he was alive, don't use his likeness after he is dead like some kind of string puppet.
Who cares? If I'm dead, its irrelevant to me what's going on in the world
Charles Dance would have been a good choice for Tarkin.
He would be an incredible Tarkin.
He’s my pick for if we get more Dooku tbh
@@LinkfinI‘d agree with that more than Charles Dance playing Tarkin. Dance‘s voice is much more suited to imitating Sir Christopher Lee than Peter Cushing, whereas Guy Henry nails Peter Cushing‘s voice.
I counter your Charles Dance with Christopher Lee...... if he were still alive :(
@@MrAdamske any tall British man with sharp, angular features. Well, that describes a film villain.
Rogue One. ROGUE. It baffles me how everyone is still spelling it Rouge One.
Edit: they fixed the title.
It’s so weird.
They may have fixed the title but they still have it spelled incorrectly in the short description where all the hashtags are lol
As with most things in life, it’s France’s fault
Because noone really cares about the movie.
That was me for 15 years playing a 'rogue' class character in World of Warcraft and cringing every time people wrote rouge. or called it a roog.
Disney paid the Cushing estate for the right to use his image in the film. A production company however claims Cushing handed them image rights just before his death. They're suing both Disney & the Cushing estate. They have offered up no proof they have any such rights so the lawsuit looks like a classic shakedown by this company.
Sure, but then again, Disney just recently tried to say someone's wrongful death at their theme park isn't their fault because the family signed up to a free trial of Disney+.
So I'd say that, If anybody deserves a shakedown, it's the House of Mouse.
I know where you're coming from, but Disney can go to hell I have no sympathy for a corporation. His family though...
You have no idea what you're talking about
@@arandompasserby7940 Sure, but then again, two wrongs don't make a right.
If you want to throw out the disney+ TOS scandal, throw it out in THAT case. Don't throw it out in a completely separate case.
I am so sick of people's utter contempt for justice, the courts aren't seen as a tool to fairly apply the law but a political cudgel. This is what Magna Carta was all about, the western world was built on everyone playing by the same rules, not a massive popularity contest.
@@TreblainePlease don't quote Magna Carta 🫣 that's absolutely not what it was about - it's virtually meaningless to modern society and certainly outside of England
Good, this needs to stop now. Digitally trotting out the dead every time some big company wants to use their likeness for a quick buck is sick, we should enjoy their performances, honour them and remember them for what they achieved in life. However if you need a character to appear again on screen, recast it, give a new generation the opportunity to take the character forward and to create more great performances we can all remember and celebrate.
Depends on the case. It's a gray area. In the case of something like this, yeah, it's questionable. In the case of someone like Vader? James Earl Jones - may he rest in peace - loved the role from what I understood and took great joy in the fact that his performance made other people happy. More to the point we've had other voice actors and while some came close none of them quite nailed it in the same way he did - so if Jones went out of his way to give them permission to use AI voice sampling? I'd say go for it in that case.
It's very much a moral gray area and IMO you really have to take it on a case by case basis. If you don't have permission from the original actor, then yeah, you absolutely deserve to get in trouble for pulling something like this. If you've got explicit written permission, though? Whole other can of worms.
Cry about it
I don't know man. I would've done the same as Disney if I had to use a dead actor's likeness.
This was in the infancy of the technology, and the law this was against wasn't around at the time, so I would be more forgiving of this instance (though they should reach a settlement with the estate). Moving forward, however, this needs to be a strict no-no. Just re-cast the part.
@@slate8409 I see no gray area. I only see souless technology being enjoyed through the lens of nostalgia. Just the fake shadows of an once real past.
May us live with the good memory of the originals, and let the living create new greatness to be remembered.
I thought this would be about how Rogue One was actually good and every Disney Star Wars movie since has been rubbish.
The real headache is for people like me that can actually spell “Rogue One”.
We’ve had nearly eight years of “Rouge One” typos at this point, get it together people!
Thanks for clearing that up. All this time I thought there was a some sequel to Moulin Rouge I couldn't find.
@@Kelnx …and now I can’t stop imagining Peter Cushing dancing the can-can in big musical number!
@@Kelnx Speaking of which, it drives me crazy when people pronounce it "moo-lon." It's "moo-LAAN." It's French. 😁
Heh, if you ever played world of warcraft (or probably any game with a rogue class), you've seen that typo more times than you can count =p
@@johngordon6526 I never played WoW, but even by the time that came out purposely misspelling things in mmo chat was en vogue. It was a passive form of harassment towards spelling and grammar nazis that was oh, so satisfying.
Disney truly is the epitome of corporate evil
0:40 Cushing died in 1994
I think he meant the friend
The remasters were released in 1997. I think he signed beforehand. I doubt this case will work, as laws apply to actions following the publication of them.
@@CosminNeagu but did the document he signed for the remaster apply only to that film, or others that had not yet even been produced?
@@sauercrowder probably George Lucas put some likeness clause in there and now he has access to it. Carrie Fisher commented on this a while back.
Paid to his estate which is keeping all his legal rights going by his next of kin.
0:40 How could Peter Cushing sign that in 97 when he died in 94?
He couldn't. The text on also screen states that Disney paid 37.000 USD to his estate for the rights.
@@gildor8866 Exactly, not sure if Ecks just didn't do the research here or if it was a slip up.
He used the Force
They should have just used the face of the actor they had playing the mo-cap for Cushing.
This lawsuit strikes me as being highly opportunistic.
Curious, do you mean opportunistic in the sense that the lawsuit was brought forward now because Disney has been taking it on the chin lately? It appears that the lawsuit goes back to 2016 it just took that long to finally come up. I'd imagine British courts grind slowly, an all too common issue.
@@ducttapestuff-jonathan9571 I find it strange that he waited eight years before filing a lawsuit and, yes, it does strike me as opportunistic.
Who cares. Disney can be sued into oblivion and we'd be better off
While I can see this as being bad on both sides, I lean more towards Cushing's estate that using the likeness of te late actor is unnecessary and violates the need to clear it with the estate. It was different when Rogue One used Carrie Fisher's image for Leia, because it was meant to "complete" the appearance of the character to link with A New Hope whereas Revenge of the Sith used a "look alike" for the brief appearance, which they could have done here and only used a "vocal likeness" than a visual one
@@andrewmalinowski6673 I have to disagree. I don't think it was any better of Disney to use Fisher's image for Leia. Even if the reasoning was "better", they're still taking a dead person and slapping their likeness into a movie. You argue they could've used a look alike for Cushing as they did in RotS, yet they could've done the same thing for Carrie at the end of Rogue One, but they didn't.
regardless, i'm just glad disney could lose quite some money in general
Me Poo.. I mean, me too
Disney's downfall is healing the world
Yes, the MegaCorp will fall any day now... Any day now... maybe next year but anyyyyyyyy day now...
@@johnecoapollo7 dude i said it's good they lose Money, it's fun
Will save up and get you a dictionary for Christmas
@@NivRel I wanted to reply to arielquelme below you but mis-clicked. I will accept the dictionary though, I am trying to improve my English.
@@johnecoapollo7 oh, Sorry for that, probably would have responded the same of It was ment for me
But still Sorry
so they did pay to use his likeness?? lawsuit is dumbest shakedown in years
Sounds like it ain’t _about_ the money, chief
Episode 3 Tarkin was actor Wayne Pygram in a prosthetic mask and make up. It looked excellent.
The deep fakes and digital licence to use them has to stop 🛑
Not ethical at all.
1:07 Because that is how the law works? It doesn't matter if people couldn't foresee this. Disney has the legal right to use Cushing's likeness, a right that they paid his estate for.
Legally there could be a difference between "appearance" and "likeness." The clipped response by Disney clearly only says appearance. So they could legally reuse images of him, but they may not have the right to create a likeness of him.
@@t-bois But that would suggest that all of Tarkin's comic appearances are also illegal.
@@tk-6967 likeness is basically using his face and voice.
Comics are excluded to that.
@@tk-6967 it all depends on the specifics of the contract. The clipped Disney response does nothing to prove their argument against the case being brought.
@@t-bois fair enough.
I hated all of the facial CGI in Rogue One. If you look at Peter Cushing's performance as Grand Moff Tarkin, he is very expressive, smiles a lot and uses a fairly humourous performance to underline the character's evil. The Grand Moff Tarkin that we see in Rogue One is stiff, humourless, and has zero expression (and don't even get me started on the grotesque, bloated Princess Leia they created at the end.
Dang I just rewatched Rogue One a few days ago after years
This is a crazy lawsuit for disney
This would have been thrown out of court so fast in the U.S. He wouldn’t have standing, there’s an expiration date for how long those rights can be extended. His likeness, especially since he’s just a friend, can’t be protected in perpetuity.
I was about to say the friend has no legal standing until I heard that he gave him that authority. So that's that. Pay him his money.
Whooooa nice Mirror's Edge soundtrack pick
Imho the rights to ones own likeness should only be able to be signed away on a per case basis by the person themselves during their lifetime.
No blanket agreements, no surviving family selling granddads face off, etc
El actor tiene más parecido con Ardus Kaine (un personaje del antiguo Universo Expandido) qué con Tarkin.
The problem is that actors in the SW universe commonly give away rights to their likeness for action figures and stuff, just like Star Trek. So if Disney wants to sell a Tarkin action figure they have his likeness. One could argue because each added pixel to the FX is an artistic interpretation of his face and not a direct mapping of his face, whether or not it could still be legally called his face. Lawsuits in the US that use AI image enhancement on images as evidence often throw out the photos because it adds pixels to the original image. It would be interesting to see how this lawsuit interacts with things like action figures, contracts and what is still considered someone's face.
Film budget : ~250 000 000 $, Benefits : ~500 000 000 $ USA, ~1 000 000 000 $ worldwide.
Ain't it obvious there not enough money to give another ~50 000 $ to the family of a dead actor we included in the film ?
Well, the motion capture for Tarkin and the voice acting did cost a lot since he wasn't there ! Maybe we should sue the family since he didn't honour this old contract that does no apply here.
🙄🙄🙄
Honestly I don't even understand how this could even go to court. Being the judge, the case would be sorted pretty quickly, adding charges to Disney to be using the legal system for stupid cases when there's a whole bunch of other problems to deal with.
its as if tarkin dosent want to be part of disney XD
"How can a thirty-year-old contract be valid for deep fakes" says man with thirty-year-old contract suing over deep fakes.
you'd think they would remember the mess around BTTF 2
I had always been under the impression Disney just ASKED someone for permission to use the likeness, like Cushing's estate or whoever was in charge of it. I should have known better, this is the Mouse we're talking about after all...
The contract from 30 years ago wasn't even with Disney as Lucasfilm was still independent from them at the time
The court stated the friend really didn't do anything to convince them they would win in court but they basically said if he wants to waste his time and money then so be it
Title is misleading, as Disney was removed from the case last year. The suit is between Tyburn Film Productions Limited and the Cushing estate, his former agent, Lucasfilm, and Lunak Heavy Industries Ltd.
Lawsuits explode into messes waiting to occur.
*disney gets sued*
Me: "oh no, anyway."
ur reddit gold sire
They used similar effects for Gladiator in 1999 when Oliver Reed died mid-filming, so I really don't think it was unforeseeable in 1997.
I'm shocked to find out they didn't seek permission at all for it. That's crazy, I hope cushings friend wins the dispute.
Cushing must have checked “agree” to an arbitration clause to look at Mickey one time in 1993.
I don't like Disney. They represent everything wrong with the world right now.
I think we're finally going to see a ruling on the "In Perpetuity, on any current or future forms of technology, throughout the known or unknown universe" Contract line.
I'm no fan of Disney but they were simply trying to recreate a character. They weren't doing anyone any harm. Especially a dead man. This guy is just a money seeking opportunist.
legal precedent is clear, you cannot put the face of actor A on actor B without the permission of actor A or their estate. This actually predates CG too as there was a lawsuit involving Back to the Future II where they recast old George McFly but used the original actors face prosthetic on the new actor this violating his likeness rights.
@@llynellyn Hmm well if it's legal i guess that's it. And Disney proceeded without contacting the estate coz they knew the relatives would try to screw them financially for the rights.
Wouldn't it be great if instead of money, they'd seek injunction and force Disney to change the face?
It's all about greed. His friend discovered that there was a possibility of suing, so he did. Peter Cushing's image was used with great respect and attention to detail, and his corpse doesn't benefit from any monetary compensation anyway. His memory benefits from the image quite a lot though. It sent shivers down my spine, and I went back and rewatched some of the old Peter Cushing movies after that. My view of the new Disney corporate pandering machine is negative though, so I hope they pay.
I guess that's a fair enough viewpoint. However, at the same time, I think there is something inherently scummy about using a CGI recreation of a person who is dead, and died before this technology was ever invented, just so his computer-crafted meatsuit can be puppeted by another actor in a franchise movie. I think it's different if an actor today, with a knowledge of this tech, consents to their likeness being recreated, but nobody today, not even Peter Cushing's friend, can say with 100% certainty how the man would have felt about this.
@@arandompasserby7940I don't disagree, I'd just like to point out the actor who played Tarkin was apparently a relative of his
I actually agree with this viewpoint I don’t see the actions of the person suing as positive at all. Unless they donate all of the money to charity or something.
HOWEVER, even though I think the representation in this instance was a respectable one, I don’t like the idea of actors post mortem being used like this. Unless they sign a modern day contract saying “yes, you may use my CGI likeness” other than that, I would prefer it not to happen.
@@arandompasserby7940 As a basic principle, it's not scummy if actors' heirs can continue to earn a living from the valuable image those actors have created. That's something actors have fought to attain.
They could've just gotten Wayne Pygram, who played Tarkin Briefly in Episode 3, to act as the actor stand-in/replacement again as opposed to digital recreation. Dude's still around, though he is most known for playing Scorpius in Farscape. But I guess nothing in Disney Star Wars can be handled smartly.
I am so confused right now after watching this. I was under the impression after seeing something in the press that his family consented in the past before Rogue One went into production and gave Disney their permission to use his face for the film. Anyone else hear the same thing in the press back in 2014? 2 years before the film was released.
Yes, that was said at the time.
The idea that Disney did not address this issue ahead of time feels negligent and disrespectful. Even if they did feel confident that they could use the likeness of a dead man without paying by law, that's pretty ghoulish of them.
I don't think Cushing signed anything in 1997 unless we've discovered necromancy.
Sue him, sue you, sue me, this is the land of the lawsuit and home of the courtroom.
What a rogue lawsuit.
Yep. It's a rouge one alright. Very.
his estate should have read the terms before signing up for Disney+
"How can a 35 yr old contract foresee new technology making it possible to use his likeness in this way?"
Idk, how can a company making a movie foresee a different set of laws 8 years later.
I don't get how new laws are being enforced retroactively here.
Disney can’t used the Disney+ excuse because the late and great actor Peter Cushing passed away before Disney+ was introduced.
Peter Cushing was one of the most humble, polite, and diligently professional actors ever. A wonderful human being who is sorely missed to this day.
Imagine thinking a contract from the 90s was still valid today when everything is worth like 4x what it used to be.
Disney is now getting sued for one of two good pieces of media that they were able to make with a Star Wars franchise
If this case can only come forward now because the laws have now changed than it shouldn't proceed.
Since there was an agreement to use his likeness in the re-release of A New Hope, most courts would need to take a sort of grandfather clause into consideration. I would expect Disney's attorneys to make that claim in addition to the claim that this is all new territory. Additionally, they would likely be looking for the 1993 agreement to be in writing or have additional witnesses, as it's strange that Cushing's friend has those rights from 1993 - when no one could even envision where technology would progress to - but Cushings estate was paid out in 1998.
is that mirrors edge music in the background?
yes :D
was not expecting that :D
I thought this was old news as they tried to sue Disney around 2016-2017, why 8 year later?
Why did they wait almost 8 years to file the lawsuit?
This was the last channel/video I expected to find Mirror's Edge music in. I had to double-take to make sure I didn't accidentally turn on my music player.
....dafaq, why wouldn't you get his permission first? He probably wouldn't have even charged much for it.
The only decent SW movie DEIsney has done, and they managed to frak this one up too. Pathetic.
They didn't frak up anything. They did seek permission from Cushing's estate, and got it. There was a Variety magazine article in 2016 about having secured permission and everything. I don't know what's prompted Broughton to sue Disney now, but it's not actually about a lack of permission about the usage of Cushing's likeness, because that permission was expressly given by the people who actually control it.
@@RogueShadows If that's true, then that needs to be made clear. The way this was presented makes it look like someone took a shortcut and didn't make sure all the legal boxes were ticked off.
Disney simp
@@Edfiki86 Uhm, what? Who?
Why do you call it that?
The could've easily avoided any problems by simply having the the character stand and talk from a distance.
Yeah, because "close friends" are allowed to sue for likeness. Kotaku says so.
I thought that they had permission
Oh now he’s only coming out? This guy definitely is not a friend, he’s just trying to get a quick pay check
This sounds like something in the law changed after the movie was released which If This Were American Court would make this a completely invalid case
And why did they wait almost a DECADE? Did they not notice when Rogue One launched in _checks notes_ 2016?
The video states that the laws in the UK changed recently 0:51, this implies previously there were no grounds for the lawsuit previously in 2016, but now they do have grounds for the lawsuit.
One of the stores I go to used to have these little flyers? Pamphlets? Whatever, advertising the latest movies that were playing in the cinema. One particular I remember was about a guy who allows a corporation to create a digital replica of him and use it as they please. Can't remember the title but the concept stuck with me.
....
Big tech should stop taking inspiration from cautionary tales
And funnier than that the actor has a strong facial likeness of late Peter Cushing, he is also a damn good character actor, Guy Henry. Let the guy do what he does best and act.
Surely the permission to use his likeness in one movie remaster did not give them license to do so however they wished through perpetuity.
It’s time to crack open the fridge and bring Walt back
Apparently, Peter Cushing was able to foresee the technology getting to a point where his likeness could be used without his permission after his death.
I hope the laws that deep fakes and AI end up screwing Disney over royally, because remember they paid millions of dollars to keep the voice actor for Darth Vader alive indefinitely by recording his voice for several hours and training an AI off of it. I hope that they paid him millions of dollars, and that these laws force them to continue paying his family too.
Also, you have to admit that it’s interesting how Anakin was a good person who was twisted by a dark entity to become a robotic minion for a dark empire, and the voice actor for Darth Vader was a good person who got manipulated by a dark company to sell off his rights and become a literal robot for a dismal empire.
Nearly 30 year old contract (1997) AND a contract not under Disney at that time. Lucasfilm wasn't under Disney until 2012. I'd say he has a case.
The man who played Scorpius in Farscape wanted to play as Tarkin AND is spot on AND the fans really wanted it.. But Disney not wanting to pay people is typical.
Wayne Pygram. If I'm not mistaken, didn't he actually portray Tarkin at the very end of Revenge of the Sith, when Tarkin, Palpatine, and Vader are observing the Death Star under construction?
Groomsney pulled this with the actor that everyone wanted for that utterly shitty Solo movie.
It was nice to see Cushing's likeness in "Rogue One" but I don't think anyone would have complained seeing another actor in that role.
Who's this Tarkin wannabe?
@@BlackEpyon Oh. I'm sorry. I guess if an actor dies, no one can ever again play that character again til the end of time.
@@somarriba333 I'm saying that the CGI wasn't bad, and ya'll need to touch grass.
@@BlackEpyon You said nothing of value. I said it was nice seeing his likeness. I never said the CGI was bad.
@@somarriba333 Strange, because that's always where the conversation leads.
what exactly do they expect to do. The movie is already out and as said its been out for eight years. What do they want Disney to do put money into making reshoots just to change out the CGI Tarken to a look alike?
They want money. Thats it
I think it's more so that movie companies don't do stuff like that in general in the future.
Besides the ethics of a megacorps owning people's likenesses, you should just be happy that Disney can potentially lose more money. There's literally no need to look any deeper than that.
@@MythicDawn you know it’s that money that goes into making the movies and the TV shows.
@@reeceemms1643 yeah, dogshite slop movies and TV shows.
why would you not seek to get his estate’s permission? how stupid are their lawyers and executives? so dang funny. 😆
It was said at the time that Disney did get the Cushing estate's permission...and even had the prior permission of Cushing himself. Now this "friend" comes out of left field claiming Cushing had given him control of those rights...who would have known? I think the fight is going to be between the estate and this friend...who really has control?
They could have just recasted the roll. The actor who did the mocap fit the part. They could have also casted Charles Dance.
I wish they could be sued for the sequel trilogy.
Class action for being such a disappointment...
Disney has a ton of money. They could have had this taken care of.
I always thought Lucas had everybody sign over their ‘likeness’ to him because he had his eyes on the merchandising rights, of which he owned 100%. I’m sure the actors all signed this just to get the money up front as nobody expected Star Wars to be anything more than a silly kids movie. Alec Guinness had a different contract to the others which granted him a percentage of the film’s revenue, which at the time was thought to be a bad deal as the movie was expected to be a flop.
Everyone who has ever appeared in a SW movie signed over the likelessness over the GL when the signed up so that they can make action figures. The only two who didn't were the twin ladies from the Catina scene. Hence, you don't have action figures of them. This is a bunk lawsuit, so I am going to go with Disney on this.
Honestly, I wish they'd go back and touch up the facial CG for Peter Cushing to make him seem less fake. There are a few moments where the CG is good, but it could be better and more natural looking with some more work.
Also, they never should have shown Carrie Fisher's face when the soldier hands her the Death Star data tape. She should have remained with her back to the camera so that when she answers the soldier as to what the data tape is all about, we would have seen the soldier's reaction to her saying "hope". That would have been a more impactful scene and would have saved a ton of money of what has turned out to be poorly aging facial CG.
After the way they trashed Star Wars, Disney richly deserves any and all trouble coming to it.
Perhaps after a rousing bout of legal proceedings Disney will hopefully learn that it's better, and cheaper, to hire actors instead of committing acts of digital necromancy
Seriously , they could stick with Guy Henry face instead of replacing with an uncanny CGI
True that Disney had a contract but I bet it didn’t specify such details of the likeness and I bet if tarkin knew how much he was offered for his face it would be an insult I bet most actors would sell their body for millions if not billions
AI and deepfake laws have nothing to do with this.
The issue would be whether or not the contract for using his likeness in the remaster of A New Hope covered future uses of his likeness or if it was specifically granting rights for the remaster and nothing beyond that.
If the contract extended to all future uses of his likeness, whether or not AI is used to accomplish that is irrelevant.
His "friend" waited 8 years because he finally realized he could make money off of this. Also, why is anyone still treating Kotaku like a reliable source of information . . . ?
Hate to side with Disney on this one but claiming that a 1997 contract could not foresee the use of a digital likeness, but a 1993 agreement did, doesn't make sense.
Hope this costs Disney so much that it hurts.
They need to put red dots on the eyes..ie contacts with dots...for eye tracking...afterall the eyes give it away.
This "friend" is fishing... this is a nonsense claim.