>Yet soon a social media missive critical of the attraction from Walt's granddaughter would go viral. It raised anew ethical questions that often surround any project attempting to capture the dead via technology, be it holographic representations of performers or digitally re-created cinematic animations, namely debates surrounding the wishes of the deceased and whether such creations are exploitative.
Exactly the same reaction happened when Disney developed the first Abraham Lincoln animatronic for the New York World’s Fair in the 1960’s.
With Walt, there's also the context that he was the founder and CEO of the company who chose to make himself a very public spokesperson for the company for many decades, including regular TV appearances on Disney's weekly national TV show - all in an era where few CEOs were public figures outside financial markets. And many of his appearances went far beyond the role of CEO to include playing host, product demonstrator and marketing spokesperson.
He clearly had no problem with representing the company and actively promoting Disney theme parks, movies and products with his image. Even while he was alive Disney Corp sold high-end memorabilia like large framed pictures of Walt working at his drawing board and including his distinctive signature. So he not only promoted products but turned himself into a revenue generating product. In some sense, he made himself a mascot for his company as much as Mickey Mouse and this was clearly by design. To me that's different than a CEO who mostly limited his public exposure to the usual earnings calls and shareholder's meetings.
To me it does because his actions while alive clearly establish a consistent pattern of behavior which indicates he would not have any issue with the company he founded and dedicated most of his life to using his likeness to honor him (while also making money). As far as we know, he didn't sign an explicit license for use of his likeness. Although he may have, like for those memorabilia framed/signed photo sales), but either way he certainly established an implicit license by creating and supporting products for Disney using his likeness while alive. Under common law, often voluntarily acting on something repeatedly and consistently tends to establish intent in the absence of a written contract.
If it existed, would such an explicit license extend to derivative usages like this? Probably not legally but I think ethically it does sharply reduce the likelihood Disney is acting against what Walt would have wanted.
I think what would be unfair is putting words in the mouth of the animatronic, making Walt say something that he wouldn’t have agreed with. Same with any historical figure.
There is a time component to it. I don't think anybody would give a second thought to a Blackbeard animatronic. In the 60s Lincoln would have been dead about 100 years. His great-grandchildren were still alive. Today, Walt Disney has been dead 58 years. His daughter died a decade ago, his grandchildren are still alive
I dunno, I think historical figures like Lincoln are in a different category.
An animatronic Lincoln reciting the emancipation proclamation seems wildly different from a dead holographic rapper performing for money. Or indeed Walt Disney, who I assume would be appearing as entertainment more than for history.
The video is segmented into chapters--if you're not interested in the whole thing, the section about the Lincoln animatronic is chapter 4, about an hour into the video.
Surely if there is one person in history who we would be pretty sure would be thrilled to have a posthumous animatronic version of himself, it is Walt Disney.
in the 80s AVG built a robotic Andy Warhol but he was enthused about it. Abraham lincoln is an American icon. Not sure someone who still has family in living memory is the same category despite being a sort of icon for a big corporation and a big emerging ethical concern of the 21st century seems to be bodily autonomy and consent. I see a lot of AI generated 'animated' photos, of the living and the dead. I tend to see a lot of people ignore someone's consent like they ignore media piracy, with a disinterested immoral hand-wave.
There's some fuzzy line somewhere - building an animatronic person just after they passed against (what would have been) their will or that of close relatives seems wrong.
But at some point personalities and people themselves fade into history, and it becomes a historical figure (such as Lincoln).
I live in America so 'moral rights' aren't a thing, but in europe it appears to give artist/creators rights over how their work is portrayed. How our legacy is carried forward of our own likeness or our work is a moral question, and cultural, and defines our values.
The problem I see with this is just the lack of originality. Disneyland originally focused on subjects like early America, the frontier or the future.
This robot is about the guy who built a company that focused on that. It's very self referential. Couldn't they do something new like a Louis Armstrong robot that plays trumpet?
I feel like any discussion of where the idea came from or how it developed would trigger disparagement clauses. I bet everyone's notebooks are full of better ideas.
he had other facets of his personality which they will try to capture, and lessen the others. I do agree that you can't pick and choose parts of a person, and claim it's still them, but here we are
I mean, people somehow came to regard Mickey Mouse as a beloved and endearing mascot, despite showing his true colors in "Steamboat Willie" as a malevolent, obnoxious, violent asshole who steamrolls anyone/anything who gets in his way. After viewing that again, combined with a few other "early roles" I am unsure how Disney became a popular children's brand, except Mr. Rogers' lament begins to sound in my ears.
I dunno, “The Mouse” has become a euphemism for the faceless corporate drive to profits and milking every intellectual property to the maximum extent, personified by the South Park portrayal.
>Yet soon a social media missive critical of the attraction from Walt's granddaughter would go viral. It raised anew ethical questions that often surround any project attempting to capture the dead via technology, be it holographic representations of performers or digitally re-created cinematic animations, namely debates surrounding the wishes of the deceased and whether such creations are exploitative.
Exactly the same reaction happened when Disney developed the first Abraham Lincoln animatronic for the New York World’s Fair in the 1960’s.
It also hints at what his reaction would be. It seems unfair for the family to criticize them doing to Walt what he did to Lincoln.
With Walt, there's also the context that he was the founder and CEO of the company who chose to make himself a very public spokesperson for the company for many decades, including regular TV appearances on Disney's weekly national TV show - all in an era where few CEOs were public figures outside financial markets. And many of his appearances went far beyond the role of CEO to include playing host, product demonstrator and marketing spokesperson.
He clearly had no problem with representing the company and actively promoting Disney theme parks, movies and products with his image. Even while he was alive Disney Corp sold high-end memorabilia like large framed pictures of Walt working at his drawing board and including his distinctive signature. So he not only promoted products but turned himself into a revenue generating product. In some sense, he made himself a mascot for his company as much as Mickey Mouse and this was clearly by design. To me that's different than a CEO who mostly limited his public exposure to the usual earnings calls and shareholder's meetings.
I agree, and to be clear, this makes it more acceptable that Disney would make a Walt animatronic, right?
To me it does because his actions while alive clearly establish a consistent pattern of behavior which indicates he would not have any issue with the company he founded and dedicated most of his life to using his likeness to honor him (while also making money). As far as we know, he didn't sign an explicit license for use of his likeness. Although he may have, like for those memorabilia framed/signed photo sales), but either way he certainly established an implicit license by creating and supporting products for Disney using his likeness while alive. Under common law, often voluntarily acting on something repeatedly and consistently tends to establish intent in the absence of a written contract.
If it existed, would such an explicit license extend to derivative usages like this? Probably not legally but I think ethically it does sharply reduce the likelihood Disney is acting against what Walt would have wanted.
Dead for 10 years vs dead for 100 is a meaningful difference to me.
Namely how many people alive actually knew the person.
I agree that the number of years matter, but Walt Disney died in 1966.
I was bringing up the existence of a meaningful transition point not where it specifically lies.
There’s more creepy versions of the same kind of thing using recently dead performers for example.
So I guess the standard is: dead for 100 years is acceptable. Dead for 60 years is "too soon".
Was 100 years acceptable at the time? 160 years seems fine since I doubt anyone would complain about a Lincoln animatronic today
to be more... or less? exact, its likely "everyone who knew the person while they were alive is also deceased"
I think what would be unfair is putting words in the mouth of the animatronic, making Walt say something that he wouldn’t have agreed with. Same with any historical figure.
Great exploration of this in Defunctland's latest piece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjNca1L6CUk (There's a "part 2" on Disney's "Living Characters" coming this year!)
There is a time component to it. I don't think anybody would give a second thought to a Blackbeard animatronic. In the 60s Lincoln would have been dead about 100 years. His great-grandchildren were still alive. Today, Walt Disney has been dead 58 years. His daughter died a decade ago, his grandchildren are still alive
I dunno, I think historical figures like Lincoln are in a different category.
An animatronic Lincoln reciting the emancipation proclamation seems wildly different from a dead holographic rapper performing for money. Or indeed Walt Disney, who I assume would be appearing as entertainment more than for history.
> Exactly the same reaction happened when Disney developed the first Abraham Lincoln animatronic for the New York World’s Fair in the 1960’s.
Is there some story that you've read and might share?
I apologize in advance because you'd probably prefer text, but this is a very high quality video on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjNca1L6CUk
The video is segmented into chapters--if you're not interested in the whole thing, the section about the Lincoln animatronic is chapter 4, about an hour into the video.
Thank you! For others, the story about the protest begins at ~1:03:30.
Funny how history likes to rhyme eh
Surely if there is one person in history who we would be pretty sure would be thrilled to have a posthumous animatronic version of himself, it is Walt Disney.
Can't help thinking about the Kier Eagan animatronic statue in Severance.
Yeah the quote “the goal .. is to capture what it would have been like to be in Walt’s presence” sounds like it could be straight out of that show.
in the 80s AVG built a robotic Andy Warhol but he was enthused about it. Abraham lincoln is an American icon. Not sure someone who still has family in living memory is the same category despite being a sort of icon for a big corporation and a big emerging ethical concern of the 21st century seems to be bodily autonomy and consent. I see a lot of AI generated 'animated' photos, of the living and the dead. I tend to see a lot of people ignore someone's consent like they ignore media piracy, with a disinterested immoral hand-wave.
Walt Disney is unquestionably an American icon.
There's some fuzzy line somewhere - building an animatronic person just after they passed against (what would have been) their will or that of close relatives seems wrong.
But at some point personalities and people themselves fade into history, and it becomes a historical figure (such as Lincoln).
I’m seriously blown away that you equated a person’s consent for their own autonomy and legacy to media piracy. What?
I live in America so 'moral rights' aren't a thing, but in europe it appears to give artist/creators rights over how their work is portrayed. How our legacy is carried forward of our own likeness or our work is a moral question, and cultural, and defines our values.
In America, the implementation of "moral rights" would unquestionably be a First Amendment violation.
I have seen this one before. The robot ends up trying to to eat Elian Gonzalez.
The problem I see with this is just the lack of originality. Disneyland originally focused on subjects like early America, the frontier or the future. This robot is about the guy who built a company that focused on that. It's very self referential. Couldn't they do something new like a Louis Armstrong robot that plays trumpet?
I feel like any discussion of where the idea came from or how it developed would trigger disparagement clauses. I bet everyone's notebooks are full of better ideas.
So Robot Chicken wasn't lying to me!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LymbI4Dxj4c
Interesting to see how the news works.
"Imagineers make a Walt Disney robot": not newsworthy.
"Imagineers make a Walt Disney robot... And it's controversial": newsworthy.
It really seems like they want us at each other's throats.
Most of Disney's works are protected by IP law, but Disney himself is public domain.
Weirdest headline lol
Wait what? yahoo.com exists? XD
It's cute now, but will people like it so much when it adopts Walt's uh... views on things...?
he had other facets of his personality which they will try to capture, and lessen the others. I do agree that you can't pick and choose parts of a person, and claim it's still them, but here we are
I mean, people somehow came to regard Mickey Mouse as a beloved and endearing mascot, despite showing his true colors in "Steamboat Willie" as a malevolent, obnoxious, violent asshole who steamrolls anyone/anything who gets in his way. After viewing that again, combined with a few other "early roles" I am unsure how Disney became a popular children's brand, except Mr. Rogers' lament begins to sound in my ears.
I dunno, “The Mouse” has become a euphemism for the faceless corporate drive to profits and milking every intellectual property to the maximum extent, personified by the South Park portrayal.