6 ms·
>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 p
by Isamu 1y ago
>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.
- tough 1y agoFunny how history likes to rhyme eh
- ryanhecht 1y agoGreat exploration of this in Defunctland's latest piece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjNca1L6CUk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjNca1L6CUk (There's a "part 2" on Disney's "Living Characters" coming this year!)
- dehrmann 1y agoIt 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.
- Retric 1y agoDead for 10 years vs dead for 100 is a meaningful difference to me. Namely how many people alive actually knew the person.
- jelled 1y agoI agree that the number of years matter, but Walt Disney died in 1966.
- Retric 1y agoI 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.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- havblue 1y agoSo I guess the standard is: dead for 100 years is acceptable. Dead for 60 years is "too soon".
- Isamu 1y agoI 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.
- mrandish 1y agoWith 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.
- dehrmann 1y agoI agree, and to be clear, this makes it more acceptable that Disney would make a Walt animatronic, right?
- mrandish 1y agoTo 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.
- wongarsu 1y agoThere 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
- mmooss 1y ago> 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?
- robrtsql 1y agoI 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 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.
- mmooss 1y agoThank you! For others, the story about the protest begins at ~1:03:30.
- mystified5016 1y agoI 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.