DIGITAL humans are coming to a screen near you. As computer-generated imagery (CGI) has become cheaper and more sophisticated, the film industry can now convincingly recreate people on screen 鈥� even actors who have been dead for decades. The technology鈥檚 ability to effectively keep celebrities alive beyond the grave is raising questions about public legacies and image rights.
Late in 2019, it was announced that US actor James Dean, who died in 1955, will star in a Vietnam war film slated for release later this year. Dean will be recreated on screen with CGI based on old footage and photographs, with another actor voicing him.
The news was met with excitement by those keen to see Dean digitally resurrected for only his fourth film, but it also drew sharp criticism. 鈥淭his is puppeteering the dead for their 鈥榗lout鈥� alone,鈥� actor . 鈥淚t sets such an awful precedent for the future of performance.鈥�
Advertisement
Her father, Robin Williams, who died in 2014, was keen to avoid the same fate. Before his death, , preventing others from recreating him using CGI to appear in a film, TV show or as a hologram.
The James Dean film is a way to keep the actor鈥檚 image relevant for younger generations, says Mark Roesler of CMG Worldwide, the firm that represents Dean鈥檚 estate.
鈥淚 think this is the beginning of an entire wave,鈥� says Travis Cloyd, CEO of , one of the companies behind the digital Dean. 鈥淢oving into the future, we want James Dean to be brought into different gaming environments, or different virtual reality environments, or augmented reality environments,鈥� he says.
Other actors have been revived, with the permission of their estates, for advertising purposes. Audrey Hepburn was digitally recreated for a . In the same year, a CGI , which .
鈥淚n the last five years, it鈥檚 become more affordable and more achievable in a whole movie,鈥� says Tim Webber at UK visual effects firm Framestore, the company behind the Hepburn chocolate ad.
Framestore used body doubles with resemblance to Hepburn鈥檚 facial structure and body shape as a framework for manual animation. The process was arduous and expensive, says Webber, but the technology has moved on.
Now, a person can be animated from scratch. 鈥淚f they鈥檙e alive today, you can put them in scanning rigs, you can get every detail of their body analysed very carefully and that makes it much easier, whereas working from available photographs is tricky,鈥� says Webber, who won an Academy Award for his visual effects work on the 2013 film Gravity.
听
Digital legacy
鈥淚 also see a lot of actors today who will have the desire to take advantage of this technology: to have their likeness captured and stored for future content,鈥� says Cloyd. 鈥淭hey foresee this being something that could give their estates and give their families the ability to monetise their likeness when they鈥檙e gone.鈥�
A potential pitfall of digitally recreating a deceased celebrity is the risk of damaging their legacy. 鈥淲e have to respect the security and the integrity of rights holders,鈥� says John Canning at Digital Domain, a US firm that created a , which appeared at the Coachella music festival in 2012, 15 years after his death.
Legally, a person鈥檚 rights to control the commercial use of their name and image beyond their death differ between and even within countries.
In certain US states, for example, these rights are treated similarly to property rights, and are transferable to a person鈥檚 heirs. In California, under the Celebrities Rights Act, the personality rights for a celebrity last for 70 years after their death.
鈥淲e鈥檝e got a societal debate going on about access to our public commons, as it were, about famous faces,鈥� says Lilian Edwards at Newcastle University, UK. Should the public be allowed to use or replicate famous likenesses, given how iconic they are? And what is in the best interest of a deceased person鈥檚 legacy may conflict with the desires of their family or the public, says Edwards.
A recreation, however lifelike, will never be indistinguishable from a real actor, says Webber. 鈥淲hen we are bringing someone back, representing someone who is no longer alive on the screen, what we are doing is extremely sophisticated digital make-up,鈥� he says. 鈥淎 performance is a lot more than a physical resemblance.鈥�
As it becomes easier to digitally recreate celebrities and to entirely manufacture on-screen identities, could this kind of technology put actors out of jobs?
鈥淚 think actors are worried about this,鈥� says Edwards. 鈥淏ut I think it will take a very long time.鈥�
This is partly because of the risk that viewers find virtual humans creepy. Edwards cites widespread backlash to the digital recreation of Carrie Fisher as a young Princess Leia in Rogue One, a trick later repeated in the recent Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, which was filmed after Fisher鈥檚 death in 2016. 鈥淧eople didn鈥檛 like it,鈥� she says. 鈥淭hey discovered the uncanny valley.鈥�
This refers to the idea that when objects trying to resemble humans aren鈥檛 quite perfect, they can make viewers feel uneasy because they fall somewhere between obviously non-human and fully human.
鈥淭hat鈥檚 always a danger when you鈥檙e doing anything human or humanoid,鈥� says Webber. 鈥淭here are a thousand things that could go wrong with a computer-generated facial performance, and any one of those could make it fall into the uncanny valley,鈥� he says. 鈥淵our brain just knows there鈥檚 something wrong.鈥�
The problem often arises around the eyes or mouth, says Webber. 鈥淭hey鈥檙e the areas that you look at when you鈥檙e talking to someone.鈥�
An unfamiliar digital human that has been created through CGI will also face the same challenge as an unknown actor: they don鈥檛 have the appeal of an established name.
鈥淵ou have to spend substantial capital in creating awareness around their likeness and making sure people are familiar with who they are,鈥� says Cloyd. This is now starting to happen (see 鈥淚llusory influencers鈥�).
鈥淭he way you pre-sell a movie in a foreign market is based on relevant talent,鈥� he says. 鈥淚 think we鈥檙e a long way away from having virtual beings that have the ability to pre-sell content.鈥�
Webber expects that we will see more digital humans on screen. 鈥淚t鈥檚 happening because it can happen,鈥� he says. Paraphrasing a line from Jurassic Park, he adds: 鈥淧eople are too busy thinking about what they can do to think about whether they should do it.鈥�
Illusory influencers
Virtual celebrities are already a听reality. A handful of digitally created avatars have been used as听vehicles for advertising, with听several of them gaining significant followings as 鈥渧irtual influencers鈥� on social media.
Best known is , a听fictional 19-year-old CGI personality, who has 1.8 million followers on Instagram. She has听appeared in advertising campaigns for luxury brands, been pictured with real celebrities and released several music singles, one of which was promoted on a billboard in New York鈥檚 Times Square. , a start-up based in Los Angeles that is also behind the and personas. As in the image above, the trio are sometimes seen together, and their interactions have included .
British photographer Cameron-James Wilson has also created digital supermodels for fashion brand Balmain, including , who also has her own Instagram account, and Xhi, a Chinese woman reportedly partly modelled on David Bowie.
