Exactly the same reaction happened when Disney developed the first Abraham Lincoln animatronic for the New York World’s Fair in the 1960’s.
Namely how many people alive actually knew the person.
There’s more creepy versions of the same kind of thing using recently dead performers for example.
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.
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.
Is there some story that you've read and might share?
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.
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.
"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.
schlauerfox•9mo ago
givinguflac•9mo ago
schlauerfox•9mo ago
ronsor•9mo ago
stickfigure•9mo ago
bombcar•9mo ago
But at some point personalities and people themselves fade into history, and it becomes a historical figure (such as Lincoln).