Digital Necromancy -
Digital Necromancy is the process of re-creating celebrities digitally, or otherwise bringing dead celebrities "back to life" in today's entertainment. In SIX paragraphs (6-7 sentences per paragraph) explain if you feel that this ability to bring celebrities back to life (digitally) is a good or a bad thing. If you were a celebrity, would you put a clause in your will (as Carrie Fisher did that allows her to be in Star Wars or as Robin Williams did, disallowing any digital use of his image) to allow or protect against you being used in commercials or movies without your consent? What if you died in the 1960s and now your grand-nephew was putting you in beer commercials today? Is it OK, or is it wrong? Should only celebrities alive today (who realize that this technology is possible) be able to participate in this kind of after-death contract, as opposed to those who died over 30 years ago and would not have known to include a clause in their will prohibiting this type of usage of their image? You can bring up any other issues that you can think of on this issue in your writing.
Finally, try to find an example of a dead celebrity selling something today (apart from the ones exampled in the video). It can be just a photograph in an ad, or a moving image like a commercial or one in a movie (like President Kennedy reanimated in the film Forrest Gump). What do you think?
Watch the Time Magazine video "Digital Necromancy: Advertising with Reanimated Celebrities."
The Ethics of Digital Necromancy in Entertainment
The concept of digital necromancy, bringing deceased celebrities back to life through technology, raises complex ethical questions regarding consent, artistic integrity, and the boundaries of posthumous representation. While some may argue that reviving celebrities digitally can immortalize their legacy and allow for new creative possibilities, others view it as a violation of their dignity and autonomy. As technology advances, the line between honoring a celebrity's memory and exploiting their image becomes increasingly blurred.
If I were a celebrity, I would undoubtedly include a clause in my will to protect my likeness from unauthorized digital use posthumously. Just as Carrie Fisher and Robin Williams took measures to control how their images are portrayed after death, I believe that every individual should have the right to dictate how they are depicted in media, even beyond their lifetime. This clause serves as a safeguard against potential misuse or misrepresentation, ensuring that one's legacy is preserved in alignment with their values and wishes.
The question of retroactively applying posthumous contracts to celebrities who passed away before the advent of digital necromancy introduces a challenging dilemma. While contemporary celebrities may have the awareness to address such concerns in their wills, those who died decades ago may not have had the foresight to anticipate this technology. In the case of a grand-nephew using a deceased relative in beer commercials from the 1960s, ethical considerations come into play. While it may be seen as a form of tribute or homage, it can also be perceived as exploiting someone's image without their explicit consent.
Limiting the ability to enter into after-death contracts regarding digital representation to living celebrities raises questions of fairness and equity. Should only those currently alive have agency over how they are portrayed posthumously, while historical figures are subject to potential exploitation? Balancing the rights of deceased celebrities with the evolving landscape of technology requires thoughtful consideration of ethical guidelines and legal protections to ensure that individuals retain control over their image and legacy.
An example of a dead celebrity being used in advertising today is Audrey Hepburn, who was digitally recreated for a Galaxy chocolate commercial in 2013. The advertisement featured Hepburn's likeness through CGI technology, sparking debates about the ethics of using deceased icons in contemporary marketing campaigns. While some view it as a tribute to her timeless elegance, others criticize it as a commodification of her image for commercial gain. This instance underscores the complexities surrounding digital necromancy and the ethical considerations that arise when resurrecting celebrities for modern media purposes.