Recently I read an article about how researchers from tech firms CereProc and ROTHCO and the Times of London collaborated to recreate a speech by John F. Kennedy that he never made. The speech was the speech he would have given at the Dallas Trade Mart on the day that he was assassinated on November 22, 1963 and entirely created using artificial intelligence.
55 years after he was killed, JFK gives his final speech https://t.co/zjKYu2rKaT pic.twitter.com/9k4TFVE00z
— The Times and The Sunday Times (@thetimes) March 16, 2018
(note: to watch the full video you will need to make an account on the Timesoflondon.co.uk)
According to the article, ROTHCO and CereProc used old recordings from JFK’s speeches to build a database of the best quality sound bites cross-referenced with written speeches which an algorithm then stitched together words in away that was reminiscent of his oratorical style. Over two months, the algorithm “learned” JFK’s verbal tics and quirks and was able to successfully replicate the 21 minute speech in full.
As holograms, face-mapping and machine learning increasingly become more popular as a method of bringing back the deceased, this raises ethical implications around the rights of publicity. In the weeks leading up to the 2018 Super Bowl, there were rumors that Justin Timberlake planned to use a hologram of Prince in his tribute to the late artist. While the rumors proved to be untrue, it sparked a backlash since Prince himself referred to the technology as “demonic” and his ex-fiancee claimed he would have never agreed. In this same vein, Dr. Dre and Snoop Dogg performed with a hologram of the late Tupac at Coachella in 2012 which more or less “broke the internet”:
But, the question remains: is it ethical to use these recreations for marketing purposes? Legally speaking, only some states have laws around rights of publicity (i.e. owning the rights to your likeness) and even fewer states have laws that extend posthumously. California does but in order to benefit from those rights you have to be a legal resident there at the time of death. Marilyn Monroe’s estate tried to claim she was a CA resident when she died but a court ruled she lived in New York and thus her image is now unprotected and widely used. Relatedly, Carrie Fisher will be edited into the next Star Wars movie following her sudden death in December 2016 (however this one is with her permission).
Of course, as the recreation technology gets better, marketers are starting to take notice. Paul Muratore, CEO of Talent Partners, a talent and production support services firm, estimates that the marketing, licensing and commercial around the use of dead celebrities is already a $3 billion enterprise. It’s not as easy as it sounds, though. The agency has to track down the person authorized to negotiate, several layers of rights have to be cleared, licensing fees get very expensive very quickly and if you go wrong somewhere in the process, you could open yourself up to a lawsuit or even worse: Internet scorn. We have already seen the backlash that resulted when Dodge used a Martin Luther King Jr. speech in their Super Bowl commercial this year. If fans don’t believe the artist would have endorsed the product or agreed to be a part of the brand when alive, they may feel the ad is offensive.
As marketers, it is incumbent on us to proceed with caution when looking to use dead celebrities in our ads. There are times when it makes sense and is appropriate and times where it definitely is not.
References
Ehrenkramz, M. (2018, March 16). When You Can Make ‘JFK’ Say Anything, What’s Stopping Him From Selling Doritos?. Gizmodo. Retrieved from www.gizmodo.com
Muratore, P. (2014, April 2). Ad People, Don’t Get Stiffed by Dead Celebrities. AdAge. Retrieved from www.adage.com
Rogan, A. (2018, March 15). JFK video: Hear Kennedy’s ‘lost’ Dallas speech in his own voice. The Times. Retrieved from www.thetimes.co.uk
4 Responses to Didn’t he die….?: Ethical Issues Around Dead Celebrity Likenesses