zlacker

> The solution is not to create a fictional avatar that "borrows" the non-consenting person's visual appearance.

That's exactly what was done when Jeffrey Weissman replaced Crispin Glover in Back to the Future Part II.

>>timsch+(OP)
First time I hear about it, but reading about it, it seems that specific case actually changed the typical terms for actors to prevent similar issues?

> Rather than write George out of the film, Zemeckis used previously filmed footage of Glover from the first film as well as new footage of actor Jeffrey Weissman, who wore prosthetics including a false chin, nose, and cheekbones to resemble Glover. [...]

> Unhappy with this, Glover filed a lawsuit against the producers of the film on the grounds that they neither owned his likeness nor had permission to use it. As a result of the suit, there are now clauses in the Screen Actors Guild collective bargaining agreements stating that producers and actors are not allowed to use such methods to reproduce the likeness of other actors.[

> Glover's legal action, while resolved outside of the courts, has been considered as a key case in personality rights for actors with increasing use of improved special effects and digital techniques, in which actors may have agreed to appear in one part of a production but have their likenesses be used in another without their agreement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_the_Future_Part_II#Rep...