More generally, the "likeness" of someone should remain in their control.

I don't thing anybody wants their image used by someone else without their consent. There are already provisions for that in laws for photography in some countries.

I'm thinking specifically about the laws in France where you can't take a picture of someone without their consent. A picture is "of someone" when that someone is clearly a subject on the picture and not background.

Most actor contracts require talent to sell that right if that want to "work on the big franchises".

It could reasonable be limited to the likeness of the actor for the purpose of making this movie, and simultaneous production of documentary, commentary, and publicity, marketing and advertising directly relating to this movie.

If they want your likeness on action figures and other toys, demand extra.

The article is a fluff piece, as it does not even describe the fact that Hollywood contracts already reflect controls of how an actor's likeness is used, and not just visually, but any distinct aspect of that actor is typically managed with contracts. It has been like this for well over 15 years, ever since quality face replacement became common.

I do know significant aspects about this, as I am the author of a global patent on Automated Actor Replacement in Filmed Media. Awarded in 2008. Went bankrupt in 2013 trying to deploy a Personalized Advertising company, and end up selling the patent to stay alive.

Surely there must already exist some legal protections? I seem to recall certain professional (football? basketball?) players successfully suing EA Games over unauthorized use of their likeness.

>Surely there must already exist some legal protections?

Almost certainly, I think there are companies whose entire business is to handle the image of dead celebrities like Marilyn Monroe, but should there be?

An actor or athlete's performance is a creative act, and could reasonably be considered intellectual property, but their appearance is an act of nature. Why should that have any special legal protection?

It was NCAA athletes that sued EA games. (https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/09/ea...)

The distinction is it was NCAA as a whole, acting as a single legal entity. The individual athletes were/are powerless against the wealth EA can throw at their legal team.

>Essentially each player who has appeared in the football and basketball games marketed by EA in the last decade -- approximately 125,000 men -- are eligible for settlement money. (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/ea-sports-se...)

In this case, it was clearly not the NCAA as a whole. The NCAA was against the case because it would mean athletes being paid.

See Ken McLeod's Fall Revolution series for some really thought provoking angles on the ultimate end of this.