While I carry no celebrity, it would matter to me if my name and image were exploited in a way that was against my values.
One of the things that supposedly sets us apart from “animals” is that we have respect for and bury our dead. I’d say that foundations, organizations or “estates” that need to exploit the persons image for financial reasons fail to meet this test.
So I personally do think it matters that his name and image would be used to sell smartphones.
I realize the production company has a good sized staff, a board and ambitions to carry on their mission.
But paying for it this way looks cheap and like they aren’t really trying.
Given the weight and voice of this brand I suspect they could have earned just as much through some kind of crowdfund.
I think it is a bad sign of things to come w regard to the use of me Rogers content, unfortunately.
This taps into a bigger question about the use of a dead persons name and image to make money.
This came up when Kurt Cobain was made to sing any song on Rock Band a few years ago: https://www.alistdaily.com/media/bon-jovi-weighs-in-on-cobai...
While I carry no celebrity, it would matter to me if my name and image were exploited in a way that was against my values.
One of the things that supposedly sets us apart from “animals” is that we have respect for and bury our dead. I’d say that foundations, organizations or “estates” that need to exploit the persons image for financial reasons fail to meet this test.