ALL QUESTIONS NEED TO BE ANSWERED!!!! ALL QUESTIONS NEED TO BE ANSWERED!!!! ALL QUESTIONS NEED TO BE ANSWERED!!!! ALL QUESTIONS NEED TO BE ANSWERED!!!! ALL QUESTIONS NEED TO BE ANSWERED!!!! ALL QUESTI

ALL QUESTIONS NEED TO BE ANSWERED!!!!

NO CITATIONS OR QUOTATIONS!

need discussion and student responses done plus student replies(opinion based.) 2-3 sentences long.

assignment

no plagiarism or citations

********************Discussion Post*****************

Need this Discussion post done 10/24 at 6 pm.

Answer the questions posted in the discussion description related to Case Number 8-A Remember My Fame: Digital Necromancy and the Immortal Celebrity.

In 1984, California passed the Celebrity Rights Act, which protected the right of the deceased celebrity up to 50 years after his or her death (Petty and D’Rozario 2009). Should the use of these sorts of images and CG be legally constrained? Is there a difference in using this technology to complete a story in a film, or using it for advertising?

Page 157 on the pdf

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Student replies

All peoples rights should be protected, celebrity or not. The use of CG and these sorts of images should be constrained to a certain degree. These businessmen who decide to target celebrities life rights, and pursue to make a profit off of them do it solely for that purpose. For example, yesterday famous entrepreneur, artist, and actor Ray J bought legendary Death Row mogul Suge Knights life rights. He plans to do a series or a biographical movie. This seemed more like a nod of respect, than an attempt to make money. He wanted his story out there, and Ray J definitely has the means and funds to make this come true. But even then there will be major profit to be made. In my opinion this makes the difference between using them in a story to complete a film or using them for advertising. When you use these methods for advertising it is largely for profit. These major companies compete for many deceased celebrities all the time because they know that’s where the moneys at. Now for instance in a story or film, the individual may want their story told the right way and maybe not even the right way but their way so they will agree to let these producers proceed with their business.

Yes they need to be legally constrained. Celebrities are just like us, more people just know who they are. They have family and friends of their own. They have feelings as well. Just because they are in the public eye doesn't mean that they can be subject to exposure where "normal" people do not have to. I think there is not a difference for completing a story in a film or using it for advertising.

These sorts of images should not be constrained because deceased celebrities do not need protecting. There is always going to be that point in time where magazine companies will want to put the picture of a deceased celebrity on a magazine cover. There is no difference because that type of technology is used in film and advertising. That type of technology helps film and advertising build a bigger audience.

-------------------------------------------

Assignment

Instructions

Now go back and look at the "front page" stories of each organization CNN, FOX, MSNBC.

Based on the stories you found on each news site:

1. What do you notice/stands out to you about the differences between the three sites?

2. Do you see any indication of the political ideology differences in the presentation of stories?

3. Do political stories in each website "feel" different to you? Explain, if not, explain that too.

(about 300 words)