MetaChat is an informal place for MeFites to touch base and post, discuss and
chatter about topics that may not belong on MetaFilter. Questions? Check the FAQ. Please note: This is important.
As long as the guy got paid and will loose no future income (I can 99% promise you there are no residuals for a museum video gig) - the owners of the museum (that which seems crazy to me, but beside the point) can do what they want. In fact, they are giving him free publicity. If money was an issue, that'd be a different story - they guy should get paid for his work. As long as he did, they don't have to show it for whatever reason, they own it.
I thought the same thing, rainbaby- I'm glad it probably won't hurt him, since as he said on his site, he was paid to act in a project, not be a spokesman for the museum.
This reminds me of when a lot of Christian-contemporary radio stations decided to stop airing Sandi Patty songs when it came out that she'd had an affair with the guy who wound up being her second husband. Unfortunate, especially in light of Christianity's emphasis on forgiveness (or at least the version of Christianity I'm familiar with). If these folks had half a clue, they'd realize that few people will know what else the actor did besides that brief Adam gig, and moreover they'd probably manage not to conflate an actor with a particular role. But that's asking a lot of the kinds of folks who insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible.