To me it does because his actions while alive clearly establish a consistent pattern of behavior which indicates he would not have any issue with the company he founded and dedicated most of his life to using his likeness to honor him (while also making money). As far as we know, he didn't sign an explicit license for use of his likeness. Although he may have, like for those memorabilia framed/signed photo sales), but either way he certainly established an implicit license by creating and supporting products for Disney using his likeness while alive. Under common law, often voluntarily acting on something repeatedly and consistently tends to establish intent in the absence of a written contract.

If it existed, would such an explicit license extend to derivative usages like this? Probably not legally but I think ethically it does sharply reduce the likelihood Disney is acting against what Walt would have wanted.