Who Owns the Voice of the Dead? AI Resurrections, Publicity Rights, and Legal Gaps

📌 TL;DR — As AI recreates the likeness and voice of the dead, the legal question is no longer “Can we?” but “Should we — and who decides?”

From sentimental videos of a parent speaking again to eerily lifelike chatbots mimicking celebrities, AI-powered recreations of the deceased are no longer science fiction. But alongside the emotional awe comes a legal and ethical fog:

• Can AI use someone’s face, voice, or personality after they die?
• Does the deceased have any rights left?
• What if the AI says something false or damaging — who is held accountable?

This article breaks down the emerging legal debate around postmortem publicity rights, AI-generated personas, and the growing need for digital consent frameworks.

👤 What Is “AI Resurrection”?

Also known as deadbots or digital resurrections, this refers to AI technologies that simulate the personalities of deceased individuals using:

• Audio and video archives
• Writing or chat logs
• Public data (interviews, social media, etc.)

These tools can recreate someone’s voice, expressions, mannerisms — and even generate responses “in their style.”

🧪 Why It’s Trending Now

Recent real-world examples include:

• Alexis Ohanian (Reddit co-founder) recreating his late mother through an animated AI video
• “Talking gravestones” or AI-enhanced memorials growing in Japan and South Korea
• Increasing use of AI voice synthesis to simulate deceased performers

But the backlash has been just as intense:

“She would never say that.”
“This feels like emotional manipulation.”
“Did anyone get permission from the deceased?”

These reactions aren’t just emotional — they point to a legal vacuum.

⚖️ What the Law Currently Says (or Doesn’t)

🔹 In Most Countries (including Japan and many U.S. states):

• Defamation and privacy laws only apply to living individuals
• Once someone dies, their reputation and likeness often lose direct legal protection
• Families can sometimes sue for emotional distress, but not on behalf of the deceased’s own reputation

This means that:

• If an AI “version” of your late grandfather starts saying false things…
• …no clear legal structure prevents it.

🧑‍⚖️ Enter: The “Postmortem Right of Publicity”

This is a proposed extension of existing publicity rights — the right to control the commercial use of one’s name, image, voice, and likeness.

🔸 What Experts Are Arguing:

🧠 Professor Jennifer Rothman (Loyola Law School)

• Suggests publicity rights should survive death
• Calls for laws allowing families to demand removal, correction, or preemptive limits on how AI uses the deceased’s data
• Recommends viewing postmortem rights as hybrid legal tools: part property, part personality

📚 S.L. Klein (Hofstra Law Review)

• Proposes a structured framework:
  • Time limits (e.g., protection for 50 years after death)
  • Allowing heirs or designated persons to approve/deny AI usage
  • Mandatory disclosure when AI is simulating a deceased person
  • Possible royalties or compensation mechanisms

🧩 Key idea: “Recreating someone’s personality is not just artistic expression — it’s the use of a deeply personal asset.”

💥 What Could Go Wrong? Real Risks of AI Recreating the Dead

While AI resurrection can seem touching or poetic, the legal and reputational risks are substantial — especially when simulations speak publicly or interactively.

⚠️ Scenario 1: False Statements or Defamation

• An AI clone of a deceased figure says, “I hated my son.”
• It claims the person had affairs, illegal behavior, or political stances they never actually held.
• These statements are broadcast on social media, triggering reputational fallout for the family or estate.

→ The public might not know it’s AI.
→ The damage to reputation becomes real — even if the person is no longer alive.

⚠️ Scenario 2: Manipulated Legacy

• The AI expresses views the person never held, or even opposed.
• A company or platform uses the AI’s persona to endorse products, causes, or ideologies.
• This creates a “false version” of the deceased that lives on, unchallenged.

As Professor Rothman warns:

“Even dead people have interests in how they are remembered. That memory can be manipulated.”

🧭 So… Who Is Liable?

Here’s where the legal fog thickens. Responsibility may fall on:

In practice, there’s no consistent framework — most cases would become complex civil disputes.

🛠️ What Legal Fixes Are Being Proposed?

Based on academic and legal proposals, these are the leading suggestions:

✅ 1. Digital Wills

• Individuals could specify whether and how they can be recreated posthumously
• Include limits on voice, image, and interactive use
• Potentially linked to national ID or data systems

✅ 2. Mandatory Disclosure

• AI simulations of the deceased must include a visible label or disclaimer
  • e.g., “This is an AI-generated likeness based on publicly available data”
• Helps prevent confusion or manipulation

✅ 3. Designated Rights Holders

• Similar to music or literary estates, authorized family or agents could:
  • Approve or reject use
  • Request corrections or takedowns
  • Set time-limited permissions (e.g., “no use until 10 years after death”)

✅ 4. Time Limits (Sunset Clauses)

• Publicity rights might last 50–70 years post-death, depending on the jurisdiction
• After that, persona may enter public domain (with limits)

🧠 Final Thought: You Can Simulate a Voice — But Not a Life

AI gives us the illusion of bringing someone back.
But there’s a difference between remembering a person and reconstructing them without consent.

When an AI speaks in someone’s voice:

• Is it them?
• Or is it just a collection of patterns, curated for effect?

That’s why legal frameworks matter:
Not to stop us from grieving, but to protect the dignity of memory — and the limits of simulation.

✅ Summary: Key Takeaways

• Current laws don’t clearly protect the deceased’s voice or likeness from AI misuse
• Experts propose a new layer of rights: postmortem publicity rights
• Tools like digital wills, disclosure rules, and designated heirs could become standard
• The line between simulation and exploitation will define future AI ethics and media law

🔗 Sources

• Rothman, J.E. Postmortem Publicity Rights at the Property–Personality Interface (SSRN)
• Klein, S.L. The Post-Mortem Right of Publicity (Hofstra Law Review)
• The Guardian: Digital recreations of dead people need urgent regulation (The Guardian)