The emergence of AI-powered platforms capable of reconstructing the voice, image, and interactive behavior of deceased individuals has generated a significant and largely unresolved legal problem: the posthumous identity market operates in a regulatory vacuum, exploiting a structural gap between the living-person architecture of personality rights doctrine and the commercial logic of an industry that treats death as a business opportunity. This article examines that gap through three lenses. First, it maps the posthumous identity market and the contractual architecture through which platforms claim rights over reconstructed identities. Second, it analyzes the foundational paradox of personality rights doctrine as applied to the deceased under Brazilian law, including the LGPD’s categorical withdrawal from posthumous data and the testament’s inadequacy as a universal governance instrument. Third, it examines three comparative models, the French moral approach (dignity without commerce), the German hybrid framework (dignity meets the market), and the Californian property model (publicity without limits), identifying the design choices each embeds and the lessons each offers for the Brazilian reform process. Drawing on the Civil Code reform commission’s proposals and the emerging ethics literature on digital duplicates, the article proposes a framework of four principles, ante-mortem autonomy, integrity of the posthumous persona, bounded succession, and platform accountability, as the minimum basis for any adequate regulatory response.
References
[1]
Autoridade Nacional de Proteção de Dados (2023). Notatécnicanº3/2023(CGF/ANPD). ANPD.
[2]
Bigot, C. (1995). La protection de l’image des personnes et les droits des héritiers. LEGICOM,10, 28-35. https://doi.org/10.3917/legi.010.0028
[3]
Birnhack, M., & Morse, T. (2022). Digital Remains: Property or Privacy? InternationalJournalofLawandInformationTechnology,30, 280-301. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eaac019
[4]
Buben, A. (2025). Beyond Grief: The Raison D’être of Interactive Personality Constructs of the Dead. PhenomenologyandtheCognitiveSciences, 26, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-025-10076-5
[5]
Congressional Research Service (2024). Artificial Intelligence Prompts Renewed Consideration ofa Federal Right of Publicity (ReportNo.LSB11052). Library of Congress. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11052
[6]
Coors, C. (2014). Celebrity Image Rights versus Public Interest: Striking the Right Balance under German Law. JournalofIntellectualPropertyLaw&Practice,9, 835-840. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpu164
[7]
France (2016). Loin°2016-1321du7octobre2016pouruneRépubliqueNumérique. Journal Officiel de la République Française.
[8]
Harbinja, E. (2017). Post-Mortem Privacy 2.0: Theory, Law, and Technology. InternationalReviewofLaw,Computers&Technology,31, 26-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2017.1275116
[9]
Heugas, A. C. (2021). Protecting Image Rights in the Face of Digitalization: A United States and European Analysis. TheJournalofWorldIntellectualProperty,24, 344-367. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12194
[10]
Hofstra Journal of International Business & Law (2024). Fromthe Spotlight tothe Afterlife:Legal Challenges of Posthumous Artist and Celebrity Rights. https://www.hofstrajibl.org/2024/12/from-the-spotlight-to-the-afterlife-legal-challenges-of-posthumous-artist-and-celebrity-rights/
[11]
Hollanek, T., & Nowaczyk-Basińska, K. (2024). Griefbots, Deadbots, Postmortem Avatars: On Responsible Applications of Generative AI in the Digital Afterlife Industry. Philosophy&Technology,37, Article No. 63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-024-00744-w
[12]
Hurshman, C. et al. (2025). Beyond Deepfakes:“Digital Duplicates”orAI Simulations of Real People—An International Ethical Consensus. SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=5730202
[13]
Leonardi, F. S. P. (2010). Tutelacivildavozhumana. Master’s Thesis, Universidade de São Paulo.
[14]
Logeais, E., & Schroeder, J.-B. (1998). The French Right of Image: An Ambiguous Concept Protecting the Human Persona. LoyolaofLosAngelesEntertainmentLawJournal,18, 511-542.
[15]
MacKenzie, C., & Stoljar, N. (2000). Relational Autonomy.Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, Agency,andthe Social Self. Oxford University Press.
[16]
Podosky, P. C. (2025). Grief-Bots and Affective Paternalism: A Case against Restriction. PhenomenologyandtheCognitiveSciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-025-10092-5
[17]
Rösler, H. (2008). Dignitarian Posthumous Personality Rights: An Analysis of U.S. and German Constitutional and Tort Law. BerkeleyJournalofInternationalLaw,26, 153-205.
[18]
Rothman, J. E., & Allen, A. L. (2025). ReintroducedNoFAKESAct Still Needs Revision. The Regulatory Review. https://www.theregreview.org/2025/08/18/rothman-reintroduced-no-fakes-act-still-needs-revision/
[19]
Salgado, R. S. (2025). Réplica DigitalAudiovisualeaEternidadeAparentedosAtributosdaPersonalidade. Master’s Thesis, Fundação Getulio Vargas, Escola de Direito de São Paulo.
[20]
Schreiber, A. (2013). Direitosdapersonalidade (2nd ed.). Atlas.
[21]
Solove, D. J. (2004). The Digital Person:Technologyand Privacy inthe Information Age. New York University Press.
[22]
Young, I. M. (1990). Justiceandthe Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press.