全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

Who Owns the Dead? Digital Replicas, Posthumous Personality Rights, and the Search for a Regulatory Framework

DOI: 10.4236/blr.2026.172021, PP. 368-401

Keywords: Posthumous Personality Rights, Digital Avatars, Digital Replicas, Ante-Mortem Autonomy, Right of Publicity, Brazilian Civil Code Reform, Platform Accountability, AI Governance, Data Protection, Personality Rights Doctrine

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

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). Nota técnica nº 3/2023 (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? International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 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. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 26, 1-10.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-025-10076-5
[5]  Congressional Research Service (2024). Artificial Intelligence Prompts Renewed Consideration of a Federal Right of Publicity (Report No. 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. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 9, 835-840.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpu164
[7]  France (2016). Loi n° 2016-1321 du 7 octobre 2016 pour une République Numérique. Journal Officiel de la République Française.
[8]  Harbinja, E. (2017). Post-Mortem Privacy 2.0: Theory, Law, and Technology. International Review of Law, 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. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 24, 344-367.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12194
[10]  Hofstra Journal of International Business & Law (2024). From the Spotlight to the 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” or AI Simulations of Real People—An International Ethical Consensus. SSRN.
https://ssrn.com/abstract=5730202
[13]  Leonardi, F. S. P. (2010). Tutela civil da voz humana. 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. Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Journal, 18, 511-542.
[15]  MacKenzie, C., & Stoljar, N. (2000). Relational Autonomy. Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, Agency, and the Social Self. Oxford University Press.
[16]  Podosky, P. C. (2025). Grief-Bots and Affective Paternalism: A Case against Restriction. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences.
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. Berkeley Journal of International Law, 26, 153-205.
[18]  Rothman, J. E., & Allen, A. L. (2025). Reintroduced No FAKES Act 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 Digital Audiovisual e a Eternidade Aparente dos Atributos da Personalidade. Master’s Thesis, Fundação Getulio Vargas, Escola de Direito de São Paulo.
[20]  Schreiber, A. (2013). Direitos da personalidade (2nd ed.). Atlas.
[21]  Solove, D. J. (2004). The Digital Person: Technology and Privacy in the Information Age. New York University Press.
[22]  Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press.

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133