Intellectual Property Rights and the AI Reproduction of Deceased Artists’ Voices and Likenesses

Introduction

Advances in artificial intelligence have made it possible to digitally “resurrect” deceased artists, reproducing their voices, appearances, and artistic styles. From AI-generated songs imitating Elvis Presley to holographic performances of Tupac Shakur, technology blurs the boundary between homage and exploitation. While these practices fascinate audiences and generate new commercial opportunities, they raise complex intellectual property (IP) and ethical questions. Who controls a dead artist’s image and voice? How do copyright, trademark, and publicity rights apply in the age of AI?

This article explores the legal landscape surrounding the AI reproduction of deceased artists, focusing on copyright, post-mortem publicity rights, moral rights, and emerging regulatory debates.

Copyright Considerations

Copyright protects original works of authorship, including music, visual art, and performances. However, AI reproductions of an artist’s voice or image typically do not involve direct use of the copyrighted works themselves but instead generate new content that imitates style or likeness.

Key issues include:

  • Derivative Works: If an AI model is trained on copyrighted material (songs, films, paintings), the output may qualify as a derivative work, requiring authorization from the copyright holder.
  • Training Data: Using copyrighted recordings to train AI raises questions of infringement, especially in jurisdictions where fair use or text-and-data mining exceptions are narrowly defined.
  • Expiration of Copyright: Once an artist’s works enter the public domain, reproduction of their songs or images may be lawful, but AI “re-performances” can still implicate other rights.

Publicity Rights and Post-Mortem Control

The right of publicity (or “personality rights”) protects individuals against unauthorized commercial use of their name, likeness, or voice. In the U.S., this right varies by state, with some extending protection after death (e.g., California grants 70 years of post-mortem publicity rights).

  • The Tupac hologram at Coachella (2012) was legally authorized by his estate, illustrating how heirs can control post-mortem exploitation.
  • If AI reproduces the voice of Freddie Mercury or Whitney Houston without estate approval, it could infringe publicity rights.
  • In jurisdictions lacking strong personality rights (e.g., some EU states), heirs may struggle to prevent unauthorized AI-generated reproductions.

Moral Rights

In civil law jurisdictions (France, Germany, etc.), moral rights protect the integrity and attribution of a creator’s work—even after death. AI-generated imitations could violate moral rights if they distort or misrepresent the artist’s legacy. For example, generating offensive lyrics in the style of a deceased singer might harm the artist’s reputation.

Trademarks and Branding

Famous artists often have trademarked names, logos, or stage identities. AI reproductions using those trademarks without authorization may constitute infringement. For instance, marketing an AI-generated “Michael Jackson concert” could mislead consumers into believing it is estate-endorsed.

Ethical and Cultural Dimensions

Beyond legal frameworks, AI resurrection raises ethical questions:

  • Consent: Can a deceased artist consent posthumously? Should estates be able to override the presumed wishes of the artist?
  • Exploitation vs. Tribute: Is AI-generated art a respectful homage or a commercial exploitation of the dead?
  • Cultural Authenticity: Fans may accept or reject AI reproductions depending on perceived authenticity and respect for legacy.

Emerging Legal Responses

  • EU AI Act (proposed): May regulate transparency in AI-generated content, requiring disclosure that a performance is synthetic.
  • U.S. Legislative Proposals: Some states are considering stronger protections against deepfakes and unauthorized AI likeness reproductions.
  • Industry Practices: Music labels increasingly require “AI clauses” in contracts, reserving rights over an artist’s voice and likeness.

Conclusion

The AI reproduction of deceased artists’ voices and likenesses exposes gaps in traditional IP law. Copyright offers limited protection, while publicity rights and moral rights provide stronger tools but vary by jurisdiction. As technology advances, lawmakers will need to reconcile respect for artistic legacy with innovation and commercial interests.

Ultimately, the question is not only legal but ethical: should technology bring artists back to life, and if so, under whose control? The answer will shape the future of culture, creativity, and memory in the digital age.

Categories:

Yanıt yok

Bir yanıt yazın

E-posta adresiniz yayınlanmayacak. Gerekli alanlar * ile işaretlenmişlerdir

Our Client

We provide a wide range of Turkish legal services to businesses and individuals throughout the world. Our services include comprehensive, updated legal information, professional legal consultation and representation

Our Team

.Our team includes business and trial lawyers experienced in a wide range of legal services across a broad spectrum of industries.

Why Choose Us

We will hold your hand. We will make every effort to ensure that you understand and are comfortable with each step of the legal process.

Open chat
1
Hello Can İ Help you?
Hello
Can i help you?
Call Now Button