In 2025, estates, brands, and platforms increasingly monetize a person’s identity after death. Understanding Legal Risks In Posthumous Digital Persona And Likeness Licensing matters because a single misstep can trigger lawsuits, reputational damage, and takedowns across jurisdictions. From deepfake-style recreations to voice cloning and avatar endorsements, the legal terrain is fragmented and fast-changing. Are you licensing a legacy—or inheriting a liability?
Posthumous digital persona licensing: what it includes and why it’s booming
Posthumous digital persona licensing covers commercial uses of a deceased person’s identity in digital form. That identity may include name, image, likeness, voice, signature phrases, distinctive mannerisms, and even a stylized “look and feel” associated with the person. In 2025, the most common licensing scenarios include:
- AI-generated voiceovers for narration, ads, audiobooks, or interactive assistants.
- Photorealistic or stylized avatars used in film, streaming, VR/AR, video games, concerts, and brand campaigns.
- Digital doubles completing unfinished works or appearing in new scenes.
- Social media content that “continues” the person’s account via scheduled posts, memorial modes, or synthetic content.
- Merchandising and endorsements using recognizable visual or vocal cues.
The commercial pull is obvious: established fandom, built-in trust, and scalable content. The legal risk is equally obvious: the more convincing the recreation, the more likely it implicates publicity rights, consumer protection laws, IP rights, privacy, and moral or reputational harms. If you’re advising an estate or a licensee, start by defining precisely what is being licensed (voice, face, mannerisms, name, or “persona” as a whole) and where it will run (territory, channels, and duration). That definition controls nearly every legal analysis that follows.
Right of publicity after death: the core estate-control risk
Right of publicity after death is often the central legal lever in posthumous likeness deals, but it is not uniform. In many places, publicity rights are state-based or jurisdiction-specific. Some jurisdictions recognize postmortem publicity rights for a term of years and allow heirs or assignees to control commercial uses; others provide limited protection or rely on different doctrines.
Key legal risks to plan for:
- Jurisdiction shopping and conflicts of law: A campaign can be produced in one place, hosted in another, and viewed globally. The “right” governing the persona can depend on domicile, place of exploitation, and choice-of-law clauses—yet courts may not follow private choices if local policy is strong.
- Unclear ownership: The estate may assume it controls “the likeness,” but ownership can be split across heirs, trusts, prior assignments, or corporate entities created during the person’s life. If multiple parties have partial claims, a license can be challenged as unauthorized.
- Scope creep: A license granted for a documentary cameo can later be repurposed for advertising, interactive chat, or product endorsement. That shift can trigger new consent requirements and renewed legal exposure.
- False endorsement and consumer confusion: Even if a postmortem publicity claim is uncertain, use of a persona to sell goods can still raise trademark-like false endorsement allegations where consumers may believe the person (or estate) sponsored the product.
Practical takeaway: treat postmortem publicity as a rights clearance project, not a simple contract. Estates should document chain of title, and licensees should demand warranties backed by indemnities and insurance, with clear carve-outs for disputed territories or uses.
AI deepfakes and synthetic media compliance: consent, transparency, and deception
AI deepfakes and synthetic media compliance is where legal exposure is expanding fastest. A digitally resurrected performer can be created from minimal training material, and the output can be hyper-real. That realism creates three recurring legal hazards: unauthorized identity use, deceptive marketing, and platform enforcement.
Where the biggest problems arise:
- Consent and authorization gaps: A studio may have archival footage rights but not rights to generate new performances. Similarly, “stock” voice clips rarely include consent for synthetic voice training or new scripted speech.
- Disclosure obligations: Certain jurisdictions and platforms increasingly expect transparency when content is materially altered or AI-generated. Even when not strictly required, disclosure can reduce consumer deception risk and help defend against unfair practices claims.
- Defamation and reputational harm: If the synthetic performance makes the deceased appear to say or do something controversial, estates (and sometimes family members) may allege reputational torts, emotional distress, or related claims depending on local law.
- Biometric and privacy-adjacent laws: Some laws regulate biometric identifiers such as voiceprints or facial geometry. Even if a deceased person’s privacy rights are limited, the process of collecting or using biometric-like data can create compliance duties for the company performing the processing.
To reduce risk, build a compliance record: document data sources, training permissions, model constraints, and review processes; implement a release checklist that includes synthetic media labeling decisions; and maintain an internal audit trail showing that the likeness is used only within the licensed scope. This “paper trail” can be decisive when disputes turn on what was permitted versus what was merely technically possible.
Estate rights management and chain-of-title: contracts that actually hold up
Estate rights management succeeds when it anticipates litigation. The most expensive disputes arise from vague grants, missing rights, or unclear authority. A defensible program starts with chain-of-title due diligence and ends with enforceable contract controls.
Contract issues to address directly:
- Authority to license: Confirm whether the signer is an executor, trustee, corporate rights-holder, or authorized agent. Require documentary proof and specify what happens if authority is later challenged.
- Defined “persona” bundle: Spell out which attributes are included: name, image, voice, signature, catchphrases, gestures, wardrobe, tattoos, and recognizable settings. If the deal includes AI generation, state whether it covers new speech and new performances.
- Use cases and channels: Advertising, entertainment, interactive bots, live events, and merchandising carry different risk profiles. State what is allowed, what is prohibited, and what requires pre-approval.
- Term, territory, and media: Don’t rely on “in perpetuity, worldwide, in all media now known or later developed” without considering backlash and enforceability. A narrower grant with renewal options can lower legal and reputational risk.
- Approvals and creative controls: Require estate review for scripts, product categories, political or sensitive topics, and any “out-of-character” depiction. Add objective standards (e.g., “materially derogatory” definitions) to avoid endless disputes.
- Compensation and audit rights: Address royalties for re-use, derivative works, and new AI outputs; include reporting cadence and audit mechanisms.
- Indemnities and insurance: Allocate responsibility for third-party claims (music, footage, trademarks, guild issues, data rights). Require errors and omissions coverage appropriate to the distribution model.
Answering a common follow-up question: Can a “life” contract signed by the person cover posthumous AI uses? Sometimes—but only if the language clearly includes the relevant technologies and the specific identity attributes being exploited. If the contract predates synthetic performance realities, ambiguity is likely, and ambiguity is where lawsuits thrive.
Intellectual property and platform rules: copyright, trademarks, and takedown dynamics
Copyright and trademark issues often decide whether content can stay online, even when publicity rights are licensed. Posthumous persona projects combine multiple layers of protected material: photographs, films, sound recordings, compositions, logos, and trade dress. Clearing “likeness” alone is not enough.
Common IP pitfalls:
- Copyright in source materials: Archival photos, interviews, film clips, and recordings used to build or promote the digital persona may require separate licenses. Ownership can be fragmented among studios, photographers, labels, and publishers.
- Copyright in the output: Who owns the AI-generated performance or avatar animation? Agreements should specify ownership, permitted derivatives, and whether the estate can reuse assets with other partners.
- Trademark and false endorsement: Using the person’s name or signature as a brand identifier can implicate trademark law. If the estate owns registered marks, the license must address quality control to avoid weakening rights.
- Platform policies and rapid enforcement: In 2025, major platforms deploy detection tools and complaint workflows for manipulated media and impersonation. Even lawful content can be temporarily removed if documentation is not ready. Your release package should include proof of rights, disclosure decisions, and a designated escalation contact.
Best practice: build a “rights dossier” for every deployment—what was licensed, from whom, for which territories, and how long. When a takedown notice or brand safety challenge hits, speed and documentation determine whether the campaign survives.
Cross-border enforcement, ethics, and reputational risk: legal permission isn’t the finish line
Cross-border legal risks arise because digital distribution ignores borders while identity rights do not. A depiction acceptable in one jurisdiction may be prohibited or actionable in another. Additionally, ethical backlash can trigger contract terminations, sponsor exits, and platform restrictions even when the use is technically lawful.
Key risk drivers:
- Conflicting local rules: Publicity, consumer protection, and AI disclosure rules differ across jurisdictions. Consider geo-fencing for ads, localized disclosures, and separate rights analyses for high-risk markets.
- Sensitive categories: Alcohol, gambling, political messaging, health claims, and financial products raise heightened scrutiny. If the deceased never endorsed such products in life, the ethical risk multiplies.
- Family disputes and moral objections: Even where one rights-holder can sign, other relatives may contest the portrayal in court or in the press. That pressure can become a material business risk.
- Audience trust and authenticity: Consumer perception matters. If the public believes the recreation is deceptive, you can face complaints, regulator interest, and sponsor flight regardless of legal footing.
A strong program uses a “permission plus” approach: legal clearance, transparent communication, and creative restraint. Ask the question decision-makers often avoid: Would a reasonable audience feel misled about endorsement or intent? If the answer is yes, redesign the execution before launch.
FAQs: Posthumous digital persona and likeness licensing
Is it legal to use a deceased person’s likeness in advertising if the estate agrees?
Often yes, but the agreement is only one layer. You still must clear related IP (photos, recordings, trademarks), comply with consumer protection and synthetic media rules, and confirm the estate actually has authority for the relevant territories and uses.
Do publicity rights automatically transfer to heirs?
Not automatically in every jurisdiction. Transferability and duration vary. Some places treat postmortem publicity as a property right that can be inherited or assigned; others limit or do not recognize it. A chain-of-title review is essential.
Can we create an AI voice or avatar from public interviews or social media clips?
Public availability does not equal permission. Training and generating new speech can trigger publicity, biometric, and unfair practices concerns, and it may violate platform policies. Obtain explicit rights and document permitted data sources and outputs.
What disclosures should we provide for an AI-generated performance?
Disclosures depend on jurisdiction, platform, and context. As a risk-reduction baseline in 2025, consider clear labeling when AI materially creates or alters the performance, especially in ads, political content, or anything that could imply a real endorsement.
How do we prevent “scope creep” in a multi-channel campaign?
Use a license with tightly defined use cases, pre-approval triggers, and a change-order process for new channels or product categories. Maintain an asset registry so teams cannot repurpose files outside the licensed scope.
Who owns the digital avatar files and trained models?
Ownership is contractual. If you don’t specify it, you risk disputes over reuse, sequels, and competing campaigns. Address ownership, derivative rights, security controls, and what happens upon termination.
What is the single biggest risk factor in posthumous likeness deals?
Unclear authority paired with broad, undefined rights grants. When ownership, scope, and approvals aren’t explicit, the project becomes vulnerable to lawsuits, injunctions, and emergency takedowns.
Posthumous persona licensing can unlock meaningful value, but only when rights, technology, and audience expectations align. In 2025, the safest approach pairs rigorous chain-of-title diligence with precise contracts, AI-specific permissions, and practical disclosure and review controls. Treat each deployment as a compliance event, not a creative afterthought. Protect the legacy first, and the revenue will follow.