Understanding Legal Risks In Posthumous Digital Likeness Licensing is now essential as estates, studios, and brands use AI to recreate performers, influencers, and public figures. In 2025, the law is evolving faster than standard production workflows, and one mistake can trigger lawsuits, takedowns, or reputational damage. This guide explains the core legal issues, practical safeguards, and contract terms that reduce exposure—before your next deal goes live.
Posthumous digital likeness licensing: what it is and why it’s expanding
Posthumous digital likeness licensing is the granting of rights—typically by an estate or authorized representative—to use a deceased person’s identity in a new or expanded way. That identity can include a face scan, voice model, body motion, name, signature, catchphrases, distinctive wardrobe, or even a style strongly associated with the person.
In practice, the “asset” being licensed is often a bundle of rights and materials:
- Underlying materials (archival footage, photos, recordings, scans, interviews, scripts).
- Newly created outputs (AI-generated voice lines, de-aged imagery, synthetic performances, virtual avatars).
- Associated rights (right of publicity/personality rights, trademarks, copyright interests, privacy-related claims, and contract-based approvals).
It’s expanding because modern tools can produce convincing outputs at lower cost and with shorter timelines. That convenience increases the risk of using the wrong permissions, relying on informal family approvals, or assuming that “fair use” or a broad archival license covers synthetic re-performances. The legal analysis changes depending on where the content is distributed, how realistic the depiction is, and whether the project implies endorsement.
Right of publicity and personality rights: the core legal risk
The right of publicity (also called personality rights in many jurisdictions) is usually the central legal risk in posthumous licensing. It covers commercial use of a person’s identity—commonly their name, image, likeness, voice, and sometimes distinctive gestures or other indicia of identity.
Key issues decision-makers need to resolve early:
- Does the right survive death? In some jurisdictions it does, in others it is limited or unclear. Your distribution footprint matters.
- Who owns or controls the right? It may be the estate, heirs, a trust, or a company created to manage licensing. Competing claimants can appear, especially with older celebrities or complex family structures.
- What counts as “commercial”? Advertising and merchandising are obvious. But entertainment projects can also be “commercial” if they trade on identity for profit, particularly in promotional materials.
- Is the depiction transformative? Some legal tests weigh whether a new work adds significant creative expression versus merely replicating a person for commercial value.
Practical takeaway: treat posthumous likeness clearance as a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction question. A license that is sufficient for one market may be inadequate in another, and global streaming distribution amplifies that mismatch. Build a clearance memo that identifies where you will exploit the work, which laws apply, and which rights holders must sign.
Also manage the endorsement angle. Even with a license, advertising claims that imply the deceased “supports” a product can raise unfair competition, false endorsement, or consumer protection issues. Align the creative, marketing copy, and approvals process so that the license scope and promotional use are consistent.
Estate authority and chain of title: proving you have the right licensor
Many disputes in digital likeness contracts are not about whether rights exist—they’re about who can grant them. A brand may negotiate with a family member who appears authoritative, only to learn later that the actual authority sits with a trustee, a court-appointed personal representative, or a corporate rights vehicle.
To reduce chain-of-title risk, require these diligence items before signing or paying:
- Proof of authority: letters testamentary/administration, trustee certificates, or other documentation demonstrating power to license.
- Ownership map: a schedule listing each category of rights and who controls it (publicity, trademark, copyright in recordings, moral rights where relevant).
- Prior grants: prior endorsements, exclusivity deals, management agreements, and guild or studio contracts that might restrict new uses.
- Third-party materials clearance: photographers, labels, studios, and archives may own the recordings or images used to train or generate outputs.
Chain of title also affects insurance. Errors & omissions carriers and financiers increasingly expect detailed documentation when a project includes synthetic performances. If your licensor cannot demonstrate authority, you may face delayed release, higher premiums, exclusions, or denial of coverage.
Follow-up question you’ll get internally: “If the estate approves, why do we still need all this?” Because approval without legal authority does not prevent injunctions or damages claims from the true rights holder, and it may not satisfy distribution partners’ standards.
AI-generated likeness and voice: consent, training data, and copyright overlap
AI-generated likeness projects introduce distinct risks beyond traditional image licensing. The law and industry practices are converging on a few recurring pressure points: consent for voice and face replication, the provenance of training data, and the separation between “inputs” and “outputs.”
Consent and scope. A license should specify whether you can:
- Train or fine-tune models on archival material.
- Generate new dialogue, singing, or performances not previously recorded.
- Create derivative or “style-adjacent” outputs (for example, new lines that mimic a famous cadence).
- Use the synthetic asset outside the original project (sequels, games, ads, social clips).
Training data provenance. Even if you have publicity rights clearance, you may still lack permission to use the underlying recordings or footage as training data. Copyright owners of films, sound recordings, and photographs can assert claims if their works are copied for training or embedded in outputs. The safest path is to license the specific underlying materials you will use, document their sources, and keep records of how the model was created.
Output risks. Generated content can drift into defamatory, misleading, or brand-damaging speech. If the synthetic performance appears to say things the person never would have said, you invite disputes with heirs, business partners, and audiences. Build controls:
- Approval gates for scripts, prompts, and final outputs.
- Content guardrails (prohibited topics, prohibited products, prohibited political or medical claims).
- Auditability (logs of prompts, model versions, and approvals to defend decision-making).
EEAT note: treat AI model governance like any other regulated production process: document methods, limit access, and maintain an evidentiary trail. That operational rigor often matters as much as the contract language when a dispute arises.
Digital replica contracts: essential clauses to reduce disputes
Well-drafted digital replica contracts do more than grant rights—they define what “likeness” means, limit how the asset can be used, and create workable approval and enforcement mechanisms. In 2025, contracts that rely on generic “name and likeness” language often fail to address synthetic performance realities.
Clauses to prioritize:
- Definitions: specify face, voice, motion, body double, biometric scans, distinctive mannerisms, and whether “style” is included or excluded.
- Purpose and media: identify the project(s), distribution channels, territories, term, and whether paid advertising is included.
- Synthetic creation rights: explicitly address model training, fine-tuning, and whether outputs can be re-used for sequels, trailers, and marketing.
- Approvals: list what requires pre-approval (script, final cut, promotional copy, product category, political context), timelines, and a default rule if the approver is unresponsive.
- Ethical and brand restrictions: prohibited product categories, prohibited messaging, and restrictions on intimate, violent, or humiliating depictions.
- Attribution and disclosures: whether audiences must be told the performance is synthetic; how credits will read; and whether a watermark or other identifier will be used.
- Security and access: storage standards for scans and voice models, permitted vendors, subcontractor obligations, and breach notification requirements.
- Compensation: fixed fee vs. royalties, backend participation, audit rights, and payment triggers tied to approvals and delivery.
- Representations and warranties: the licensor’s authority and lack of conflicting grants; your compliance with restrictions; mutual non-disparagement where appropriate.
- Indemnities and caps: allocate risk realistically; consider separate caps for IP infringement versus confidentiality breaches.
- Termination and kill-switch: the right to pull content if legal standards change, if disputes arise, or if outputs violate agreed guardrails.
Follow-up question: “Do we need disclosure language?” Often yes, even if not mandated everywhere. It reduces consumer deception claims, aligns with platform rules that may require labeling of synthetic media, and can de-escalate reputational backlash.
Compliance, reputation, and cross-border enforcement: operationalizing risk management
Legal clearance is necessary but not sufficient. Posthumous digital likeness projects can fail due to reputational harm, platform enforcement, or cross-border legal conflicts. An effective compliance plan connects the license terms to production and distribution realities.
Operational controls to implement:
- Rights checklist integrated into production: no scan, no training, no voice generation, and no marketing cutdowns until rights are verified.
- Vendor due diligence: confirm that AI vendors do not re-use your training data to improve general models, and that subcontractors follow the same security and deletion obligations.
- Platform policy review: major platforms increasingly enforce synthetic media rules. Mislabeling can lead to demonetization, takedowns, or account penalties even when you have a license.
- Cross-border strategy: align your release plan with jurisdictions that recognize posthumous personality rights differently; consider geo-blocking for higher-risk regions if necessary.
- Crisis protocol: establish who responds to complaints from heirs, fans, unions, and press; prepare evidence of consent, approvals, and disclosure.
Reputation matters because it drives legal exposure. If audiences perceive exploitation, pressure campaigns can prompt partners to withdraw, which can trigger contractual disputes, refund obligations, and cascading damages. A respectful governance model—clear consent, clear disclosures, and clear limits—often prevents the conflict from forming.
FAQs: posthumous digital likeness licensing and legal risk
Can an estate license a deceased person’s voice and face separately?
Yes. Voice, image, name, and other identity elements may be controlled together or split across different agreements and owners. You should treat each element as a separate clearance item and confirm the licensor has authority for the specific rights you need.
Does a license to use old footage automatically allow AI training or new dialogue?
Usually not. Traditional footage licenses often cover exhibition and editing, not model training or generating new performances. If you plan synthetic output, negotiate explicit training and generation permissions, plus rules on re-use and storage.
What if the deceased person was a public figure—can we rely on free speech?
Sometimes, but it depends on context. Documentary, commentary, and transformative works may have stronger defenses than advertising or merchandising. If your use implies endorsement or is primarily commercial, risk rises sharply even for well-known figures.
How do we handle multiple heirs who disagree?
Do not proceed on informal consensus. Require proof of legal authority from the person or entity empowered to license, and consider court-approved documentation if the estate is contested. Build a contract mechanism for dispute notice and suspension of use.
Should we disclose that a performance is AI-generated?
In many cases, yes. Disclosure reduces deception and false endorsement risk and may be required by platform rules or partner policies. Decide the disclosure format early so it’s consistent across trailers, ads, and social clips.
What insurance should we consider?
Entertainment projects often seek errors & omissions coverage, but synthetic likeness work may require additional underwriting detail and can trigger exclusions if chain of title is weak. Involve your broker early and expect to provide licenses, approvals, and vendor security terms.
What is the single biggest mistake licensors and brands make?
They treat posthumous licensing like a standard celebrity endorsement. Synthetic media changes the risk profile: the ability to generate unlimited new content demands tighter scope, stronger approvals, clearer disclosures, and better security than traditional “name and likeness” deals.
Posthumous likeness deals succeed when they combine clear authority, explicit rights, and disciplined execution. Verify chain of title, license both the identity rights and the underlying materials, and specify whether AI training and new performance generation are permitted. In 2025, platforms and audiences scrutinize synthetic media closely, so disclosure and guardrails protect both trust and budgets. Treat governance as part of production, not paperwork.