{"id":44540,"date":"2024-10-03T06:42:15","date_gmt":"2024-10-03T06:42:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/?post_type=press_releases&p=44540"},"modified":"2024-10-03T06:42:34","modified_gmt":"2024-10-03T06:42:34","slug":"who-knew-resurrecting-the-dead-could-be-so-much-trouble","status":"publish","type":"press_releases","link":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/press-releases\/who-knew-resurrecting-the-dead-could-be-so-much-trouble\/","title":{"rendered":"Who knew resurrecting the dead could be so much trouble?"},"content":{"rendered":"

In March 2024, a Chinese content creator released on Weibo a \u201cvideo tribute\u201d to the late artist CoCo Lee, who tragically passed away in July 2023.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The video featured the late artist speaking from beyond the grave in her own voice, expressing gratitude and giving encouragement to her fans.<\/p>\n

Not surprisingly CoCo Lee hadn\u2019t made an appearance from the \u201cother side,\u201d neither had she left behind a video message to be played after her death.<\/p>\n

The entire video was created with generative artificial intelligence (AI), with both the digital avatar and her voice spliced from existing footage and recordings.<\/p>\n

Reaction to the video was, to put it mildly, mixed.<\/p>\n

Netizens expressed unease as to how the dead were being \u201cused.\u201d<\/p>\n

The family and estate of CoCo Lee, through a PRC law firm, issued a public statement demanding the removal of the video, saying the video was made without the consent of the family, and condemning it as exploiting CoCo Lee\u2019s image \u201cto sell AI services\u201d<\/em> for \u201cillegal profit<\/em>\u2026under the guise of sentimentality.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

They went to say the video had caused severe psychological distress and secondary harm to the family. The family also warned the misuse of CoCo Lee\u2019s image infringed the rights of the family under the PRC Civil Code[1]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The video has since been taken down, but the content creator defended it as an \u201cexpression of love\u201d, claiming he had done it for free and had expressly disclosed the video was AI-generated.<\/p>\n

This is not the first, and certainly won\u2019t not be the last, time a deceased celebrity is \u201cresurrected\u201d with digital technology.<\/p>\n

During the filming of the Furious 7 <\/em>(released in 2015), star Paul Walker passed away halfway through the production. The filmmakers opted to digitally re-create the star in a touching final farewell scene.<\/p>\n

Movie star James Dean, who passed away more than 60 years ago, is set to \u201cstar\u201d in a new and upcoming movie called Back to Eden<\/em>, to be represented entirely by a digital recreation of the late actor.<\/p>\n

\u201cResurrecting\u201d celebrities could however come with a slew of issues.<\/p>\n

Personality Rights\u2026<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Many countries recognise some form of \u201cpersonality right\u201d or \u201cpublicity right\u201d or \u201cimage right\u201d, which provides that any person is entitled to control the use and exploitation of their own identity, name, image, and likeness, and the individual\u2019s consent is required before these can be used by anyone else.<\/p>\n

However, once they die, the extent to which a personality right is protected varies from country to country (and from state to state in the US).<\/p>\n

It is commonly the case that a person\u2019s personality rights pass to their estate or family who would then be required to provide their consent.<\/p>\n

As such, it is often the case that media projects (movies, advertisements, songs) which seek to exploit the likeness of a deceased celebrity will first seek the consent of (and often pay a fee to) the deceased\u2019s family\/estate.<\/p>\n

\u2026 or not?<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

However, personality right is not universally recognised.<\/p>\n

For example, it is not recognized as a protectable class of rights under English common law, so there is no personality right protection in various English common law jurisdictions such as the UK, Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore, and India.<\/p>\n

Instead, these countries often rely on a patchwork of different laws to protect different aspects of personality right, such as:-<\/p>\n