Concern 58 · Working draft · editorial review in progress
Deceased persons' data & voice
Using a deceased person's data or voice raises questions about prior wishes, surviving relationships, cultural responsibilities, and control of digital replicas.
Understanding the concern
A convincing simulation can speak words the person never chose. Families may find comfort, distress, or disagreement in such uses. Permission from one rights holder may not resolve every ethical question about dignity or memory.
Posthumous legal protections vary by place and by the kind of right involved. The most useful starting point is evidence of the person's wishes, followed by careful consideration of those affected. A simulation should not be presented as the person's actual judgment.
An example
A recreated voice reads a new message at a memorial; listeners should know that the person never recorded or approved those words.
Illustrative unless identified as a documented case.
Evidence and its limits
Digital-replica analysis discusses posthumous issues; CARE provides a distinct community-governance perspective, not a rule for all estates.
U.S. Copyright Office · July 2024 · Official policy report
Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 1: Digital Replicas ↗ (opens in a new tab)Examines voice and likeness protections and proposes policy changes. Recommendations must not be described as enacted law.
Global Indigenous Data Alliance · Community-led governance principles
CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance ↗ (opens in a new tab)Collective benefit, authority to control, responsibility, and ethics; these are governance principles, not a universal legal license.
Broader frameworks and background
These resources provide context. They do not establish every claim in this concern.
A question to discuss
What did the person want, and how will others be told what is reconstructed or invented?
Keep track of different views, what needs checking, and any next step in your own discussion notes.
Open discussion notes →Principles for the conversation
Before you finish · reflect together
Virtues and principles to consider
Virtues are qualities we practice in how we treat people and make choices. They are not scores for judging someone. Use these ideas to explore what a thoughtful response could look like.
Truthfulness
Truthfulness means making claims that match the evidence and being clear about what we do not know. It includes correcting mistakes rather than protecting a polished story.
Check sources, label guesses, and distinguish a trial result from a proven benefit. If AI helped produce a claim, someone still needs to take responsibility for checking it.
Ask together: What can we honestly say, and what still needs checking?
Justice
Justice means fair treatment, fair procedures, and attention to who receives benefits and burdens. It asks whether people with less power can be heard and seek repair.
Look at outcomes across different groups and individual cases. Provide a usable way to challenge decisions and correct harm. Equal wording in a policy does not guarantee equal treatment in practice.
Ask together: Who benefits, who bears the cost, and who can challenge the decision?
Stewardship
Stewardship means caring for resources and systems that others depend on, including people who will use them later. It looks beyond the benefit of a quick launch.
Plan for maintenance, energy use, data protection, and eventual shutdown. Ask who will look after the tool when the original team moves on and how future users can avoid inheriting hidden costs.
Ask together: What are we responsible for caring for over time?
Editorial ratings
These are editorial judgments from the register, not measured probabilities or predictions about your situation.
About the register and scoring →More ways to explore
Search for more writing
For more specific or recent material, open a search below or ask for a web summary. AI-generated summaries can contain mistakes; open the original articles to check them.