SMU Law Review
Abstract
Artificial intelligence tools now enable startlingly lifelike recreations of the dead—replicating a person’s face, voice, and mannerisms for entertainment, advertising, and even political messaging. American law largely funnels disputes over these “digital resurrections” into the right of publicity, a property-centered regime that turns identity into an asset to be bought, sold, licensed, and inherited. That framework protects market value but often misses the harm that matters most to families: degradation, distortion, and reputational injury to the decedent’s memory. This Comment argues for a narrow “dignity backstop” that operates when property rules fail or have been waived. The proposal recognizes a limited, posthumous dignitary interest that gives close relatives notice and an opportunity to object to harmful digital recreations, while preserving robust space for artistic, political, and parodic expression. First, this Comment traces the doctrine’s shift from privacy’s dignitary roots to publicity’s property logic. Next, it surveys the fragmented statutory landscape and explains why economic rights inadequately address digital-resurrection harms. Finally, it outlines a judicially modest, speech-sensitive framework that supplements—rather than supplants—state publicity law, ensuring a baseline of respect for the dead and for the families who safeguard their legacies.
Recommended Citation
Emily Frank,
Owning the Afterlife? Reframing AI “Resurrections” Through a Dignity Lens,
79
SMU L. Rev.
869
(2026)
