Abstract

Rapid advancements in generative AI enable the precise recreation of deceased individuals’ digital identities, raising critical concerns about post-mortem privacy and commercial exploitation. While technology now generates hyper-realistic avatars and voice clones, Indian jurisprudence remains constrained by the “actio personalis moritur cum persona” maxim, which extinguishes privacy and personality rights upon death. Consequently, domestic laws such as the Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023 fail to address the weaponisation of digital remains or to provide remedies against unauthorised AI replicas.

Through a comparative analysis of US and EU frameworks, this paper examines India’s regulatory void and the resulting vulnerability of deceased personas to corporate exploitation. To resolve this, the study proposes the Unified Digital Afterlife Framework: a sui generis model that formally recognizes transmissible post-mortem personality rights, mandates strict AI developer consent obligations, and establishes a centralized licensing registry. Ultimately, protecting post-mortem digital identity is a necessary legal evolution to preserve human dignity and autonomy in an increasingly synthetic media landscape.

Introduction

Rapid advancements in AI have outpaced legal protections for personal identity. Today, a deceased person’s likeness can be digitally reconstructed and commercially exploited without familial consent; a pressing reality that Indian law has yet to address. Personality rights, which encompass a person’s right to control the commercial use of their name, image, and likeness, have traditionally been treated as personal rights that extinguish upon death. While Indian courts have traditionally affirmed this position, it exposes a significant gap in an era where artificial intelligence enables the near-perfect recreation of a deceased person’s digital identity for commercial gain.[1] Similarly, recent legislative attempts, such as the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, introduce nomination mechanisms for data administration but overlook post-mortem personality rights and fail to provide remedies against unauthorized AI-generated reproductions.[2]

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023[3] represents India’s most recent legislative attempt to regulate personal data. Section 14 of the Act introduces a nomination mechanism that permits a data principal to nominate another person to exercise their data rights after death. However, this mechanism overlooks postmortem personality rights and commercial exploitation. The Act fails to protect a deceased person’s digital identity or provide remedies against unauthorised AI-generated reproductions of their likeness.

Internationally, the US and EU have addressed postmortem publicity rights and data protection, respectively. India, despite its large digital population, lacks similar legislation. This paper examines India’s legal framework on postmortem personality rights and digital likeness, highlights the regulatory gap, and suggests legislative measures based on comparative legal frameworks. It argues that exploiting a deceased person’s digital identity is a legal harm needing urgent recognition in India.[4]

Literature Review

Keywords: Right of Publicity; Post-Mortem Privacy; Digital Replicas; Ghostbots; Personality Rights; Actio Personalis Moritur Cum Persona; Digital Remains; Section 306, Indian Succession Act; Sui Generis Legislation; Posthumous Dignity and digital identity; Generative AI; Posthumous autonomy.

The contemporary legal discourse surrounding identity protection is increasingly complicated by the proliferation of “digital duplicates” defined by Danaher and Nyholm as “partial, at least semi-autonomous, digital recreations of real people.”[5]  This rapidly expanding technological class encompasses interactive “deadbots,” precision voice clones, and hyper-realistic deepfake avatars of the deceased. To map the contours of the regulatory void left by these synthetic media, it is first necessary to evaluate how traditional common-law doctrines approach identity protection within the domestic sphere. The right of publicity, which protects an identity from unauthorised commercial exploitation, remains jurisprudentially fractured in India as to its post-mortem applicability. While courts established robust commercial protections for living persons, notably in ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises[6] and Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers,[7] the survival of these rights after death is obstructed by rigid constitutional and statutory interpretations.

A fundamental tension exists between common law personality rights and Article 21’s right to privacy (K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India)[8]. Courts have consistently interpreted Article 21 as a right personal to the living individual. Consequently, courts apply the maxim “actio personalis moritur cum persona”, treating privacy strictly as a right “in personam.” This is explicitly reinforced by Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which bars the inheritance of personal claims.

This constitutional silence and statutory restriction prevent personality rights from evolving into transmissible property. Built for a pre-digital era, this framework did not anticipate a reality where a deceased’s likeness becomes commercially valuable data, reconstructable by AI without consent, thereby leaving digital remains legally defenceless.

This jurisprudential vulnerability is not merely theoretical; it is actively exploited by the rapid progression of generative technologies that target the deceased. Generative AI routinely synthesises hyper-realistic digital clones that mimic human likeness and vocal timbre with extreme precision. While viral phenomena like the synthetic track “Heart on My Sleeve” highlight the commercial weaponisation of living identities, the market increasingly targets the deceased via interactive “ghostbots.” Operating without strict consent regimes, ghostbots exploit legacy digital footprints to commodify post-mortem personas, violating bodily dignity. Because the deceased cannot invoke traditional personal torts, they remain legally defenceless. Absent specialised statutory guardrails or recognised testamentary mechanisms such as “do not bot me” clauses,[9] ghostbot proliferation inflicts profound ethical damage on heirs while completely evading corporate accountability.[10]

​While Indian courts recently reaffirmed the extinguishment of personality rights upon death as in Krishna Kishore Singh,[11] United States jurisprudence offers a robust defence against digital desecration. Jurisdictions like New York expressly prohibit the unauthorised digital replication of deceased performers,[12] and Tennessee’s pioneering ELVIS Act (2024) specifically shields vocal likenesses from generative AI exploitation.[13] Estates actively litigate these protections, as demonstrated by the successful takedown of an unauthorised synthetic comedy special in the 2024 George Carlin lawsuit.[14] Complementing these statutory frameworks, proactive private law mechanisms such as Robin Williams’ testamentary trust temporarily restricting his post-mortem right of publicity illustrate how US estates successfully insulate digital legacies from commercial reanimation.[15]

The contrast between these Western frameworks and India’s domestic inertia exposes the precise regulatory failures that define India’s current position. Critical regulatory failures define India’s existing framework. First, courts recently reaffirmed in Krishna Kishore Singh (2021) that personality rights are not inheritable and extinguish upon death.[16] Second, the DPDP Act 2023 regulates data fiduciaries, not commercial likeness, entirely excluding the deceased because they are not “data principals.” Stretching privacy regimes to cover commercial exploitation conflates fundamentally distinct legal interests, leaving no mechanism that mandates prior consent for AI reconstructions. Resolving this vacuum requires dual intervention. Privately, India’s succession laws could immediately operationalise testamentary “do not bot me” clauses,[17] formalising pre-mortem refusals of digital reanimation. Structurally, drawing from the US Copyright Office’s 2024 digital replica report, which recommends a centralised registry of rights-holders, India could adapt this as a Likeness Licensing Repository under a dedicated statute.[18]

Ultimately, India demands a sui generis statute to formally recognise transmissible post-mortem personality rights, explicitly regulate AI-generated digital replicas, and establish civil liability for unauthorised commercialisation. Modelled after California’s 2024 amendments to the Astaire Celebrity Image Protection Act,[19] this statutory evolution is imperative to govern India’s rapidly expanding and entirely unregulated synthetic media sector.

Current research suggests that the debate on posthumous digital identity has shifted from commercial exploitation to dignity, autonomy, and consent.[20] With the advent of generative AI, the novel public challenge is the creation of digital replicas that can reproduce an individual’s voice, facial expression, and interactions long after his or her death,[21] which raises basic questions that have never been addressed under the standard rules of publicity law: can meaningful consent exist after death? Can “posthumous autonomy” be granted to the heirs of the deceased?[22] Recent literature also addresses the commercialisation of bereavement, going beyond traditional legal concerns of privacy and publicity rights by raising issues relating to the protection of consumers in the context of bereavement using AI companions or ‘griefbots’ to grieve.[23]

One of its main perceived weaknesses in regulating AI-generated digital replicas is the disconnect among the various rights-of-publicity regimes in the United States.[24] Scholars continue to cite Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. as the paradigm for publicity rights; especially noteworthy is the doctrine of the transformative use that the court introduced, which remains a key consideration in modern scholarship on the doctrine and is now being discussed as a possible basis for evaluating AI-generated replicas.[25] Likewise, Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Saderup continues to influence scholarly discussions through its transformative use test for expressive works involving identity.[26] The recent developments in legislation, however, such as California’s A.B. 1836 and the recognition of posthumous digital replica rights in New York, are important steps to modernise publicity law.[27] Likewise, the scholarly discussion on the proposed NO FAKES Act shows increased interest in a common federal framework to combat identity misuse facilitated by AI throughout the United States.[28]

Comparative scholarship shows that there isn’t yet a universally accepted framework for post-mortem digital identities.[29] In Denmark, academia has been more interested in the proposed amendment to the Copyright Act, which would grant protection for fifty years after death that would apply to all persons and introduce a new category of copyright-adjacent rights for dignity, namely the right to identity.[30] In the U.K., the current legal framework appears less robust and is largely built around fragmented common law remedies, such as passing off or defamation, which has led many scholars to believe it is poorly equipped to deal with the new challenges of generative AI.[31]

One of the recurring issues in the course of recent scholarship is the difference between keeping the memory of the deceased and digitally simulating the continuation of the life of the deceased.[32] Traditional memorialisation aimed to record a person’s life by taking photos, making recordings, writing letters and using other archival sources. However, generative AI can create interactive digital personae that can engage in new conversations, opinions, and actions that the individual would never have produced in their lifetime,[33] giving rise to a legal discussion that has transcended the concepts of ownership and publicity to one of authenticity and identity.[34] While most scholars agree current laws are not suited for the regulation of these developments, there is not a unanimous opinion as to whether they should be addressed using privacy law, personality rights, IP law, or a new legal perspective on posthumous digital identities.[35]

However, scholars like Michael Madow oppose expanding post-mortem rights, arguing that since fame is largely a product of public engagement, granting estates exclusive proprietary control over a deceased person’s likeness risks unnecessarily constraining biography, satire, and artistic reuse.[36] Ray Madoff similarly cautions that American law has steadily shifted power from the living to the dead through expanding postmortem publicity, property, and testamentary rights, often at the expense of surviving generations, and argues for restraint rather than further expansion of the legal claims the dead or their heirs can assert.[37] These critiques do not resolve the specific problem of unconsented AI reanimation, but they caution against treating “more rights for the dead” as an unqualified good, and any Indian reform proposal must justify why AI-generated replicas warrant protection that ordinary photographs, biographies, or historical reenactments do not.

Research Methodology

This research is grounded in a foundational question: when memory becomes data and identity becomes code, what legal claim, if any, survives of the individual? If generative artificial intelligence can reproduce a deceased person’s voice and likeness, the law must determine who if anyone controls that reproduction.

This research focuses on the current legal provisions governing personality rights, privacy, data protection and the succession of a deceased digital identity³¹. It examines whether a person’s legal identity truly ends with death, or whether Artificial Intelligence has made digital immortality justifiable[38]. This research employs qualitative and comparative legal analysis of Indian and International legislation, examining the gap between divergent statutes by relying on existing laws and judicial precedents. In the world of advanced technology, the question is whether existing laws are sufficient to protect the deceased’s digital identity when it is later used for profit.[39] Indian legislation states that with death, an individual’s personal rights end, but the same law remains silent when it comes to deceased digital identity exposure. The study first breaks down the active laws and their limit; secondly, it suggests new policies and legal reforms to fill the gaps.[40]

This analysis begins with the emergence of deepfake technology and posthumous digital-identity tools in the Indian subcontinent. Later, it dwells on the bigger circle of Article 21, the Right to Privacy and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act,[41] which governs digital personal data. But this legislation fails to recognise the commercial misuse or market-driven invocation of artificial intelligence. Then the researchers primarily analysed the foreign jurisdictions, particularly the US and the European Union, on posthumous digital identity, digital replicas, and publicity rights. The researchers proposed that Indian legislation should adopt a sui generis[42] framework to regulate the exploitation of the deceased. This paper emphasises four questions: privacy after death, publicity rights after death, data governance after death, and the succession of digital assets, which should be addressed independently. There should be a clear distinction between diligent reminiscence and profit-acquainted revival. The three core principles-consent, dignity and regulation[43] should be acknowledged separately: consent safeguards our rights, dignity sets boundaries, and regulation prevents misuse.

The law must draw a sharp distinction between who has the right to control a deceased’s digital identity and whether this digitalisation constitutes an innovation or an exploitation.

This study primarily focuses on the legal vacuum between Indian and global jurisprudence. Traditional Indian jurisprudence should be made flexible in its approach to steadily address and adapt to the rapid development and use of technology in the modern world.

Legal & Data Analysis

The rapid convergence of generative AI and digital asset management has transformed traditional legal notions of identity. Currently, digital possessions occupy an unregulated space governed predominantly by private contract law, such as platform Terms of Service,[44] rather than public succession laws. This creates severe roadblocks for estates, as seen in Ajemian v. Yahoo!,[45] where corporate privacy policies obstructed family access to digital remains. Classifying digital remains merely as “property” is doctrinally inadequate because it ignores the inherent privacy and dignity concerns attached to personal data. Therefore, digital identity must be recognized as a sui generis legal category, shifting away from corporate hegemony toward individual post-mortem autonomy.[46]

Furthermore, the perpetuity of digital data directly challenges the traditional common law principle that privacy ceases at death (actio personalis moritur cum persona). Indian courts, such as in Deepa Jayakumar v. A.L. Vijay,[47] have strictly applied this maxim, holding that posthumous privacy is not inheritable. However, contemporary privacy literature identifies post-mortem privacy as encompassing individual dignity, relational privacy, and crucial protection from AI exploitation.[48] While the United States relies heavily on state-level, property-based protections (like Tennessee’s ELVIS Act and California’s AB 1836), and the European Union leans toward dignity and copyright frameworks (such as Denmark’s proposed reforms), India faces a stark regulatory gap. Current domestic frameworks, including Section 14 of the DPDP Act and Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, do not create substantive, transmissible personality rights, leaving families legally defenseless against unauthorized AI reconstructions.[49]

Ultimately, it is not right for any one stakeholder to have absolute control over a person’s digital identity after their death. The ideal is an all-encompassing and future-proof statutory framework that emphasises individual autonomy through digital wills, takes account of the emotional and administrative needs of families, provides robust state-backed consumer and privacy protections, and confines technology platforms to a custodial role. In the modern era of artificial intelligence, redirecting the legal governance of identity attributes to holistic protection can protect human dignity and autonomy from widespread exploitation by legal systems, particularly in emerging jurisdictions such as India.[50]

This paper terms this proposed statutory model the Unified Digital Afterlife Framework: a single sui generis regime combining a transmissible, time-limited post-mortem personality right; a mandatory consent-and-notice obligation on AI developers and platforms before commercial digital replicas are created or distributed; and a centralised licensing registry, modelled on the U.S. Copyright Office’s proposed digital replica registry, that identifies rights-holders and reduces disputes over consent. Implementing such a framework in India, however, raises four practical challenges that must be resolved before enactment. First, jurisdiction and enforcement: most generative AI platforms are foreign-domiciled, so the statute would need extraterritorial reach or reciprocal takedown arrangements rather than relying solely on Indian courts. Second, definitional precision: the statute must distinguish commercial exploitation from protected uses such as journalism, biography, satire, and historical research, or risk the same overreach critics have identified in existing publicity-rights regimes. Third, institutional capacity: a licensing registry requires a dedicated regulator with the technical capacity to verify consent and adjudicate disputes, which does not currently exist within India’s data protection architecture. Fourth, duration and inheritance: the framework must fix a reasonable time limit on the right as seen in Denmark’s fifty-year proposal or California’s extended terms and specify clearly who within a family may exercise or waive it, to avoid the same succession disputes that arise under ordinary property law.

Conclusion

Artificial intelligence’s quick growth has transformed what we think of legal identity by way of which we see the commercial use of dead people via digital means. What was once limited to photographs, recordings, and written memories has expanded into advanced AI systems capable of reproducing speech, appearance, behaviour, and interaction. This technological shift has exposed significant weaknesses in existing legal structures governing privacy, personality rights, and data protection. This research finds that Indian law currently does not adequately protect against the unauthorised commercial use of a deceased person’s digital identity, leaving a substantial regulatory gap in an increasingly AI-driven environment.[51]

Although the right to privacy is recognised as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, Indian courts have held that privacy and personality rights extinguish upon death. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which establishes a nomination mechanism for the exercise of certain data rights after death, does not extend to post-mortem personality rights or regulate AI-generated digital replicas.[52] This leaves clear gaps in consent, ownership, licensing, inheritance, and remedies relating to the use of a deceased person’s likeness, and no statutorily recognised framework exists to protect families, leaving technology to outpace present-day jurisprudence.[53]

A comparative study of the U.S. and also emerging European models of regulation shows that specialised legislation puts in place a good framework for the regulation of posthumous digital identities at the same time, which is to encourage tech innovation. Also, this in turn supports the view that India can no longer put off to the side the fact that it has to depend purely on traditional privacy rules to deal with AI-created digital replicas. Instead, we see that the law must change to recognise post-mortem digital identity as a separate legal issue, which, in turn, will require independent statutory protection.

India must adopt a comprehensive legal framework governing post-mortem privacy rights and AI-generated digital identities.[54] This should include the recognition of transferable post-mortem personality rights, for which there is redress in court; regulation of commercial use of digital replicas, setting out what the civil law will bear in terms of liability for unauthorised use and which also draws the line between what is acceptable memorialization, art, research and commercial use. By adopting a forward-looking regulatory framework, India can safeguard individual dignity, autonomy, and ethical values while supporting responsible technological innovation.[55] Ultimately, protecting digital identity after death is not merely a response to artificial intelligence but a necessary evolution of t

[1] Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A. Saraogi, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1000

[2] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC (Supp) 1841.

[3] Digital Personal Data Protection Act, No. 22 of 2023

[4] “Digital Estates and Post-Mortem Privacy: Legislative Gaps in India” (NJLRII, 2026)

[5] John Danaher & Sven Nyholm, The Ethics of Personalised Digital Duplicates: A Minimally Viable Permissibility Principle, 5 AI and Ethics 1703, 1704 (2024).

[6] ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises, 2003 SCC OnLine Del 2.

[7] Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2382.

[8] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.

[9] Edina Harbinja, Lilian Edwards & Marisa McVey, Governing Ghostbots, 98 Comput. L. & Sec. Rev. 105791 (2023).

[10] See generally Warhol, Drake, and Deepfakes: Monetizing the Right of Publicity in the Generative AI Era, 40 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. (2024).

[11] Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A Saraogi, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3144 (denying an injunction against a film based on the late actor Sushant Singh Rajput).

[12] N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 50-f (McKinney 2021) (establishing a post-mortem right of publicity regarding digital replicas of performers).

[13] Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security (ELVIS) Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1105 (2024).

[14] Main Sequence, Ltd. v. Dudesy LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00711 (C.D. Cal. filed Jan. 25, 2024) (lawsuit initiated by the estate of George Carlin resulting in a stipulated permanent injunction).

[15] See generally Eva E. Subotnik, The Right of Publicity and the Decedent’s Intent, 95 Wash. L. Rev. 1471 (2020).

[16] Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A Saraogi, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3144.

[17] Edina Harbinja, Lilian Edwards & Marisa McVey, Governing Ghostbots, 98 Comput. L. & Sec. Rev. 105791 (2023).

[18] U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 1: Digital Replicas (July 2024).

[19] Cal. Civ. Code § 3344.1 (amended 2024 by Assemb. Bill 1836).

[20] Edina Harbinja & Lilian Edwards, Protecting Post-Mortem Privacy: Reconsidering the Privacy Interests of the Deceased in a Digital World, 32 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 83 (2014).

[21] Edina Harbinja, Lilian Edwards & Marisa McVey, Governing Ghostbots, in The Future of Law and eTechnologies (2023).

[22] J.C. Buitelaar, Post-Mortem Privacy and Informational Self-Determination, 50 Comput. L. & Sec. Rev. (2024).

[23] Katarzyna Nowaczyk-Basińska, Tomasz Hollanek & Christopher Burr, Griefbots: Ethical and Legal Challenges of AI-Mediated Mourning, AI & Society (2024).

[24] Jennifer E. Rothman, The Right of Publicity: Privacy Reimagined for a Public World (Harvard Univ. Press 2018).

[25] Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broad. Co., 433 U.S. 562 (1977).

[26] Comedy III Prods., Inc. v. Saderup, Inc., 25 Cal. 4th 387 (2001).

[27] Cal. Assemb. B. 1836, 2023–2024 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2024); N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 50-f (McKinney).

[28] NO FAKES Act, S. 4591, 118th Cong. (2024); see also Jennifer E. Rothman, The Right of Publicity (Harvard Univ. Press 2018).

[29] Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 (General Data Protection Regulation), recital 27.

[30] Danish Ministry of Culture, Proposal to Amend the Copyright Act to Protect Personal Likeness and Voice Against AI-Generated Deepfakes (2025).

[31] Emily Hudson & Ian McDonald, Digital Replicas, Personality Rights and English Law, J. Intell. Prop. L. & Prac. (2024).

[32] Edina Harbinja, Lilian Edwards & Marisa McVey, Governing Ghostbots, in The Future of Law and eTechnologies (2023).

[33] John Danaher, The Ethics of AI Resurrection and Digital Afterlife, Philosophy & Technology (2020).

[34] Daniel J. Solove, A Taxonomy of Privacy, 154 U. Pa. L. Rev. 477 (2006).

[35] Jennifer E. Rothman, The Right of Publicity: Privacy Reimagined for a Public World (Harvard Univ. Press 2018); Edina Harbinja & Lilian Edwards, Protecting Post-Mortem Privacy: Reconsidering the Privacy Interests of the Deceased in a Digital World, 32 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 83 (2014).

[36] Michael Madow, Private Ownership of Public Image: Popular Culture and Publicity Rights, 81 Cal. L. Rev. 125 (1993).

[37] Ray D. Madoff, Immortality and the Law: The Rising Power of the American Dead (Yale Univ. Press 2010).

[38] Jennifer E. Rothman, The Right of Publicity: Privacy Reimagined for a Public World (Harvard University Press 2018)

[39] Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A. Saraogi, 2021 SCC Online

[40] U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence: Part 1—Digital Replicas (July 2024)

[41] S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1

[42] U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence: Part 1—Digital Replicas (July 2024); Jennifer E. Rothman, The Right of Publicity: Privacy Reimagined for a Public World (Harvard University Press 2018).

[43] Edina Harbinja & Lilian Edwards, Protecting Post-Mortem Privacy: Reconsidering the Privacy Interests of the Deceased in a Digital World, 32 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 83 (

[44] Harbinja, E., Morse, T., & Edwards, L. (2024). Digital Remains and Post-mortem Privacy in the UK: What do users want? SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4813651

[45] Ajemian v. Yahoo!, Inc., 478 Mass. 169 (2017).

[46] Farooqui, M. O., Sharma, B., & Gupta, D. (2022). Inheritance of digital assets: Analysing the concept of digital inheritance on social media platforms. Novum Jus, 16(3), 413–435. https://doi.org/10.14718/novumjus.2022.16.3.15

[47] Deepa Jayakumar v. A.L. Vijay & Ors., O.S.A. No. 75 of 2020 (Madras HC, Apr. 16, 2021), AIR 2021 Mad 167.

[48] Nwabueze, R. N., & White, M. (2025). Privacy law and the dead – a reappraisal. Journal of Media Law, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2024.2438395

[49] Axelsson, S. (2025). Owning the self: Denmark’s copyright turn against deepfakes. Schjødt. https://schjodt.com/news/owning-the-self-denmarks-copyright-turn-against-deepfakes

[50] Latham & Watkins LLP. (2024). The ELVIS Act: Tennessee shakes up its right of publicity law and takes on generative AI. https://www.lw.com/admin/upload/SiteAttachments/The-ELVIS-Act-Tennessee-Shakes-Up-Its-Right-of-Publicity-Law-and-Takes-On-Generative-AI.pdf

[51] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.

[52] Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, s 14.

[53] Krishna Kishore Singh v Sarla A Saraogi 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3144.

[54] Cal Civ Code § 3344.1 (as amended by Assembly Bill 1836, 2024); N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 50-f (2021); Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security (ELVIS) Act, Tenn Code Ann § 47-25-1105 (2024); Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation) recital 27.

[55] Edina Harbinja, Lilian Edwards and Marisa McVey, ‘Governing Ghostbots’ (2023) 98 Computer Law & Security Review 105791; Jennifer E Rothman, The Right of Publicity: Privacy Reimagined for a Public World (Harvard University Press 2018); US Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 1: Digital Replicas (July 2024)