Claire Poirson’s Interview – AI, Cinema & Audiovisual: Can AI “Resurrect” an Icon — and, Above All, Who Can Authorise It?
AI, Cinema & Audiovisual: Can AI “Resurrect” an Icon — and, Above All, Who Can Authorise It?
Thirty-six years after her death, and 85 years after her final film, Greta Garbo is back on screen.
Swedish industrial group SKF has used artificial intelligence to recreate the actress’s face, expressions, gestures and voice for a new advertising campaign, with the consent of her heirs and rightsholders.
This is a striking example of the use of AI through deepfake technology, an area in which FIRSH has developed specific expertise for more than three years, notably through its FIRSHLAB research laboratory and its work on related matters.
Our partner Claire Poirson was interviewed by Louis Mondot for France Info on the legal issues raised by this form of “digital resurrection”.
Is the consent of the heirs sufficient?
Under French law, image rights are personal rights and, in principle, cease upon death. However, relatives may still bring claims where the use of a deceased person’s image infringes their memory or dignity, or causes the relatives themselves personal harm.
AI, however, introduces a new layer of complexity: this is no longer merely about using an existing photograph.
It is now possible to reconstruct a person, make them perform new gestures, utter words they never spoke and take on entirely new roles.
In Greta Garbo’s case, the producers reportedly did not directly provide photographs or film extracts to the AI tools used to generate her face. Her appearance was reportedly recreated through prompts and then superimposed onto the performance of an actress. Her voice, however, was recreated using a pre-existing recording.
Where, then, does Greta Garbo’s identity end — and where does the work that created the icon begin?
The image we recognise today as “Greta Garbo” is also the product of decades of films, photography, costumes, directing and staging.
As Claire Poirson explains, recreating such an iconic figure may therefore raise questions concerning the rights attached to the audiovisual heritage through which that public image was constructed, going beyond the actress’s personal identity alone.
In other words: the heirs may be able to authorise the exploitation of the person’s identity. But can they, acting alone, authorise the recreation of the cinematic icon shaped by the audiovisual works that transformed the person into the icon recognised by the public?
This digital resurrection must also be assessed in light of the new European regulatory framework applicable to synthetic content.
Since 2 August 2026, Article 50 of the EU AI Act has imposed transparency obligations in relation to certain forms of content qualifying as deepfakes. The advertisement itself indicates, from its opening seconds, that artificial intelligence has been used.
The legal issue may therefore extend beyond the protection of the deceased celebrity through rights exercised by heirs and other rightsholders.
AI is progressively raising a broader question: how should our digital identities be legally governed, including after death?
Could there ultimately be a form of sui generis right for audiovisual rightsholders where AI replicates a person whose public persona has itself been “shaped” through their works?
This issue is likely to become increasingly important as technology enables ever more credible recreations of the faces, voices and gestures of deceased personalities — and, perhaps tomorrow, entirely new “performances” attributed to them.
We thank France Info for inviting Claire Poirson to share her legal analysis on this issue.
FIRSH, a law firm dedicated to digital and AI-related legal issues, advises clients on all aspects of AI-generated projects.
