By: Aaron M. Spitler
“What have you done for me lately?” Veterans of Hollywood are bound to have heard this question countless times over the course of their careers. Thanks to advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), deceased stars are too. Those controlling their post-mortem rights of publicity, which enable holders to commercialize the name, image, or likeness of a personality who has passed, have revived entertainers through AI for a variety of projects. This trend has become the talk of town, with many in the business contemplating how to resurrect performers in ways that captivate modern audiences.[1] At this juncture, the possibilities seem endless.
Not everyone is a fan of these starlets’ second act. AI-generated digital replicas of deceased entertainers raise numerous ethical and policy concerns. Post-mortem publicity rights holders may make licensing decisions that damage a celebrity’s brand, and options for rehabilitation in these scenarios are slim. Additionally, creatives who bring back yesteryear’s icons may disadvantage today’s newcomers, robbing the latter of coveted career opportunities. Policymakers must regulate how AI-resuscitated celebrities appear in content, all while grappling with how avatars might dampen the economic prospects of up-and-comers. Considering the pace of AI’s evolution, the future of the entertainment industry may depend on it.
Rewriting Performer Legacies
For some, the appeal of resurrecting a legendary entertainer is crystal clear. Rights owners, particularly family estates, can develop robust revenue streams via licensing agreements with creative partners. Meanwhile, collaborators like film studios gain access to bankable stars that lure nostalgic audiences back to the theaters. As The Atlantic highlighted, the chance to expand the portfolio of a beloved entertainer may yield benefits that are too good for parties to pass up.[2] They are well-positioned to capitalize on the public’s interest to see legendary talents. Furthermore, they can determine how digital doppelgangers appear in content for years to come, reshaping their legacies in the process. Entities in control of a celebrity’s post-mortem publicity rights, therefore, are primed to fully reap the rewards of AI-assisted revivals.
While this appears to be a win-win scenario for living parties, it can come at the expense of deceased performers. The BBC underscored how estates ultimately have the final say in how their relatives are portrayed, even if their choices run counter to the beliefs and priorities of the deceased.[3] In other words, a personality could serve as a spokesperson for a sports betting app, sing the praises of a weight loss pill, or even appear in a scandalous X-rated film if their estate sanctions these uses. Although lucrative, these types of agreement may leave entertainers victimized, as both their brand and character are diminished.[4] Legal remedies exist, especially if the use of a digital replica is unauthorized, though they are unlikely to fix lasting reputational harm.
Eliminating Newcomer Opportunities
Despite these drawbacks, studios remain intrigued by the possibility of resurrecting stars via AI. From a financial standpoint, reviving an iconic celebrity may be their best bet in an ever-changing industry. The Los Angeles Times noted that AI-revived entertainers are versatile assets to creatives, primarily because they can be repurposed without issue.[5] In contrast, an untested and unproven performer that the public has no history with is not as valuable. Weighing these options, risk-averse companies are more likely to stick with the familiar face. The economic security afforded by this plan may be more important than any perceived ethical qualms.[6] While some audiences may want content that is daring, these creatives are counting on others to look for content that is both safe and familiar.
Performers who are starting out may, as a result, find themselves competing against stars who have already had their time in the spotlight. In an industry where quality roles are scarce, newcomers without many credits may be at a disadvantage against resurrected stars with established track records. Variety observed that executives in Hollywood, looking to cut back on expenses, may leap at the chance to cast performers who will not balloon a budget.[7] Deceased performers, who do not require per diems or fringe benefits, may stand out as the preferred choices of cost-conscious studios. Given these potential savings, recruiting expensive talent, who also cannot be managed in the same way as their AI-created rivals, may no longer be in the best interest of major companies.
Taking A Beat
Forward-looking creatives determined to woo modern audiences may treat an AI-resurrected star as a surefire success. In reality, this strategy has its flaws. While licensing agreements with family estates can be appealing, the mishandling of a celebrity’s digital assets may tarnish iconic brands. At the same time, the growing popularity of AI-generated replicas could threaten the career prospects of emerging talent. Taken together, these concerns should give creatives pause before they invest in technologies that bring performers back from the dead. The ethical and economic consequences of following this course of action may be more than industry professionals bargained for.
As AI becomes more intertwined with the future of entertainment, policymakers must act to protect the interests of performers. Solutions are beginning to take shape. For instance, a 2024 bill signed into law by California Governor Gavin Newsom provides steep penalties for the misuse of digital replicas depicting deceased personalities.[8] Officials across the globe should also work with performers, and their unions, to develop protections that prevent them from being pushed out of the business. Although the hype surrounding AI-resurrected entertainers will likely persist, steps can be taken to ensure they are brought back in a thoughtful and responsible manner.
[1] Michael Ashley, Nostalgia Isn’t Enough To Save Hollywood. But AI Might Be, Forbes (Oct. 20, 2025), https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelashley/2025/10/20/nostalgia-isnt-enough-to-save-hollywood-but-ai-might-be/.
[2] Michael Waters, The Celebrity Machine Never Dies, The Atlantic (Dec. 6, 2024), https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2024/12/ai-dead-celebrity-estate-profit/680873/.
[3] S.J. Velasquez, How AI is bringing film stars back from the dead, BBC (Jul. 18, 2023), https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230718-how-ai-is-bringing-film-stars-back-from-the-dead.
[4] Eneko Ruiz Jiménez, ‘Horrendous Frankensteinian monster’: The debate over digitally resurrecting Hollywood stars, El País (Oct. 4, 2024), https://english.elpais.com/culture/2024-10-04/horrendous-frankensteinian-monster-the-debate-over-digitally-resurrecting-hollywood-stars.html.
[5] Josh Rottenberg, De-aged stars, cloned voices, resuscitated dead icons: AI is changing the art and business of acting, The Los Angeles Times (Jul. 24, 2025), https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2025-07-24/hollywood-tomorrow-acting-jobs-ai-mark-hamill.
[6] Bryan Reesman, A Fake Val Kilmer Tests What Movie Lovers Will Tolerate, Bloomberg (Mar. 25, 2026), https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2026-03-25/ai-generated-val-kilmer-is-a-test-for-hollywood?embedded-checkout=true.
[7] Mark Bartholomew and Martin Skladany, Why Hollywood Should Leave Dead Actors Alone, Variety (Nov. 30, 2022), https://variety.com/2022/film/columns/hollywood-dead-actors-ai-1235445783/.
[8] Cal. State Assemb., AB-1836, Sess. 2023-2024 (2024), https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1836.
