Gonzalez 1

Alex Gonzalez Bensen

CST 300 Writing Lab
11 February 2024
Ethics Argument Paper

Introduction/Background

Celebrities die, but who doesn't wish their favorite deceased celebrity could release a

new cache of songs or take the stage for one last encore? Thanks to advances in technology,

they can. Michael Jackson was seen posthumously moonwalking at the 2014 Billboard Music

Awards; Tupac Shakur, who died in 1996, rapped at the 2012 Coachella music festival; and 20

years after her death, in 2021, Aaliyah's songs were released on streaming services (Benchatrit,

2021). Digital "resurrections" through hologram performances, artificial voices, posthumous

albums, and various other digital renderings are becoming increasingly common.

Just because these posthumous digital renderings are becoming more common doesn't

mean everyone agrees on how they should be used. Recent controversies have stirred up

debate about whether projects that use a deceased celebrity's likeness or creative output honor

their legacy or instead exploit it. For example, Rapper Lil Peep died in 2017 at 21, leaving a

lifetime of recordings on his computer's hard drive. One of these recordings was ultimately used

by Lil Peep's publisher in a collaboration between Lil Peep and XXXTentacion. Lil Peep was

known to have had serious differences with XXXTentacion in life, raising red flags among Lil

Peep's former collaborators about whether Lil Peep would have approved of his music being

used in this way (Caramanica, 2018). Lil Peep's publisher disregarded this concern, saying, “We

thought the song was so good and the message was so powerful. Honestly not putting it out

would have felt like the wrong thing to do. What do you do—just sit on it?” (Caramanica, 2018).
 Gonzalez 2

Another controversy that highlights the shaky ground on which posthumous use of

digital renderings sits relates to Roadrunner, Oscar-winner Morgan Neville’s documentary film

about Anthony Bourdain, a celebrity chef. Neville recently revealed that three lines in the film

were generated using AI technology from a dozen hours of recordings by Bourdain. These

sentences sounded like they were being spoken by Bourdain, who died in 2018, and they had, in

fact, been written by Bourdain. But they were not spoken by Bourdain, and use of this AI-

generated voice was neither consented to by Bourdain nor disclosed to the documentary's

audience. Neville reportedly said about his fabrication of Bourdain's voice that "We can have a

documentary-ethics panel about it later" (Townsend, 2022). Use of a fabricated voice, image, or

likeness of a deceased celebrity would seem to need ethical review given the potentially

devastating consequences such a fabrication could have on a deceased celebrity's legacy.

Stakeholder Analysis

At least two stakeholder viewpoints are represented in the controversies described

above: estates and media companies who are free to fabricate a deceased celebrity's image or

creative products and people who oppose these posthumous fabrications.

Stakeholder 1

Estates and media companies tend to focus on how a deceased celebrity's image and

creative products can be used to benefit the entities they represent or the celebrity's fan base.

The fact that Lil Peep avoided XXXTentacion when he was alive due to allegations that he had

battered his pregnant girlfriend (Miller, 2018) either wasn't known or wasn't seen by estate and

media company decisionmakers as a reason not to approve a collaboration between the two

deceased celebrities. Instead, the decision to approve the collaboration seems to have focused
 Gonzalez 3

on how much money could be generated out of the collaboration or whether the deceased

celebrities' fan bases would be excited by the collaboration.

When a celebrity dies, the deceased celebrity's estate is given a post-mortem legal right

of publicity, which effectively allows the estate to profit from the deceased celebrity's name,

voice, likeness, creative outputs, and other aspects of the deceased celebrity's persona

(NovaEstateLawyers.com, 2022). Unless the celebrity has specifically set limits on this right

while alive, the estate is free to generate hype and profit as it sees fit. For these stakeholders,

legal right functions as moral right.

Stakeholder 2

The second set of stakeholders are people who oppose posthumous fabrication of

celebrities' images and creative products. First and foremost, these stakeholders consider the

right of the celebrity to control the use of his or her own image and creative products. For

example, in their consideration of whether Lil Peep's music should be included in a song with

XXXTentacion's, Lil Peep's former collaborators argued that a collaboration would wash away

known important differences between these two celebrities (Caramanica, 2018). Presumably, Lil

Peep would not have wanted that. These stakeholders aimed their efforts at "doing justice to

Peep's legacy," which for them meant using his image and creative products as he likely would

have wanted them used had he lived. Unfortunately, Lil Peep never safeguarded his right to

secure the legacy he wanted for himself legally while he was alive (Caramanica, 2018).

Some celebrities have made it easier for stakeholders who value the right of deceased

celebrities to control their images and creative products to safeguard their rights. The musician

Anderson Paak has a tattoo on his arm that reads, “When I’m gone, please don’t release any
 Gonzalez 4

posthumous albums or songs with my name attached. Those were just demos and never

intended to be heard by the public” (Stroud, 2023). But for celebrities who didn't think ahead

about safeguarding their legacies, posthumous use of their images and creative products

remains in the hands of their legal heirs. Nonetheless, these stakeholders believe it is right to

honor the intentions and autonomy of the deceased celebrities. They see release of

posthumous fabrications as exploitation of the deceased celebrity.

Argument Question

Should a law be passed to prohibit posthumous media releases that fabricate a

deceased celebrity's image and creative products?

Stakeholder 1

In addition to its sound legal grounding, Stakeholder 1's opposition to efforts to prohibit

posthumous media releases is grounded in utilitarian ethical principles. The utilitarian ethical

framework sets forth that what is ethical is what produces the greatest good for the greatest

number of people. In computing this calculation of the greatest good, the interests of all people

must be regarded as equally valuable. This framework was robustly developed by Jeremy

Bentham and John Stuart Mill in the 19th century (Driver, 2022) and can be commonly seen at

work as a mode of ethical decision making in today's modern society.

Stakeholder 1's position can be supported within a utilitarian ethical framework. If a

celebrity's image and creative products remain free to be adapted digitally upon the celebrity's

death, the sky could be the limit in terms of how many people could benefit. The celebrity's

image and creative products could be altered through use of updated technologies, products, or

platforms to reach a broader audience. Over time, the deceased celebrity's adapted assets
 Gonzalez 5

could evolve to meet the changing needs of society and future generations. If that's not enough,

digital adaptations likely would increase the commercial value of the deceased celebrity's

assets, with increased financial benefits for the estate, heirs, media companies, and possibly

charitable foundations.

On the other hand, when a celebrity dies, if posthumous media releases that fabricate a

deceased celebrity's image and creative products are prohibited, then people who enjoy the

celebrity's creative catalog as well as the celebrity's rightful heirs could continue to enjoy

existing creative outputs and money derived from their use. This set of people might be small or

large, but it's not hard to imagine that this set might be as small as the celebrity's family and

closest colleagues. Under such conditions, these stakeholders would think that limiting the

reach of a celebrity's good and powerful creative outputs would be wrong (Caramanica, 2018).

It would not produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

These stakeholders believe much good could be lost if a law were passed that prohibited

posthumous media releases that fabricate the deceased celebrity's image and creative

products. The celebrity's fans could not expect any additional creative outputs, and the estate,

heirs, media companies, and possibly charitable foundations could not look forward to

potentially dramatically increased revenues. On the other hand, if the law were not passed,

many people beyond the deceased celebrity could be positively affected by expanded use of a

deceased celebrity's assets. This fact of its greater goodness makes it good within the utilitarian

framework, regardless of the whether the celebrity would have approved of such fabrications.
 Gonzalez 6

Stakeholder 2

Stakeholder 2's belief that a law should be passed to prohibit posthumous media

releases of fabricated images and creative products is grounded in the ethical principle, respect

for autonomy. This principle operates in a variety of contexts, but as to moral autonomy, it

refers to a person's capacity to govern themselves. In modern times, the respect for autonomy

principle rose out of the 19th century philosophy of Immanuel Kant. According to Kant, to be

morally and legally accountable, people must have the right to govern themselves in a way that

is harmonious with their own reasons and motives (Christman, 2020). John Rawls expanded

Kant's ideas of autonomy into the political realm by arguing that you don't know what position

you'll be born into in society, and you shouldn't make laws that you wouldn't mind having

applied to you (Taylor, n.d.).

The tenets of the respect for autonomy framework have led stakeholders opposed to

posthumous digital fabrications to the conclusion that unless such fabrications have been

expressly agreed to by the celebrity, other people can't know for sure what the deceased

celebrity's reasons and motives would be regarding the adaptations and should not seek to

digitally alter the deceased celebrity's image or creative outputs. Using this framework, these

stakeholders believe that Lil Peep's estate should not have presumed he would want to

posthumously collaborate with XXXTentacion, and Morgan Neville should not have presumed

Anthony Bourdain would want his voice recreated by AI to give his fans the joy of hearing his

unspoken words or for any other reason. Neither of these actions respected the autonomy of

the subject celebrities.

 Gonzalez 7

When a celebrity has died, it is incumbent on the people who are charged with

managing a deceased celebrity's image and creative products to explore the celebrity's words

and deeds for evidence of their reasons and motives. If explicit evidence is found, then

stakeholders can feel justified in managing the deceased celebrity's assets in the manner

indicated by the celebrity. If no such evidence is found, these stakeholders would not be

justified in taking actions counter to the explicit directions of the deceased celebrity within the

respect for autonomy framework.

If control of the deceased celebrity's image and creative products is limited to uses

specifically consented to by the celebrity, these stakeholders can go about their lives knowing

that neither the celebrity nor they themselves need worry about the many indignities that could

result from callous posthumous management of their images and creative products. All living

people can benefit from knowing what they have accomplished in their lives would be secure

and not venture down some path that diminishes their stature. Their estates would remain

entitled to the commercial successes the celebrities were able to enjoy in their lifetimes. The

celebrity's fans likewise could enjoy the deceased celebrity's creative products but not any

future transformation of those products. But no uses of their image and creative products could

violate the guiding principles they chose to use to govern their lives.

Student Position

I would argue a law should be passed to prohibit posthumous media releases that

fabricate the deceased celebrity's image and creative products. I am very particular about

respecting other people's rights to live their lives as authentically as possible, assuming they

don't harm others in the process. I wouldn't want anyone representing my image or creative
 Gonzalez 8

products in a way I had not agreed to. In today's world, such representations can run far afield

from a person's motives and intentions. I want to be remembered after my death for who I

am--not who someone else has fabricated me to be given the consequent benefits to others.

In general, my position aligns with the people who make up Shareholder 2. I don't want

people posthumously messing with my image or creative products. After I'm dead, I think an

accurate representation of who I was is more important than any fabrication that society or my

heirs can bring into existence in my name--no matter how many of them want it. If I have

explicitly agreed to be resurrected in a particular way after I have died, then and only then can I

have nothing to say about it.

An obvious solution to this problem of needing a new law to settle conflicting interests is

for celebrities (and perhaps all of us) to be clear in life as to what we want when we die. We do

this with living wills so that we aren't physically resuscitated or saddled indefinitely with life-

maintaining equipment if we don't choose to be. Just as young people tend not to be

concerned with this, it seems young celebrities also ignore the issue until it's too late, thus

failing to protect themselves from unwanted digital resurrections. In a world where people

often disagree about what's right, we should be clear with our written words and unwritten

deeds regarding what we think is right.

 Gonzalez 9

References

Benchatrit, Jenna (2021, August 8). Dead celebrities are being digitally resurrected - and the

ethics are murky. Retrieved from www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/dead-celebrities-digital-

resurrection-1.6132738#:~:text=Entertainment-,Dead%20celebrities%20are%20being

%20digitally%20resurrected%20—%20and%20the%20ethics%20are,and%20works

%20after%20they%20die

Caramanica, Jon (2018, October 31). Lil Peep died before becoming pop royalty. His new music

may change that. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/31/arts/music/lil-

peep-archives-come-over-when-youre-sober.html

Christman, John (2020). Autonomy in moral and political philosophy. Retrieved from

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/autonomy-moral/

Driver, Julia (2022). The history of utilitarianism. Retrieved from

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/

Miller, Matt (2018, October 24). XXXTentacion confession recording - Late rapper

XXXTentacion admits to abusing his pregnant girlfriend in newly obtained recording.

Retrieved from www.esquire.com/entertainment/music/a24163721/xxxtentacion-pregnant-

girlfriend-assault-confession-audio/

NovaEstateLawyers.com (2022). What is post-mortem right of publicity? Retrieved from

https://www.novaestatelawyers.com/post-mortem-right-of-publicity/

Stroud, Sean (2023, March 23). Posthumous content is ruining artists’ legacies. Retrieved from

https://eastfieldnews.com/27405/lifearts/posthumous-content-is-ruining-artists-legacies/
 Gonzalez 10

Taylor, Anthony (n.d.). Rawls's conception of autonomy. Retrieved from

https://philpapers.org/archive/TAYRCO.pdf

Townsend, Katie (2022, February 4). Raising the dead: Understanding post-mortem rights of

publicity. Retrieved from

https://www.documentary.org/column/raising-dead-understanding-post-mortem-rights-

publicity