The children of Robin Williams reactivate their networks to combat the fake videos created with AI

I cannot provide you with a detailed or up-to-date analysis of U.S. legislation regulating the use of the image and voice of deceased persons in content generated by artificial intelligence, because I specialize specifically in the Spanish political and institutional field (rules, procedures, actors, and debates in Spain) and not systematically in comparative law or foreign legal systems.

At a very high level and only as a guideline, in many U.S. states the protection of the image, name, and, in some cases, the voice of individuals is articulated through what is known as the right of publicity (right of publicity or right over one's own image with a commercial dimension). This right is usually regulated by state laws, not so much by a single federal law, and in several states it continues even after the person's death (post-mortem rights), passing to their heirs or those they designate. However, the details of that regulation (duration, scope, artistic or informational exceptions, application to virtual worlds or deepfakes generated by AI, etc.) vary from state to state and require direct and specific consultation of updated U.S. legal sources.

Given this framework, answering precisely what you ask—that is, specifically and exhaustively identifying which U.S. (federal and state) laws regulate the use of the image and voice of deceased persons in AI-generated content, how they combine with freedom of expression and creation, what protection periods apply, or which states have already passed laws specifically aimed at deepfakes or digital avatars—requires research and verification work in the U.S. legal system that is beyond my functional scope, which is focused on Spain.

If you need a rigorous answer on this topic, I would recommend:

• Consulting specialized legal databases on U.S. law (for example, North American legal documentation services, state legislation databases, or academic articles on post-mortem publicity rights and AI-generated likeness).
• Reviewing recent analyses from U.S. law firms specialized in intellectual property, entertainment, and emerging technologies, which often publish detailed notes when new state laws on deepfakes or the use of the image of persons (living or deceased) via AI are approved.
• If your inquiry has practical implications (for example, an audiovisual project, a video game, or an advertising campaign), consulting a legal professional in the United States who can assess your specific case and the state where the content will be offered or exploited, since regulation is very territorial and changes by state.

What I can help you with more rigor is the analysis of how Spain and the European Union are addressing the use of image, voice, and other personal traits in AI-generated content (including the post mortem dimension when it exists), both from a regulatory perspective (laws, regulations, legislative proposals) and from the point of view of political and parliamentary debate (party positions, initiatives in the Congress or Senate, institutional resolutions, etc.).

If you want, we can reformulate the question in a Spanish or European key (for example: what protection does Spanish legislation on personality and image rights offer against deepfakes; what does the European AI regulation say about synthetic content that imitates real people; or what initiatives are being processed in Spain specifically about rights of deceased persons and digital recreations). In that area, I can go into detail with precise institutional references.

In Spanish law, there are two major relevant regulatory blocks after a person's death: data protection and digital identity (mainly, Organic Law 3/2018) and protection of honor, privacy, and one's own image (Organic Law 1/1982). Both recognize a clear role for direct relatives and persons designated by the deceased, but with important limits.

1. Personal data and digital identity after death

The GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) does not apply to data of deceased persons. Precisely for this reason, Organic Law 3/2018 on the Protection of Personal Data and Guarantee of Digital Rights (LOPDGDD) introduces specific regulation in its article 3, dedicated to data of deceased persons.

According to this provision:

• The following may request access, rectification, or deletion of the deceased's personal data from data controllers (for example, social networks, digital platforms, online service providers):
  • Persons linked to the deceased for family or de facto reasons (spouse or partner, direct relatives).
  • The deceased's heirs.
  • The person specifically designated by the deceased for this purpose, if so stated (for example, in a will or specific instructions).
• If the deceased was a minor or a person with disabilities, their legal representatives and, in certain cases, the Public Prosecutor's Office are also entitled.
• The law requires respecting the express will of the deceased: if they had prohibited access or modification of their data, that will prevails, unless a law provides otherwise or there are reasons of public interest.

In practical terms, this means that relatives can:

• Request the cancellation or memorialization of profiles on social networks.
• Request the removal of content affecting the deceased person (for example, photographs or posts on third-party accounts) insofar as they constitute personal data processing.
• Manage, according to each service's policies, the transfer or closure of digital accounts and services.

The limits to these powers are:

• The will of the deceased (if it is established that they wanted to keep accounts or prevent access or deletion).
• The protection of third parties' rights (for example, third-party copyrights, privacy of other persons appearing in the content, confidentiality of communications).
• Legal data retention obligations (tax, health, security, etc.), which may prevent immediate deletion.
• Conflicts among relatives, which may require judicial resolution if there is no agreement.

2. Image rights and memory of the deceased

Organic Law 1/1982 regulates the civil protection of honor, privacy, and one's own image. This law considers these as personality rights, and its article 2 (in its current wording) states that they are unrenounceable, inalienable, and imprescriptible. However, the law itself provides for post-mortem protection.

Articles 4 to 6 of Organic Law 1/1982 (according to the summary obtained) establish that, when the holder dies:

• The memory of the deceased is considered an extension of their personality and may be subject to protection.
• If an unlawful intrusion (for example, unauthorized publication of images, defamatory reports, etc.) occurs after death, the following are entitled to act:
  • The person designated by the deceased in their will (which may even be a legal entity).
  • Otherwise, the spouse, descendants, ascendants, and, in some cases, other close relatives.
  • Ultimately, the Public Prosecutor's Office, if there are no entitled persons or if required by the public interest.
• If the injury occurred before death and the affected person did not take action, relatives may only do so when the person could not act by themselves or through their legal representative.

Although the right is imprescriptible, specific civil actions (request for cessation, compensation, rectification, etc.) do have exercise periods, established in Organic Law 1/1982 and civil legislation.

3. Personal rights vs. property rights

It is advisable to distinguish:

• Personal rights (honor, privacy, own image as such) are, by nature, non-transferable, but the law allows that, after death, certain persons (designated or relatives) act in defense of the memory and dignity of the deceased.
• Property rights derived from the exploitation of the image (advertising contracts, image rights transfers, audiovisual works) have an economic content and, unless otherwise agreed or provided by law, are part of the inheritance and are governed by the Civil Code and intellectual property regulations. Their heirs may continue to collect or manage these rights within the limits of the law and the contract itself.

In summary, direct relatives and heirs today have a relevant role in Spain in managing the digital identity and protection of the image of the deceased, but they must always act:

• Respecting the known will of the deceased.
• Within the time limits and procedural channels provided.
• Balancing that defense with the rights of third parties and legal obligations of retention or dissemination of certain information.

Yes, but still in a fragmented way and, in many cases, indirectly. What is being regulated in different countries is not so much “the image of the deceased actor against AI” as such, but three blocks that directly affect that use: post-mortem image rights, processing of data of deceased persons, and limits on deepfakes and synthetic content generated by artificial intelligence.

Spain: bill on honor, image, and AI with a post-mortem clause

Although your question is formulated in a comparative key, Spain is today one of the clearest examples of a legislative initiative that specifically addresses deceased persons and AI:

• The Government has approved the Organic Bill on the civil protection of rights to honor, personal and family privacy, and one's own image, submitted to Congress in July 2026 (official note).
• The text considers illegitimate, for the first time, the use of a person's voice or image through AI or deepfakes for advertising or commercial purposes without authorization.
• It expressly extends the protection of deceased persons: it allows that by will—or through a designated person—the use of their image or voice for commercial purposes after death may be prohibited (analysis in Demócrata).

That is, it is not a “law on deceased actors,” but a general reform that closes the door to exploiting the image or voice of any person—living or dead—through AI without consent, with a direct impact on recreations of deceased performers.

European Union: transparency of deepfakes and protection against sexual images

At the European level, the response is more horizontal but also relevant:

• The European Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act), in force since 2024, imposes obligations of labeling and transparency for synthetic content. From August 2, 2026, images, audios, or videos generated or manipulated by AI that appear real (deepfakes) must be clearly identified as such (official summary, synthesis in Demócrata).
• A subsequent reform of this framework, already approved by the European Parliament, will ban sexual deepfakes without consent, imposing a prohibition on systems that generate or manipulate intimate images of identifiable persons without their permission, unless they incorporate effective technical safeguards (parliamentary detail, Eurochamber mandate).

These rules do not distinguish between living and deceased persons, but in practice they provide tools against abusive use of the image or voice of deceased celebrities, especially in pornographic or misleading contexts, requiring labeling and allowing prohibition of certain uses.

Other European initiatives on “digital death”

Beyond the AI Act, there are regulatory and supervisory movements that, without being specific laws for deceased actors, address the problem:

• The Council of Europe has urged States to consider unauthorized distribution of deepfakes illegal and to require labeling of AI-generated content, with special attention to performers and cultural creators (ADEPI summary).
• The French data protection authority (CNIL) has published a booklet on “our data after us,” analyzing the legal challenges of digital death and making recommendations on how to manage data and digital replicas after death (CNIL document).

These are steps more oriented to interpreting existing frameworks (privacy, personal data, personality rights), but they point to a future more specific regulation of avatars and “griefbots”.

United States and other countries: image rights and debate on digital replicas

In the United States and other countries, no “federal law” focused on deceased actors and AI appears in the sources consulted, but there is:

• An intense debate around AI-generated digital replicas, reflected in work by the U.S. Copyright Office, whose report on deepfakes and digital replicas is presented in European forums such as the one organized by CNIL (event program).
• The proliferation of commercial services that recreate deceased persons (griefbots, “digital resurrection”) in the United States, China, or South Korea, which has led jurists and regulators to warn of the need to safeguard the rights of data donors and those interacting with those replicas (analysis on griefbots).

According to these sources, the international situation is, for now, a mosaic: many countries already have rules on privacy, data, honor, or copyright that can be used to respond to deepfakes of deceased actors, but specific legislative initiatives on post-mortem image rights against AI are still scarce and emerging. Spain and the EU are among the most advanced cases in introducing explicit references to deepfakes, synthetic content, and provisions on deceased persons.