The Ethical Dilemma of Digital Necromancy: The Elis Regina Case and a Partial Solution by Brazilian Legislators
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14422/rib.i26.y2024.009Keywords:
artificial intelligence, law and bioethics, digital necromancy, Elis Regina, negative presumptionAbstract
The combination of death and technology is a tricky topic, especially with Artificial Intelligence (AI) thrown into the mix, as seen in the Elis Regina Case in Brazil. Volkswagen used AI to bring back the late singer’s image for a commercial, which sparked debates nationwide and globally about the ethical and legal implications of AI resurrecting deceased individuals’ images, dubbed “digital necromancy”. Efforts such as Bill No. 3592/23 aim to regulate postmortem image use, requiring explicit consent or presuming its prohibition. This paper explores the bioethical dimensions raised by the case, diving into the ethical dilemmas and legal responses while shedding light on the evolving landscape of bioethics and law in the age of advancing technology. Using a case study, this paper concludes that Bill No. 3592/23 offers a partial solution to a complex ethical dilemma, opening a possible pathway for future regulators.
Downloads
References
Aplin, T., & Pasqualetto, G. (2023). Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Protection. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3419481
Brasil, Câmara dos Deputados, Projeto de Lei n.º 21/2020. Estabelece fundamentos, princípios e diretrizes para o desenvolvimento e a aplicação da inteligência artificial no Brasil; e dá outras providências, 2020.
Brasil, Senado Federal, Projeto de Lei n.º 3592, de 2023. Estabelece diretrizes para o uso de imagens e áudios de pessoas falecidas por meio de inteligência artificial (IA), com o intuito de preservar a dignidade, a privacidade e os direitos dos indivíduos mesmo após sua morte, 2023.
Brasil, Senado Federal, Projeto de Lei n.º 5051, de 2019. Estabelece os princípios para o uso da Inteligência Artificial no Brasil, 2019.
Celeste, E. (2022). Digital Constitutionalism: The Role of Internet Bills of Rights. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003256908
Chesterman, S. (2020). Artificial Intelligence and the Limits of Legal Personality. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 69(4), 819-844. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589320000366
Corrales Compagnucci, M., Wilson, M. L., Fenwick, M., Forgó, N., & Bärnighausen, T. (eds.). (2022). AI in eHealth: Human Autonomy, Data Governance and Privacy in Healthcare (Cambridge Bioethics and Law series). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108921923
Costa, R. S., & Kremer, B. (2022). Inteligência Artificial e Discriminação: Desafios e Perspectivas para a Proteção de Grupos Vulneráveis Frente às Tecnologias de Reconhecimento Facial. Revista Brasileira De Direitos Fundamentais & Justiça, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.30899/dfj.v16i1.1316
Düwell, M., Rehmann-Sutter, C., & Mieth, D. (2008). The contingent nature of life: Bioethics and the limits of human existence (International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine, Vol. 39). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6764-8
Figueira, H. L. M. (2023). Herança Digital e o Caso Elis Regina: implicações jurídicas no uso da imagem de pessoas mortas pela inteligência artificial. Revista Jurídica, 3(5), 527-545.
Gaon, A. H. (2021). The Future of Copyright in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839103155
Hutson, J., & Ratican, J. (2023). Life, death, and AI: Exploring digital necromancy in popular culture – Ethical considerations, technological limitations, and the pet cemetery conundrum. Metaverse, 4(1), 2166. https://doi.org/10.54517/m.v4i1.2166
Morse, T. (2023) Digital necromancy: users’ perceptions of digital afterlife and posthumous communication technologies. Information, Communication & Society, 27(2), 240-256. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2023.2205467
Nafziger, J. A. R. (2022). The Law and Bioethics of End-of-Life Decisions. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 70(Supplement_1), i394-i416. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avac013
Silva, J. M. (2020). A Sociedade Midíocre: Passagem ao Hiperespetacular (O Fim do Direito Autoral, do Livro e da Escrita). Editora Buqui.
Smith, S. W. (2012). End-of-life decisions in medical care: Principles and policies for regulating the dying process. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511793929
Spielman, B. (2006). Bioethics in Law. Humana Press.
Taylor, J. S. (2012). Death, Posthumous Harm, and Bioethics (Routledge Annals of Bioethics). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203106426
Tomasini, F. (2009). Is post-mortem harm possible? Understanding death harm and grief. Bioethics, 23(8), 441- 449. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00665.x
Valente, C., Sartori, R., & Marin, J. P. (2023). Inteligência Artificial e Direitos Autorais: Um Mapeamento da Produção Científica. Cadernos de Prospecção, 16(4), 1137-1150. https://doi.org/10.9771/cp.v16i4.50583
Wachowicz, M. (coord.). (2015). Direito Autoral e Marco Civil da Internet. GEDAI.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Pedro Khauaja
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The authors of articles published in Revista Iberoamericana de Bioética retain the intellectual property rights over their works and grant the journal their distribution and public communication rights, consenting to their publication under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivates 4.0 Internacional. Authors are encouraged to publish their work on the Internet (for example, on institutional or personal pages, repositories, etc.) respecting the conditions of this license and quoting appropriately the original source.
