Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Post-mortem privacy

Post-mortem privacy refers to the extension of privacy protections beyond an individual's death, encompassing safeguards for their personal information, reputation, dignity, and digital remains against unauthorized disclosure, commercialization, or exploitation.^[1]^[2] Traditionally rooted in common law doctrines that deny privacy rights to the deceased—owing to their incapacity to experience harm or exercise autonomy—the concept challenges this "no-rights-for-the-dead" principle by emphasizing residual interests of the living, such as familial grief, reputational integrity for future generations, and societal norms of respect for human remains and legacies.^[1]^[3] Legal recognition varies across jurisdictions: in the United States, general privacy torts typically abate upon death, though post-mortem rights of publicity persist in over two dozen states to regulate commercial uses of a decedent's likeness, with durations ranging from 10 to 100 years; in contrast, Europe's GDPR acknowledges data processing implications after death but grants no direct rights to the deceased, while some national laws, like France's, allow heirs limited control over digital assets.^[1]^[4] The rise of digital technologies has intensified debates, as deceased individuals leave vast online footprints—including social media profiles, emails, and genetic data—that persist indefinitely, prompting calls for mechanisms like testamentary directives or statutory standing for survivors to enforce privacy.^[5] Scholars advocate for a nuanced framework balancing these protections against free speech and public interest, proposing limits on duration (e.g., short-term for grieving periods, longer for exploitable assets) and eligibility tied to evidence of the decedent's ante-mortem preferences to avoid speculative claims.^[1]^[2] Notable controversies include lawsuits over leaked crash-site photographs, as in the case of Kobe Bryant's family securing damages for privacy invasions, and disputes over estates' control of unpublished works or likenesses, highlighting tensions between commercial incentives and non-pecuniary dignitary harms.^[1]^[3] Proponents argue that recognizing post-mortem privacy reinforces living privacy norms by deterring perpetual data commodification, though critics contend it risks overreach without demonstrable harm to sentient parties.^[5]^[2]

Conceptual Foundations

Definition and Scope

Post-mortem privacy refers to the extension of an individual's privacy interests beyond death, encompassing the right to control the dissemination and use of personal information, reputation, and dignity after demise.^[2] This concept posits that autonomy over one's informational self-determination should, in principle, persist posthumously, allowing for the preservation of integrity against unauthorized disclosures or exploitations.^[6] Unlike privacy rights during life, which protect living individuals from tangible harms like emotional distress, post-mortem privacy addresses indirect impacts, such as damage to familial legacy or ethical violations in data handling.^[1] The scope of post-mortem privacy primarily involves digital and informational remnants, including social media profiles, emails, health records, and biometric data generated during life but persisting afterward.^[7] It extends to reputational elements like posthumous publicity rights, where commercial exploitation of a deceased person's likeness—such as in California's statute granting 70 years of post-mortem protection—intersects with privacy by preventing degrading or false portrayals.^[4] Ethical dimensions include arguments for a prima facie moral claim to privacy in sensitive contexts like medical research, where de-identified data from the deceased could still reveal familial genetic risks if mishandled.^[7] However, scope is delimited by competing interests, such as public access to historical records or freedom of expression, with no uniform global recognition; for instance, informational self-determination in Europe influences debates on extending the "right to be forgotten" beyond death, though legal enforcement often relies on heirs or estates.^[2]^[8] Philosophically, post-mortem privacy challenges traditional privacy paradigms by invoking intergenerational trust and harm prevention, where unchecked data sharing could erode incentives for lifetime information disclosure.^[8] Its breadth covers not only proactive controls—like pre-death directives for account deletion—but also reactive measures, such as blocking public access to death scene imagery to avert reputational taint on survivors.^[5] While primarily conceptual in many jurisdictions, emerging applications in biobanking and AI-driven reconstructions of deceased personas highlight expanding risks, necessitating frameworks that balance deceased autonomy with societal benefits like archival preservation.^[1]

Philosophical and Ethical Underpinnings

Post-mortem privacy raises fundamental questions about the persistence of individual autonomy and dignity beyond biological death, challenging traditional conceptions of rights as tied exclusively to living agents. Philosophers and ethicists drawing on interest theory, as articulated by Joseph Raz, argue that privacy protections can extend post-mortem to safeguard the well-being interests of future-decedents, who anticipate harms to their reputation, memory, or bodily integrity after death.^[1] This view posits privacy not merely as a capacity for control (per will theory, which denies rights to the non-sentient dead) but as a forward-looking mechanism preserving pre-death preferences and relational ties, such as family grief or emotional distress from unauthorized disclosures.^[1] In contrast, deontological critiques rooted in the incapacity of the deceased for suffering emphasize that privacy claims lapse at death, prioritizing societal utilities like historical inquiry or free expression over enduring restrictions.^[1] Information Ethics, as developed by Luciano Floridi, provides a framework treating the deceased as persistent informational entities entitled to a prima facie moral right to privacy, particularly in contexts like health data where violations can damage dignity or relational networks affecting living kin.^[7] This approach underscores relationality—wherein genetic or medical records implicate family members or communities—arguing that post-mortem privacy fosters social trust and encourages data sharing by assuring confidentiality endures, akin to medical ethics codes maintaining patient secrets after death to uphold professional duties.^[7] ^[9] Ethicists contend such protections align with Kantian respect for persons as ends-in-themselves, extending to their informational legacies to prevent commodification or reputational harm, though exceptions arise when overriding public benefits, like epidemiological research, justify disclosure after contextual balancing.^[7] Counterarguments highlight the absence of direct harm to the deceased, viewing post-mortem claims as proxies for survivor interests that risk chilling speech or innovation without empirical justification for perpetual duties.^[10] Theoretically, post-mortem privacy illuminates privacy's social and interdependent nature, shifting from individualistic control to reciprocal obligations among stakeholders, as seen in medical confidentiality's survival in common law traditions.^[5] Proposals like durational pragmatism advocate time-limited protections calibrated to specific harms—such as one to two years for acute grieving or generational spans for relational privacy—balancing dignity against public access, while critiquing indefinite extensions for favoring celebrities over ordinary decedents.^[1] This ethical tension reflects broader causal realities: unchecked digital persistence amplifies risks to autonomy, yet rigid post-mortem barriers may impede utilitarian gains in knowledge or commemoration, necessitating case-specific reasoning over absolutist denial of survivor-derived rights.^[1]

Historical Development

Pre-Modern Concepts

In ancient Egypt, post-mortem privacy was implicitly upheld through practices centered on the physical integrity and seclusion of the deceased's remains, essential for their afterlife journey. Tombs were fortified with mechanical traps, false passages, and inscriptions invoking divine curses against desecrators, such as those in the Pyramid Texts dating to the Old Kingdom (c. 2686–2181 BCE), which warned of eternal punishment for disturbing the ka (life force) or ba (personality).^[11] The mummification process itself, involving evisceration and wrapping to preserve the body indefinitely, reflected a cultural imperative to shield the corpse from decay or intrusion, ensuring the deceased's eternal privacy in the Duat.^[12] Ancient Greek society enforced analogous protections via religious and customary obligations to burial rites, motivated by fears of the unburied dead (ataphoi) returning as vengeful ghosts. Texts like Sophocles' Antigone (c. 441 BCE) illustrate the unwritten law requiring prompt entombment to prevent spectral unrest, with failure punishable by social ostracism or supernatural reprisal; archaeological evidence from Mycenaean shaft graves (c. 1600–1100 BCE) shows sealed chambers designed to isolate remains from the living.^[13] This extended to prohibiting grave disturbance, as seen in Delphic oracle pronouncements upholding burial sanctity as a pan-Hellenic norm.^[14] Roman law codified tomb protections early, with the Twelve Tables (c. 450 BCE) banning burials within city limits and imposing penalties for sepulcher violation, viewing such acts as sacrilege against the manes (ancestral spirits).^[15] Civil interdicts under the Lex Cornelia de Sicariis (81 BCE) further criminalized corpse mutilation or grave robbery, blending pietas (familial duty) with state enforcement to preserve the dead's dignity and isolation.^[16] Reputationally, while direct defamation laws focused on the living, customs discouraged posthumous slander to honor ancestral memory, as echoed in later Germanic traditions tracing to pre-Christian ancestor cults, where maligning the dead warranted communal sanctions.^[17] Medieval Christian Europe built on these foundations, integrating biblical mandates for burial respect (e.g., Deuteronomy 21:23) with canon law prohibiting desecration, though relic veneration sometimes conflicted by exposing saintly remains publicly.^[12] The emerging norm de mortuis nil nisi bonum (of the dead, speak nothing but good), rooted in Stoic and early Church Fathers' teachings like those of Chilon of Sparta (6th century BCE) via Diogenes Laërtius, reinforced reticence about the deceased's flaws to safeguard familial honor and spiritual repose.^[18] These pre-modern practices prioritized physical seclusion and reputational forbearance over individualized informational privacy, grounded in afterlife beliefs rather than abstract rights.

20th-Century Emergence and Key Milestones

The concept of post-mortem privacy began to emerge in the early 20th century as an extension of living individuals' privacy rights, though traditional privacy torts—such as intrusion upon seclusion or public disclosure of private facts—were generally held not to survive death under common law.^[19] Early judicial decisions reinforced this limitation; for instance, in 1905, Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance Co. hinted at potential post-mortem extensions to protect family interests, but courts predominantly viewed privacy as personal and non-transferable.^[19] However, statutory interventions marked initial milestones: Utah enacted the first U.S. law in 1909 extending appropriation-based privacy rights (prohibiting unauthorized commercial use of one's name or likeness) beyond death, followed by Virginia in 1919, which allowed heirs to enforce such claims for a limited period.^[19] A pivotal case illustrating familial post-mortem privacy interests arose in 1930 with Bazemore v. Savannah Hospital, where the Georgia Supreme Court permitted parents to sue for the unauthorized publication of photographs depicting their deceased child's autopsy, affirming relatives' right to prevent emotional harm from exploitative disclosures of the dead's private medical details.^[19] This decision highlighted tensions between public interest and privacy in medical contexts, influencing subsequent recognitions of survivor standing in privacy invasions involving the deceased. By mid-century, the doctrine evolved through the right of publicity, conceptualized as a proprietary interest rather than purely personal privacy. The 1953 federal case Haelan Laboratories, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc. distinguished publicity rights from privacy, treating endorsement value as assignable property, which laid groundwork for post-mortem descendibility since property rights inherently survive death.^[20] Further milestones in the 1970s solidified post-mortem protections, particularly for commercial personas. The U.S. Supreme Court's 1977 ruling in Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. equated the right of publicity to intellectual property, emphasizing economic incentives that justified extension beyond death to prevent unjust enrichment.^[19] That year, the Restatement (Second) of Torts explicitly recognized post-mortem claims for appropriation of the deceased's name or likeness.^[19] The 1979 California Supreme Court decision in Lugosi v. Universal Pictures debated descendibility, rejecting Bela Lugosi's heirs' claim to Dracula publicity rights under contract law but featuring dissents advocating statutory post-mortem publicity to balance heir interests against perpetual control.^[19] By 1985, California codified these developments in Civil Code Section 990 (later amended), granting successors a 50-year post-mortem right against unauthorized commercial use of a deceased personality's likeness, marking the first comprehensive state statute formalizing such protections.^[20] These advancements reflected growing recognition of the deceased's enduring dignitary and economic interests amid mass media expansion, though coverage remained inconsistent and largely limited to publicity rather than broad privacy.^[19]

Legal Frameworks

United States Law

In the United States, post-mortem privacy lacks a comprehensive federal framework and is governed primarily by state laws, common law principles, and sector-specific federal regulations such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Privacy interests generally terminate upon death under traditional common law, as rights like invasion of privacy are deemed personal and non-transferable, though exceptions exist for reputational harms or commercial exploitation of likeness. States vary widely, with protections often limited to the right of publicity, which safeguards against unauthorized commercial use of a deceased person's name, image, or likeness, surviving death in approximately 24 jurisdictions including California, New York, Florida, and Texas. Durations differ: California's Civil Code § 3344.1 extends protection for 70 years post-death, while Tennessee limits it to 10 years unless renewed by heirs. In contrast, states like Wisconsin and Minnesota recognize no post-mortem right, treating publicity as a privacy interest that expires at death. The right of publicity, originating from cases like Haelan Laboratories, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc. (1953), has evolved to include post-mortem survivability via statutes or judicial rulings, enabling heirs or estates to enforce claims against misappropriation for profit, such as in advertising or merchandise. New York, for instance, enacted a post-mortem right in 2020 under Civil Rights Law § 50-f, applicable to commercially valuable personas at death, with transfers possible via wills or intestacy. Federal proposals for uniform protection, like the proposed No AI FRAUD Act, have not passed, leaving a patchwork that complicates enforcement, particularly for digital recreations using AI. Courts have upheld these rights in cases involving deceased celebrities, but defenses like public interest or transformative use under the First Amendment can prevail. HIPAA's Privacy Rule extends protections to a deceased individual's protected health information (PHI) for 50 years after death, requiring covered entities to apply pre-death safeguards unless disclosure is permitted to personal representatives, family members for care decisions, or public health authorities. This applies under 45 CFR § 164.502(f), balancing privacy with needs like estate administration or coroner investigations, though it does not create a private right of action for breaches. In medical contexts, state courts have occasionally recognized surviving privacy interests; for example, the Florida Supreme Court in Weaver v. Myers (2017) held that the state constitution's privacy clause protects against unauthorized post-mortem disclosures of sensitive health data, allowing suits by personal representatives. Digital post-mortem privacy remains underdeveloped, with access to accounts like email or social media often controlled by service provider terms rather than law, though the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (RUFADAA), adopted by over 40 states as of 2023, grants executors limited authority to manage or terminate digital assets while respecting privacy directives in wills. Challenges arise in cases involving autopsy photos or death scenes, where federal courts have affirmed constitutional privacy over graphic images, as in National Association of Family Members of S.A.M.I. v. National Archives (2012), denying public access under FOIA exemptions for personal privacy. Overall, U.S. law prioritizes executor or heir enforcement over inherent deceased rights, reflecting a tension between legacy control and public or commercial interests.

European Union Regulations

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Regulation (EU) 2016/679 adopted on 27 April 2016 and applicable from 25 May 2018, does not extend protections to the personal data of deceased persons. Recital 27 of the GDPR states explicitly: "This Regulation does not apply to the personal data of deceased persons," while permitting member states to enact their own rules on processing such data.^[21] This exclusion reflects the regulation's focus on safeguarding the rights and freedoms of living natural persons, as defined in Article 1, thereby leaving post-mortem privacy largely unharmonized at the EU level. In the absence of EU-wide post-mortem data protection rules, processing of deceased individuals' information may still be constrained indirectly by ongoing obligations under national implementations of prior directives or sector-specific laws, such as professional confidentiality duties in healthcare.^[22] However, rights like access, rectification, or erasure—core to GDPR enforcement—extinguish upon death, shifting any residual controls to heirs, executors, or state provisions where applicable.^[23] The Council of Europe's Convention 108+, modernized in 2018 to align with contemporary data processing challenges, similarly applies only to living individuals and offers no explicit post-mortem safeguards.^[24] Efforts to address digital inheritance and remains, such as the European Law Institute's ongoing project on succession of digital assets initiated around 2020, remain non-binding and have not yielded enforceable EU regulations as of 2025.^[25] Consequently, post-mortem privacy in the EU relies predominantly on divergent national frameworks, with calls for harmonization highlighting gaps in protecting reputation, dignity, and sensitive data beyond death.^[26]

International Variations

In Canada, federal privacy legislation such as the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) applies exclusively to living individuals, leaving post-mortem data largely unregulated at the national level. Provincial laws provide patchwork protections; for example, Ontario extends personal privacy rights for 30 years after death, allowing estates or representatives to challenge disclosures.^[27] In Quebec, under the Civil Code, inalienable personality rights—including aspects of privacy and publicity—are transmissible to heirs upon death, enabling claims for unauthorized use of the deceased's image or information.^[28] Health information disclosures require consent from substitute decision-makers in most provinces, reflecting ongoing confidentiality duties.^[29] Australia's federal Privacy Act 1988 excludes deceased persons from its scope, with no comprehensive post-mortem privacy framework, though digital legacy access remains governed by contracts or estate laws rather than privacy statutes.^[30] State-level health privacy acts offer limited extensions; Victoria's Health Records Act, for instance, covers individuals deceased for 30 years or less, permitting access by executors or next of kin under specific conditions.^[31] Medical professionals maintain post-death confidentiality for patient records, akin to common law duties of care, but without statutory enforcement for broader personal data.^[32] In India, judicial precedents affirm that the right to privacy terminates upon death and cannot be inherited, as articulated in cases denying posthumous publicity or data control to heirs.^[33] The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, introduces nomination mechanisms for data fiduciaries but does not confer inheritable privacy rights, prioritizing living data subjects amid ongoing debates over digital remains.^[34] Courts have consistently rejected post-mortem extensions, viewing privacy as personal and non-transferable, though family objections to autopsies carry ethical weight without overriding legal mandates in suspicious deaths.^[35] Japan's Act on the Protection of Personal Information (APPI) focuses on living data subjects, with no explicit post-mortem privacy provisions; digital assets like photos may transfer as intellectual property to heirs under copyright rules, but personal data dissemination lacks dedicated safeguards.^[36] Medico-legal autopsies often utilize tissues for research without routine family consent, highlighting weaker controls compared to living privacy standards.^[37] In Brazil, the General Personal Data Protection Law (LGPD, Law No. 13,709/2018) omits provisions for deceased individuals' data, creating gaps in digital legacy management despite calls for custodial delegation to heirs or executors. Personality rights, including publicity, persist post-mortem and are enforceable by natural heirs or assignees, allowing civil claims for unauthorized commercial exploitation of the deceased's image.^[38] Health records maintain confidentiality under Ministry of Health regulations, even after death, but broader informational privacy relies on general civil code principles rather than specialized statutes.^[39] These variations underscore a divide: common law jurisdictions like Australia and India emphasize termination of privacy at death, with incidental protections via estates or health-specific rules, while civil law influences in places like Quebec or Brazil permit limited transmissibility of personality elements to deter reputational harm.^[40]

Landmark Court Cases

In National Archives and Records Administration v. Favish (2004), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that death-scene photographs of Vincent W. Foster Jr., the former Deputy White House Counsel who died by suicide in 1993, could be withheld from public disclosure under Exemption 7(C) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which protects against unwarranted invasions of personal privacy.^[41] The Court recognized a cognizable "survivor privacy" interest, emphasizing that family members retain substantial privacy concerns in graphic images of a relative's death to preserve their peace of mind, even when the decedent was a public figure and the event occurred in a public location.^[41] To overcome this, requesters must provide more than speculative allegations of government misconduct; credible public interest evidence is required to tip the balance toward disclosure.^[41] This decision established a heightened evidentiary threshold for accessing post-mortem materials under FOIA, reinforcing protections for familial privacy interests in deceased individuals' sensitive records. In Reid v. Pierce County (1998), the Washington State Supreme Court recognized that immediate relatives of a decedent possess a protectable privacy interest in autopsy records, allowing a common law tort claim for invasion of privacy when county employees misused autopsy photographs by displaying them at social gatherings and in training sessions without consent.^[42] The court overruled prior appellate precedent denying such claims, rejecting arguments that privacy rights are strictly personal and non-transferable post-death, and affirmed that relatives can pursue remedies for emotional harm from unauthorized dissemination of graphic post-mortem images.^[42] However, it dismissed related claims for outrage and negligent infliction of emotional distress where plaintiffs lacked physical presence during the misconduct.^[42] This ruling marked an early state-level affirmation of derivative privacy rights for survivors over decedents' forensic materials, influencing subsequent discussions on limiting public or institutional access to autopsy visuals. In Ajemian v. Yahoo!, Inc. (2017), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court addressed post-mortem access to digital communications, ruling that the Stored Communications Act (SCA) permits executors or administrators to seek disclosure of a deceased user's emails from providers like Yahoo, but providers may withhold content if state probate law deems it privileged or if user agreements specify otherwise.^[43] The case arose from the estate of John Ajemian, a deceased pilot whose Yahoo account co-administrator siblings sought access against the objections of his executor brother, highlighting tensions between inheritance rights and residual privacy expectations in electronic records.^[43] The court clarified that SCA's "authorized" user provision extends to legal representatives post-death but does not override contractual terms prohibiting disclosure, underscoring the patchwork nature of digital post-mortem privacy without uniform federal protections.^[43] In the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case M.L. v. Slovakia (2021), the court found a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for private and family life) where Slovakian media published unsubstantiated allegations of sexual abuse by the applicant's deceased son, a former priest, severely impacting the mother's emotional well-being and family privacy.^[44] The ECtHR held that domestic courts failed to adequately balance press freedom (Article 10) against the applicant's indirect privacy interest in her son's posthumous reputation, as the articles perpetuated harm to living relatives without sufficient factual basis or public interest justification.^[44] This decision extended ECHR protections to scenarios involving defamation or invasive reporting on the dead when it demonstrably affects survivors' rights, challenging traditional views that privacy lapses entirely upon death and influencing post-mortem data handling under frameworks like GDPR.^[44]

Medical and Research Applications

Confidentiality Obligations

In medical contexts, confidentiality obligations for patient information persist after death, reflecting ethical duties to respect the deceased's dignity and privacy interests that may endure through family or societal implications. The American Medical Association's Code of Medical Ethics states that patients are generally entitled to the same confidentiality protections postmortem as during life, with exceptions limited to scenarios involving public health needs, legal requirements, research under institutional oversight, or disclosures to immediate family when relevant to their health or welfare.^[45] Similarly, guidelines from state medical boards, such as North Carolina's, affirm that confidentiality does not terminate upon a patient's death, encompassing all disclosures made to physicians and records generated during care.^[46] Under the U.S. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule, protected health information (PHI) of deceased individuals receives the same safeguards as for living persons for a period of 50 years following the date of death.^[47]^[48] Covered entities may disclose such PHI without authorization only for treatment, payment, or health care operations; to a personal representative (e.g., executor or next of kin); for public health activities; or in response to legal processes, but must minimize disclosures to the extent practicable.^[47] After 50 years, PHI loses HIPAA protection, though other ethical or state laws may impose ongoing restrictions.^[49] Some states extend protections beyond federal requirements, such as California's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, which maintains duties indefinitely unless overridden by specific authorizations.^[49] In research applications, these obligations require institutional review boards (IRBs) to evaluate post-mortem data use, prioritizing de-identification to prevent re-identification risks while balancing scientific value against privacy harms.^[7] Ethical frameworks, including those informed by information ethics, assert a prima facie moral right to post-mortem privacy in health data, obligating researchers to obtain prior consent where feasible or demonstrate that anonymization suffices to uphold confidentiality without unduly impeding public benefits like disease studies.^[7] Breaches, even unintentional, can erode trust in medical institutions, as evidenced by historical cases where post-mortem disclosures without safeguards led to familial distress or legal challenges.^[50]

Henrietta Lacks and HeLa Cells Case

Henrietta Lacks, born Loretta Pleasant on August 1, 1920, was an African-American tobacco farmer and mother of five who sought treatment for cervical cancer at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, in early 1951.^[51] On January 29, 1951, during a diagnostic biopsy, physicians removed samples of her tumor tissue without obtaining her explicit consent for research purposes, a practice then common and legally permissible under prevailing medical norms that did not mandate informed consent for such uses.^[52] These cells, cultured by researcher George Otto Gey, exhibited unprecedented immortality, dividing every 20 to 24 hours indefinitely, forming the HeLa cell line—the first stable human cell line derived from a patient's tumor.^[52] Lacks died from her cancer on October 4, 1951, at age 31, unaware of the cells' ongoing viability or their distribution to laboratories worldwide.^[51] The HeLa cells revolutionized biomedical research, enabling breakthroughs such as the development of the polio vaccine, advancements in cancer therapies, and gene mapping, with trillions of cells produced and distributed gratis initially, later commercialized by companies generating billions in value without compensation to Lacks' estate.^[53] Lacks' family remained ignorant of the cells' origin and use until 1973, when researchers seeking further samples informed them, revealing that HeLa derived from their mother's tissue—a disclosure that breached post-mortem privacy by linking her identity to widely disseminated biological material.^[54] Subsequent revelations, including public naming of "HeLa" as an acronym for Henrietta Lacks and unauthorized disclosures of her medical history, compounded privacy invasions, as her genetic material became embedded in research tools accessible globally without familial oversight.^[55] Post-mortem privacy concerns escalated in 2013 when scientists published the HeLa genome sequence, potentially exposing hereditary genetic traits traceable to Lacks' living descendants, prompting outcry over unauthorized dissemination of her genomic data decades after death.^[56] Negotiations with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) resulted in a 2013 agreement granting the Lacks family veto power over future HeLa genome publications and representation on an oversight committee, marking a rare instance of post-mortem kin involvement in controlling genetic privacy, though not conferring property rights over the cells themselves.^[56] Legally, U.S. courts have upheld precedents like Moore v. Regents of the University of California (1990), denying patients property interests in excised tissues post-removal, thus limiting family claims to privacy breaches rather than ownership or profits.^[57] In 2021, the Lacks estate sued Thermo Fisher Scientific for unjust enrichment from HeLa commercialization, but the case highlighted ongoing tensions between research utility and post-mortem autonomy without establishing new privacy precedents.^[58] This case underscores causal gaps in historical consent frameworks, where tissues discarded as medical waste were repurposed without regard for enduring privacy implications, influencing modern biospecimen policies like the Common Rule revisions emphasizing informed consent for research use, though pre-1951 practices evade retroactive application.^[57] Ethically, it illustrates how institutional priorities—prioritizing scientific progress over individual rights—perpetuated privacy erosions, with HeLa's value deriving from Lacks' unique biology yet yielding no direct benefits to her heirs, fueling debates on equitable genomic stewardship after death.^[54]

Ethical Conflicts in Post-Mortem Research

Ethical conflicts in post-mortem research center on the tension between advancing biomedical knowledge through the use of deceased individuals' tissues, genetic data, or health records and upholding privacy rights that persist beyond death. Research entities often access such materials to study diseases, develop therapies, or generate cell lines, yielding public health benefits like vaccine advancements, yet this can infringe on the deceased's dignity and confidentiality without revocable consent. The American Medical Association's Code of Medical Ethics asserts that patients retain entitlement to confidentiality post-mortem akin to their lifetime protections, permitting disclosures only with prior consent, legal mandates, harm prevention, or specific research protocols that minimize identifiability.^[9] This framework underscores a prima facie ethical duty to treat post-mortem data as deserving safeguards, informed by principles of respect for persons and non-maleficence.^[7] A primary conflict involves consent mechanisms, as the deceased cannot authorize use, prompting reliance on surrogate decisions by families, opt-out systems, or institutional waivers. Such approaches risk violating autonomy, particularly when research reveals incidental findings like genetic predispositions that could stigmatize or discriminate against surviving relatives through employment or insurance repercussions.^[59] For example, utilizing residual autopsy tissues for genomic studies without explicit pre-mortem permission has drawn scrutiny for potentially breaching confidentiality, even if de-identified, given re-identification technologies that restore personal linkages.^[60] Proponents of broad consent models argue minimal harm justifies research presumptions, but ethicists counter that this erodes trust in healthcare systems by commodifying human remains absent affirmative agreement.^[61] Further dilemmas arise from balancing utilitarian research gains against deontological privacy imperatives, where post-mortem privacy is conceptualized not merely as individual but as socially embedded, protecting living kin's interests in reputation and emotional well-being.^[5] Information Ethics frameworks extend moral consideration to the deceased's data as an informational entity, advocating restrictions on secondary uses that could perpetuate harms like familial genetic revelations without oversight.^[7] In practice, regulatory exceptions—such as those under HIPAA allowing access after 50 years post-mortem for historical research—highlight evolving compromises, yet they provoke debate over whether temporal limits adequately address ongoing risks in perpetual data repositories.^[49] These tensions demand rigorous ethical review boards to weigh societal utility against inviolable dignity, often favoring anonymization protocols that, while imperfect, mitigate direct privacy erosions.^[22]

Forensic and Visual Records

Autopsy and Death Scene Images

Autopsy and death scene images, captured during forensic investigations, raise significant post-mortem privacy concerns due to their graphic nature and potential to inflict emotional harm on surviving family members. In the United States, these records are generally shielded from public disclosure under state-specific statutes that prioritize the dignity of the deceased and the privacy interests of relatives. For instance, Washington's Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 68.50.105 explicitly prohibits the release of autopsy photographs and postmortem records except in limited circumstances, such as criminal proceedings or upon court order for good cause.^[62] Similarly, Florida Statute § 406.135 designates autopsy photographs and videos as confidential and exempt from public records laws, with disclosure permitted only to law enforcement, next of kin, or for official training purposes under strict controls.^[63] Federal jurisprudence has reinforced these protections by recognizing a constitutional privacy right in death images. In a 2012 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in National Association of Family Members of S.A.M.S. v. National Archives and Records Administration, the court held for the first time that families possess a substantive due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent the public dissemination of highly intrusive death-scene photographs, emphasizing the state's interest in shielding intimate aspects of human remains from gratuitous exposure.^[64] This decision underscores that such images, unlike routine public records, implicate fundamental privacy expectations extending beyond death, particularly when their release serves no compelling public purpose. Recent applications include a March 2025 New Mexico court order in the Gene Hackman and Betsy Arakawa death investigation, which sealed autopsy photographs to avert trauma to family members while allowing redacted reports, balancing transparency with privacy under the state's Inspection of Public Records Act.^[65] Ethically, medical and forensic professionals are bound by confidentiality norms that persist post-mortem. The American Medical Association's Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 2.3.1 asserts that decedents deserve the same confidentiality protections afforded during life, extending to autopsy-derived visual records unless overridden by legal mandates like public health reporting or criminal justice needs.^[9] Forensic pathologists, operating outside HIPAA's direct purview for non-hospital autopsies, nonetheless adhere to professional duties to limit disclosures to authorized parties, such as investigators, while respecting the deceased's dignity and avoiding unnecessary dissemination that could exploit remains for non-essential purposes.^[66]^[67] Exceptions arise in judicial contexts, where autopsy images may be admitted as evidence if their probative value in establishing cause of death or manner of injury outweighs potential prejudice, as governed by rules like Federal Rule of Evidence 403.^[68] However, even in trials, access is restricted to participants, with copies rarely provided outside discovery, and post-trial public release often curtailed by sealing orders to prevent broader circulation.^[69] Across states, crime scene photographs depicting deceased bodies face analogous barriers, with statutes in places like Connecticut prohibiting copying or public viewing absent criminal proceedings, reflecting a consensus that such visuals warrant heightened safeguards against commodification or voyeurism.^[70] These frameworks collectively aim to deter leaks or unauthorized sharing, though digital proliferation poses ongoing challenges to enforcement.

Emmett Till Case and Public Interest

In 1955, 14-year-old Emmett Till, a Black youth from Chicago visiting relatives in Mississippi, was abducted on August 28, beaten, shot in the head, mutilated, and dumped in the Tallahatchie River by white men Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam after an encounter with Bryant's wife, Carolyn.^[71] Till's mother, Mamie Till-Mobley, upon receiving her son's severely disfigured body, rejected attempts by Mississippi authorities to bury it hastily there and arranged for its transport to Chicago.^[72] She insisted on an open-casket funeral from September 3 to 6 at A.A. Rayner Funeral Home, declaring to the mortician, "Let the world see what I've seen," to expose the full extent of the violence inflicted.^[73] Approximately 55,000 people viewed the body during the four-day period, confronting the grotesque evidence of lynching brutality.^[74] Jet magazine published graphic photographs of Till's mutilated face on September 15, 1955, with Till-Mobley's explicit consent, amplifying the open-casket display nationally.^[75] The issue sold out rapidly, necessitating reprints, and the images provoked widespread outrage, shifting public perception of Southern racial violence from abstract reports to visceral reality.^[76] This dissemination is credited with catalyzing the modern Civil Rights Movement, inspiring figures like Rosa Parks, who cited Till's case as motivating her defiance on December 1, 1955, and contributing to the Montgomery Bus Boycott.^[77] The trial of Bryant and Milam, which ended in acquittal on September 23 despite eyewitness testimony, further highlighted systemic failures, but the postmortem images sustained momentum for federal intervention against lynching.^[78] The Emmett Till case illustrates a pivotal instance where post-mortem privacy yielded to overriding public interest in evidentiary disclosure and social mobilization. Till-Mobley's deliberate choice prioritized causal documentation of racial terror over conventional dignity norms for the deceased, arguing that concealment would perpetuate impunity.^[71] Absent legal frameworks for post-mortem image rights at the time, the family's agency enabled this, but it raised enduring tensions: while the exposure advanced justice by humanizing abstract atrocities, critics later noted risks of sensationalism eroding the deceased's inherent privacy, even with consent, in an era without digital permanence concerns.^[79] Empirical outcomes—marked surges in NAACP membership and civil rights activism post-publication—affirm the net societal utility, underscoring how public interest can justify breaching privacy when empirically tied to rectifying verifiable harms like unchecked violence.^[80]

Balancing Privacy with Justice

The tension between post-mortem privacy and the pursuit of justice arises primarily in forensic contexts, where images and records from autopsies or death scenes may be essential for criminal accountability but risk violating the dignity of the deceased and the emotional well-being of survivors. Legal frameworks, such as the U.S. Freedom of Information Act's Exemption 7(C), mandate a balancing test for law enforcement records: agencies must assess the privacy invasion against the public interest in disclosure, considering factors like the context of the information, the strength of the privacy claim (often familial for the deceased), and whether release advances understanding of government operations or specific incidents of misconduct.^[81] In criminal investigations, this balance frequently favors disclosure when evidence implicates public officials or reveals systemic failures, as withholding could undermine transparency and deterrence.^[82] Court rulings illustrate this prioritization of justice in high-stakes cases. For instance, in a 2023 Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court decision involving Pittsburgh coroner records, a 6-1 majority upheld public access to autopsy reports, rejecting blanket privacy exemptions and emphasizing the need for oversight in death investigations to prevent abuse or error, even absent ongoing criminal probes.^[83] Similarly, Florida law permits courts to authorize inspection of autopsy photographs upon a showing of "good cause," which courts have interpreted to include advancing criminal prosecutions or public accountability, provided the requester demonstrates a legitimate need beyond mere curiosity.^[84] These precedents reflect a judicial recognition that while relatives hold a protectable interest in autopsy materials—rooted in emotional harm from graphic dissemination—the societal value of evidentiary transparency in pursuing justice outweighs it when criminality or official malfeasance is at issue.^[42] Ethically, forensic pathologists navigate this balance by prioritizing accurate cause-of-death determinations to support legal proceedings, even if it entails limited disclosures that distress bereaved families; retributive justice, including punishment of perpetrators, justifies such intrusions in suspicious deaths.^[66] Critics argue that over-reliance on public interest can lead to sensationalism, eroding post-mortem dignity without proportional gains in accountability, yet empirical patterns in case law show disclosures are restrained—often requiring blurring of images or judicial oversight—to mitigate harms while serving evidentiary needs.^[85] In jurisdictions without statutory privacy extensions for the dead, this ad hoc balancing defaults to living relatives' rights tempered by compelling public needs, underscoring that justice imperatives, grounded in deterrence and truth-finding, persistently eclipse absolute privacy claims post-mortem.^[1]

Digital Legacy Management

Control of Digital Assets

Digital assets encompass a wide range of electronic records and online accounts, including email, social media profiles, cloud storage, cryptocurrency wallets, and streaming subscriptions, which require specific legal mechanisms for post-mortem control to prevent loss or unauthorized access. In the United States, the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (RUFADAA), promulgated by the Uniform Law Commission in 2015, grants executors, administrators, trustees, and agents court-ordered authority to access and manage a deceased individual's digital assets, provided the user did not explicitly opt out through service agreements or estate planning documents.^[86] This framework treats digital assets as property subject to fiduciary duties, distinguishing them from the underlying financial holdings they may represent, such as brokerage accounts. By 2023, RUFADAA or substantially similar legislation had been adopted in 46 states, enabling fiduciaries to retrieve content like messages and files while respecting user-designated privacy preferences.^[87] Despite these advancements, practical control remains fraught with obstacles, including platform-specific terms of service that often prohibit account transfers or require deactivation rather than inheritance, as seen with companies like Meta and Google, which prioritize memorialization over full fiduciary handover. Encryption and multi-factor authentication exacerbate access issues; private keys for cryptocurrencies, for instance, if not documented, render billions in assets irretrievable, with estimates suggesting up to 20% of Bitcoin holdings—valued at over $100 billion as of 2024—may already be lost due to deceased owners lacking succession plans.^[88] Forgotten passwords or biometric-locked devices further complicate probate, potentially delaying estate settlement by months and incurring legal costs, underscoring the need for proactive measures like secure digital vaults or testamentary directives specifying beneficiaries and access protocols.^[89] Internationally, frameworks lag behind, with the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) permitting post-mortem data management via designated heirs or controllers under Article 7, but lacking uniform inheritance rules, leading to jurisdictional fragmentation; for example, France's 2016 "digital eternity" provision allows data portability to heirs, yet enforcement varies and conflicts with provider policies. In contrast to RUFADAA's fiduciary empowerment, many jurisdictions default to account termination upon verified death, risking permanent data loss without explicit national laws addressing encrypted or decentralized assets like blockchain holdings. Estate planners recommend hybrid solutions, such as revocable trusts holding digital keys or third-party services for managed inheritance, to align legal authority with technological realities and mitigate disputes among heirs.^[90]^[91]

AI-Driven Challenges: Deepfakes and Resurrection

Artificial intelligence technologies enable the creation of deepfakes, synthetic media that convincingly depict deceased individuals performing actions or uttering statements they never did, often by training algorithms on pre-existing images, videos, and audio of the person.^[92] These deepfakes pose acute challenges to post-mortem privacy by allowing unauthorized replication of a person's likeness, potentially distorting their legacy or enabling exploitation without familial or estate consent.^[93] For instance, in October 2025, videos generated using OpenAI's Sora model depicted deceased celebrities in fabricated scenarios, prompting outrage from their families over the non-consensual "synthetic resurrection" that trivializes the dead and invades inherited privacy interests.^[94] Similarly, commercial services in China have proliferated since at least 2023, offering deepfake video calls of deceased relatives for grief alleviation, amassing millions in revenue but raising alarms about commodifying personal data harvested from social media without explicit permission.^[95] Digital resurrection extends these issues through AI systems that simulate deceased persons as interactive avatars or chatbots, trained on vast datasets of their writings, voice recordings, and behaviors to mimic personality and responses.^[96] Such "grief bots" or post-mortem avatars, available via apps since around 2021, purport to aid mourning by enabling conversations with digital proxies, yet they circumvent post-mortem privacy by perpetuating access to intimate data the deceased could not control after death.^[97] Legal scholars note that under common law, the deceased lack privacy rights, leaving estates reliant on publicity statutes or moral claims, which often fail against non-commercial or algorithmic uses; for example, a 2023 analysis highlighted how these tools exploit "orphaned" digital remains, evading consent requirements that apply to the living.^[98] In one documented case from 2025, an AI-reanimated voice of a deceased victim testified in court, illustrating how resurrection technologies blur evidentiary integrity and posthumous dignity without robust safeguards.^[99] These AI-driven practices amplify privacy erosion by enabling scalable, persistent digital hauntings that outlive physical remains, often prioritizing technological novelty over familial veto power.^[100] Empirical concerns include psychological harm to survivors, as studies suggest interactive simulations may prolong grief rather than resolve it, fostering dependency on inauthentic interactions that undermine closure.^[101] Legally, gaps persist: U.S. states vary in post-mortem publicity rights durations (e.g., 50-100 years in some), but federal inaction leaves deepfakes unregulated unless tied to defamation or fraud, prompting calls for a "right to be left dead" to mandate opt-out clauses in data policies or wills.^[102] Internationally, China's 2025 regulatory scrutiny of AI resurrection underscores tensions between innovation and dignity, yet enforcement remains inconsistent, allowing unchecked proliferation.^[103] Without affirmative consent mechanisms—such as pre-mortem directives prohibiting data training—estates face perpetual vulnerability to misrepresentation, as AI models democratize resurrection tools accessible to anyone with sufficient data.^[104]

Recent Developments in Digital Inheritance

In the United States, the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (RUFADAA) has achieved near-universal adoption, with 49 out of 50 states enacting versions by October 2025, providing a standardized framework for executors and fiduciaries to access decedents' digital accounts such as emails, social media, and financial applications upon proof of authority and compliance with terms of service.^[105] This development facilitates inheritance of digital property but compromises post-mortem privacy by overriding user-set restrictions in many cases, as the Act prioritizes fiduciary duties over perpetual data seclusion, potentially exposing sensitive personal information to heirs without the deceased's ongoing consent.^[91] Courts applying RUFADAA in probate proceedings have upheld access to cloud-stored data and online banking, underscoring the tension between efficient asset transfer and the absence of enforceable privacy rights for the deceased under federal and state laws.^[106] In Europe, the European Law Institute (ELI) launched a project in October 2023 to develop model rules for the succession of digital assets, data, and remains, culminating in adoption of Council Decision 2023/17 by October 2025, which outlines harmonized provisions for defining inheritable digital elements, granting access entitlements, and integrating data protection measures.^[25] These rules aim to address post-mortem privacy by incorporating principles of data minimization and fiduciary safeguards, influencing potential EU-wide legislation amid fragmented national approaches where privacy directives like GDPR typically cease applying upon death.^[107] France's Digital Republic Act, under Article 63, represents an earlier but enduring model, permitting individuals to specify post-mortem data handling instructions, with next of kin empowered to close or transfer accounts, thereby mitigating some privacy erosions through proactive estate directives.^[91] Globally, a landmark October 2025 ruling by India's Madras High Court classified cryptocurrency as "property" under Indian law, affirming its inheritability and enabling legal transfer to heirs, which extends to other digital assets and highlights evolving recognition of intangible holdings in succession contexts.^[108] This decision, arising from a dispute over seized crypto wallets, establishes ownership rights for assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum, potentially streamlining probate but raising privacy concerns as heirs gain unfettered access to transaction histories and associated personal data without dedicated post-mortem protections.^[109] Emerging trends in digital inheritance emphasize inventorying assets like NFTs and blockchain-based holdings in wills, alongside appointing digital executors, yet underscore persistent privacy vulnerabilities, as regulations often exempt deceased estates from living-user data safeguards, facilitating risks such as unauthorized dissemination or AI reconstruction of private communications.^[91]

Publicity Rights and Commercial Use

Post-Mortem Publicity Rights

The post-mortem right of publicity refers to the legal extension of an individual's right to control the commercial exploitation of their name, image, likeness, voice, signature, or other personal attributes beyond their death, typically vesting in heirs, estates, or assignees as a transferable property interest.^[110] This right aims to prevent unauthorized merchandising, advertising, or endorsements using the deceased's persona for profit, distinct from privacy interests that generally terminate at death but evolving from early privacy torts into a proprietary claim.^[111] In the United States, recognition is fragmented across states, with no federal statute; approximately 23 states affirm it via statute or common law, while others limit or reject post-mortem survivability, creating jurisdictional challenges for enforcement based on the deceased's domicile or the exploitation's location. Durations and conditions vary significantly, often tied to the commercial value of the persona at death. For instance, California's Civil Code Section 3344.1 grants heirs 70 years post-death to enforce against unauthorized uses, applicable to any deceased "personality" whose identity has exploitable value, regardless of domicile if the use occurs in California.^[4] New York, which lacked statutory post-mortem protection until 2020, now provides 40 years for deceased persons domiciled in the state at death whose publicity rights held commercial value then or later, enforceable by executors or heirs with registration requirements for claims.^[112] ^[113] Indiana offers up to 100 years or perpetual duration if commercially exploited continuously, emphasizing the right's alienable nature. Tennessee limits it to 10 years unless renewed through active exploitation, as established in cases involving figures like Elvis Presley, whose estate has licensed his image extensively.^[114] Enforcement typically involves civil suits for damages, including lost profits and punitive awards, but is curtailed by First Amendment defenses for non-commercial expressive uses, such as news, art, or satire, where courts balance economic harm against free speech.^[4] Landmark disputes, like those over Marilyn Monroe's image in Indiana courts (denying post-mortem rights due to her California domicile) or Jimi Hendrix's likeness in Washington (affirming common-law survivability), illustrate how domicile rules and pre-existing value determine applicability, often favoring states with robust protections for celebrity estates.^[115] Critics argue the patchwork incentivizes forum-shopping and undervalues non-celebrity personas, while proponents view it as essential for preserving economic incentives tied to identity, with estate valuations incorporating projected licensing revenues for tax purposes.^[116] ^[117] Absent federal uniformity, proposals for nationwide 50-year protection with extensions have surfaced but remain unadopted, leaving interstate commerce vulnerable to conflicting rulings.^[118]

Celebrity Exploitation Cases

In 1997, following the death of Princess Diana on August 31, the Franklin Mint began selling commemorative items such as porcelain dolls, plates, and coins featuring her likeness without authorization from her estate, prompting a lawsuit by the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund alleging violation of California's post-mortem publicity rights and deceptive advertising implying proceeds benefited charity.^[119] The case, filed in 1997, resulted in a preliminary injunction against Franklin Mint's sales, but evolved into counter-litigation and settled in November 2004 with the fund receiving $25 million earmarked for charity, though subsequent appeals addressed malicious prosecution claims.^[120] This dispute underscored commercial exploitation of a deceased public figure's image shortly after death, leveraging emotional public sentiment for profit. The estate of Elvis Presley, who died on August 16, 1977, has pursued numerous actions against unauthorized commercial uses of his name, image, and likeness, including a 2014 lawsuit against Beretta USA for featuring Presley's silhouette in firearm advertisements without permission, claiming infringement of Tennessee's post-mortem publicity statute which extends rights for 10 years post-death and transferable by will.^[121] The case settled out of court, with Beretta agreeing to cease the ads, highlighting ongoing vulnerabilities to merchandising exploitation despite estate protections.^[121] Similarly, in Elvis Presley Enterprises v. Capece (1999), the estate successfully enjoined a nightclub from using Elvis-themed decor and performances, affirming that such uses constituted misappropriation under Texas common law, as the bar's "Velvet Elvis" theme diluted the controlled commercial value of Presley's persona.^[122] A 2024 case involving comedian George Carlin, deceased since 2008, saw his estate sue podcasters Will Sasso and Chad Kultgen (operating as Dudesy LLC) for producing an hour-long AI-generated stand-up special on July 5, 2023, that mimicked Carlin's voice, style, and persona using algorithms trained on his material, alleging violations of California's post-mortem right of publicity and copyright infringement.^[123] The suit, filed January 24, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, described the content as "a casual theft" enabling unauthorized commercial distribution via YouTube, which garnered over 500,000 views before removal.^[124] The parties settled on April 1, 2024, with Dudesy agreeing to permanent removal and non-republication, illustrating emerging AI-driven exploitation risks that bypass traditional likeness controls.^[125] These cases demonstrate patterns of rapid post-death commercialization, often targeting high-profile figures for merchandise, advertising, or digital recreations, with outcomes relying on state-specific statutes like California's Civil Code § 3344.1, which protects against such uses for 70 years after death if registered.^[4] While estates frequently prevail through settlements or injunctions, jurisdictional variances—such as pre-1985 California rulings denying post-mortem rights—have occasionally limited recoveries, as seen in legacy disputes over Marilyn Monroe's image where courts ruled her intestate death precluded transferable publicity property in certain states.^[126]

Property Rights Perspective

The property rights perspective frames post-mortem privacy as an extension of inheritable intellectual property in an individual's commercial identity, including name, likeness, voice, and persona, which the deceased develops through labor and investment akin to other tangible or intangible assets. Proponents contend that this identity constitutes alienable property that survives death, descending to heirs or assignees via testamentary disposition or intestate succession, thereby granting them exclusive control over commercial exploitation to prevent unauthorized uses that infringe on the economic value created by the decedent. This approach aligns with economic incentives, as it allows estates to license or litigate against misappropriations, preserving the value against free-riding by third parties.^[118]^[127] Legal recognition of this perspective varies by jurisdiction but is codified in statutes treating the right of publicity as descendible property. For instance, California's Civil Code § 3344.1 establishes a post-mortem right lasting 70 years after death, transferable by contract, will, or inheritance, with heirs able to pursue damages for violations such as unauthorized advertising. Similarly, New York's 2020 legislation, effective May 2021, explicitly defines post-mortem publicity rights as "property rights" inheritable for 40 years (extendable upon renewal), applicable to digital reproductions and aimed at curbing exploitative uses like deepfakes. In both cases, courts have upheld the property characterization by analogy to copyrights or trademarks, rejecting arguments that rights extinguish at death and instead enforcing them through injunctions and statutory damages, as seen in cases involving estates of figures like Marilyn Monroe, where heirs successfully monetized and defended the decedent's image against commercial intrusions.^[128]^[129]^[117] This viewpoint justifies post-mortem privacy not through inherent dignity or personality interests, which may not survive death, but via exclusionary property rules that deter commodification without consent, subjecting the rights to estate taxation and planning like other assets. Critics of non-property theories argue that without descendibility, the incentive to cultivate valuable personas diminishes, as economic returns would terminate abruptly, undermining the causal link between individual effort and enduring value. Empirical evidence from high-profile estates supports this: the Elvis Presley estate, for example, has generated over $400 million in licensing revenue since 1977 by asserting property-like control over his likeness, demonstrating how such rights sustain legacies while funding heirs without public subsidy. However, state variations persist, with non-recognizing jurisdictions like New York prior to 2021 treating rights as personal and non-inheritable, highlighting conflicts resolved through choice-of-law analyses favoring property-friendly forums.^[130]^[131]^[132]

Broader Debates and Criticisms

Privacy Rights for the Deceased vs. Living Interests

In common law jurisdictions such as the United States and England and Wales, personal privacy rights generally terminate upon death, with courts holding that a decedent's estate lacks standing to assert privacy claims on behalf of the deceased, thereby prioritizing the practical interests of the living in accessing information for estate settlement, medical decisions, or legal proceedings.^[133] This principle stems from the view that privacy protects living individuals from tangible harms like emotional distress or reputational damage, which cannot accrue to the dead, allowing family members or executors to obtain sensitive records—such as medical histories or digital communications—that would be shielded during life.^[134] For instance, under U.S. common law, medical privacy substantially erodes post-mortem, enabling relatives to access decedent health data for inheritance or closure purposes without the stringent protections afforded to living patients.^[134] Living interests often prevail in conflicts, as societal needs for transparency and administration—such as probate courts reviewing private financial emails or coroners releasing autopsy details—outweigh abstract dignitary concerns for the deceased, reflecting a causal reality where disclosure impacts only extant parties like heirs or investigators.^[135] In digital contexts, this manifests in disputes over postmortem access to accounts, where personal representatives argue for retrieval to manage assets or detect fraud, against platforms' default retention policies that may inadvertently expose private data; a 2019 analysis highlighted how U.S. Stored Communications Act interpretations favor executor access over perpetual sealing, underscoring the tension with any purported deceased "privacy."^[43] However, limited exceptions arise where disclosures harm living kin, as in the 2023 Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling in Guilbeau v. Durant H.M.A., LLC, where a hospital's unauthorized release of a deceased patient's medical information to family violated statutory privacy provisions, effectively extending protection through proxies for familial interests rather than inherent deceased rights.^[136] Proponents of formal post-mortem privacy rights argue for statutory extensions to preserve dignity and prevent exploitation, positing that unchecked access erodes incentives for lifetime privacy vigilance and burdens descendants with unintended revelations, yet critics counter that such rights conflate property-like controls (e.g., wills directing data deletion) with inalienable privacy, which logically lapses without a rights-holder to enforce it.^[1] In civil law systems like Germany, personality rights persist beyond death to safeguard reputation against living misuse, offering a contrast to common law's deference to utilitarian living claims, though even there, public interests in historical or scientific disclosure can override.^[5] Empirical data from privacy litigation shows rare success for post-mortem claims absent commercial elements, with courts consistently subordinating deceased-centric arguments to verifiable harms against the living, as societal progress demands access to records for accountability, such as in criminal investigations or epidemiological research.^[40] This framework reveals privacy as inherently forward-looking, shifting protections to relatives or the public where causal effects manifest post-death.^[5]

Tensions with Scientific and Societal Progress

Post-mortem privacy protections, such as those under the U.S. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which safeguard protected health information for 50 years after death, create barriers to utilizing deceased individuals' medical data in research.^[137] This duration allows for disclosures to family or for administrative purposes but restricts broader scientific access without de-identification or explicit authorization, potentially delaying insights into disease progression and treatment efficacy.^[49] For instance, longitudinal studies on chronic conditions like cancer or neurological disorders often rely on historical patient records, where stringent privacy rules can exclude valuable posthumous data, leading to incomplete datasets and slower advancements in epidemiology.^[138] In genomics and biobanking, the tension intensifies because genetic data from the deceased implicates living relatives' privacy while offering irreplaceable resources for rare disease research and population-level analyses. Many biobank policies fail to specify post-mortem data use, resulting in uncertainty that discourages researchers from incorporating such samples, even when anonymized, due to risks of re-identification through familial linkages.^[139] A normative proposal highlights that health and genetic data from deceased persons represent a critical asset for biomedical breakthroughs, yet consent gaps—often unaddressed ante-mortem—hinder secondary uses that could accelerate discoveries in personalized medicine.^[140] Proponents of data donation post-death argue that withholding this resource equates to "data dying with patients," impeding progress in areas like drug development and public health surveillance, where deceased cohorts provide unbiased historical controls.^[141] Societal progress faces similar conflicts in digital and archival contexts, where post-mortem privacy could cloak personal records essential for historical analysis, AI model training, and cultural preservation. Enforcing perpetual privacy over digital legacies risks fragmenting archives, as seen in debates over accessing deceased users' data for machine learning datasets that drive innovations in natural language processing and predictive analytics.^[135] While relatives' interests in dignity warrant consideration, empirical evidence suggests that managed access to anonymized posthumous data enhances public trust in research without significant harm, balancing individual legacies against collective gains in knowledge dissemination and technological evolution.^[7] This friction underscores a broader causal dynamic: privacy absolutism post-death may preserve reputations but at the cost of empirical voids that stall evidence-based advancements in fields from forensics to demographic modeling.^[22]

Cultural and Property-Based Counterarguments

Cultural counterarguments against robust post-mortem privacy protections emphasize that personal dignity and reputation concerns cease upon death, as the deceased cannot experience harm or emotional distress from disclosures. Philosopher Joel Feinberg contended that the dead, being permanently unconscious, hold no ongoing stake in future events, rendering privacy interests valueless post-mortem since no awareness or suffering is possible.^[134] This view aligns with common law traditions in Anglo-American jurisdictions, where the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona dictates that personal actions, including those for privacy invasions, terminate at death, prioritizing societal benefits like historical documentation and freedom of expression over perpetual seclusion.^[135] For instance, public access to deceased individuals' records has enabled biographical works and cultural preservation, as seen in the posthumous publication of Franz Kafka's manuscripts despite his instructions for destruction, which courts have upheld to serve broader literary heritage.^[135] Property-based counterarguments assert that digital and intellectual assets of the deceased function primarily as inheritable property, transferable to heirs without encumbrances from non-economic privacy claims that do not survive death. In the United States, several states classify emails and online accounts as probate assets, granting executors access to administer estates effectively, with five states explicitly mandating disclosure to fiduciaries over privacy objections.^[135] This approach reflects the principle that property rights persist beyond death to benefit living heirs, whereas privacy—often framed as a dignitary interest—lacks the same transmissibility and is not recognized as binding on successors in jurisdictions like England and Wales, where no general post-mortem privacy tort exists.^[135] Heirs' fiduciary duties to maximize estate value can thus justify overriding restrictive terms of service or privacy settings, as unrestricted access facilitates economic exploitation or sentimental continuity, unhindered by the deceased's inability to enforce preferences.^[133] Federal courts have reinforced these positions by denying constitutional personhood to the dead, precluding claims under rights like privacy, as the deceased cannot be deprived of protections they no longer experience.^[142] Proponents argue this avoids perpetual vetoes on information flow, allowing cultural narratives and property utilization to evolve without undue deference to outdated individual intents, though surrogates like executors predict wishes only about 66% accurately.^[134]

References

[1]
Postmortem Privacy - Michigan Law Review
This Article provides a theoretical foundation for determining whether, when, and how the law should extend privacy rights after death.
[2]
Post-mortem privacy and informational self-determination
Mar 29, 2017 · Post-mortem privacy is understood as the right of a person to preserve and control what becomes of his reputation and dignity after death.
[3]
[PDF] Postmortem Privacy - Penn Carey Law: Legal Scholarship Repository
Mar 24, 2025 · ... aspects of privacy can be understood to arise in postmortem contexts ... Definition of Death, STAN. ENCYCLOPEDIA PHIL. ARCHIVE (May. 17 ...
[4]
Raising the Dead: Understanding Post-Mortem Rights of Publicity
Feb 4, 2022 · The First Amendment provides important protection for the use of a deceased celebrity's name, voice or likeness in an expressive work, without the consent of ...
[5]
What post-mortem privacy may teach us about privacy - ScienceDirect
Post-mortem privacy has also been called upon by relatives to prevent public access to death scene images, against the threat of potentially large online ...
[6]
Full article: Post-mortem privacy 2.0: theory, law, and technology
Feb 22, 2017 · The conception of post-mortem privacy developed in this paper means that autonomy should in principle transcend death, allowing individuals to ...
[7]
Contextual Exceptionalism After Death: An Information Ethics ... - NIH
Aug 3, 2022 · In this article, we use the theory of Information Ethics to argue that deceased people have a prima facie moral right to privacy in the context of health data ...
[8]
What the Dickens: Post-mortem privacy and intergenerational trust
The paper argues that protecting post-mortem privacy is not solely beneficial for the deceased and their relatives but enables intergenerational data-sharing.What The Dickens... · 2. ``private Letters Of... · 3. Wills And Testaments As...
[9]
Confidentiality Postmortem - AMA Code of Medical Ethics
In general, patients are entitled to the same respect for the confidentiality of their personal information after death as they were in life.
[10]
Post-Mortem Privacy 2.0: Theory, Law and Technology
Mar 14, 2021 · The principal argument against the legal recognition of post-mortem privacy is a lack of actual harm to the user, meaning “the deceased cannot ...
[11]
Death in Ancient Civilisations | Sky HISTORY TV Channel
Thus the body's preservation was essential in order for a person both to reach the afterlife, and to be able to enjoy it. To this end early Egyptians would ...
[12]
Death and Burial in the Ancient World | Research Starters - EBSCO
Death and burial practices in the ancient world reflect a profound respect for the deceased and a complex understanding of the afterlife.
[13]
Death in the Ancient World – Strategies of coping with death in ...
In ancient Greece there were even three kinds of ghosts categorized: ataphoi,aōroiand biaiothanatoi. The ataphoi were the deceased ones who were not buried ...
[14]
The Unwritten Laws of Greece - LAW AND RELIGION FORUM
Oct 29, 2015 · The individual's right to receive burial was, of course, supported by powerful social and supernatural sanctions. The 'common law of the Greeks' ...<|separator|>
[15]
Necropolis - | Lapham's Quarterly
The Twelve Tables, the ancient law of Rome, specifically prohibited burial inside the pomerium, the symbolic edge of the city defined by its walls. A boundary ...
[16]
Death In Ancient Rome: The Fascinating Relationship Between Life ...
Sep 4, 2020 · There were no fixed or enforced beliefs about life after death in ancient Rome. The general consensus was that the deceased lived on in the ...
[17]
[PDF] RIGHTS OF THE DEAD - White Rose eTheses Online
traced back to Germanic times. In valuing ancestor worship (Ahnenkultus), ancient Germans considered defamation of the dead as punishable (Mori 1993,. 72) ...
[18]
[PDF] Gossip and Gore: A Ghoulish Journey Into a Philosophical Thicket
Apr 18, 2018 · 55 Herzog rejects the analogous move for defamation—providing a right for the dead person's relatives to sue for the mental distress that they ...
[19]
"Postmortem Privacy" by Anita L. Allen and Jennifer E. Rothman
This Article provides a theoretical foundation for determining whether, when, and how the law should extend privacy rights after death.
[20]
A Brief History of Right of Publicity (NIL) by Jonathan Faber
Sep 11, 2025 · In 1985, California enacted Section 990, the postmortem publicity law, which extended the right for a term of 50 years.
[21]
Recital 27 - Not Applicable to Data of Deceased Persons - GDPR
Rating 4.6 (9,719) Recital 27 states that GDPR does not apply to the personal data of deceased persons, though member states may have rules.
[22]
GDPR Brief: processing the data of the deceased for ... - GA4GH
This GDPR brief analyses the legal status of the personal data of deceased persons and the consequences of this analysis for the biomedical research field.
[23]
Deadman's Data: Personal data relating to the deceased under GDPR
Aug 13, 2024 · Under GDPR, data of deceased persons is not considered "personal data" and is not protected by the regulation, as it does not apply to them.
[24]
Personality Rights, Privacy, and Post-mortem Privacy Protection in ...
Jan 6, 2023 · The explanatory memorandum to the amended text of Convention 108+ explicitly states that it applies only to living persons. Similarly, the 2016 ...
[25]
ELI Succession of Digital Assets, Data and other Digital Remains
The project aims at drafting model law/rules to harmonise key provisions on the definition of digital remains, access and inheritability, and data protection ...
[26]
[PDF] What About Post-Mortem Digital Privacy and Personal Health Data ...
May 28, 2024 · Questioning post-mortem privacy is particularly important where the data at stake are considered as sensitive personal data categories, which ...Missing: scholarly | Show results with:scholarly
[27]
PO-1874 - Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario - Decisia
The Act recognizes in section 2(2) that individuals retain their personal privacy rights for 30 years after death.
[28]
Personality Rights…From Beyond the Grave! - All About Estates
Oct 14, 2020 · The Quebec Civil Code declares that personality rights are inalienable and are transmissible upon death. This allows heirs to claim compensation on behalf of ...<|separator|>
[29]
Accessing the personal health information of a deceased relative
Under PHIPA, a health information custodian may only disclose the personal health information of a deceased individual if the substitute decision-maker consents ...
[30]
Privacy after death: Time for a re-think? - Privacy108
Jun 29, 2023 · In Australia, privacy protections don't apply once you're dead.
[31]
Accessing health information of deceased persons - Maddocks
Sep 20, 2022 · Like the NSW Privacy Act, the Vic Health Privacy Act applies to deceased individuals who have been dead for 30 years or less.
[32]
Deceased patients and their medical records - Avant
After a patient dies, your duty of confidentiality continues, and you have ongoing obligations to manage their medical records.
[33]
Posthumous Privacy under the DPDP Act, 2023: Nomination vs ...
Jun 6, 2025 · The right to privacy is essentially a right in personam and therefore it is not inheritable by mothers or legal heirs of the deceased person.
[34]
SETTLING THE POSTHUMOUS APPLICATION OF PRIVACY RIGHTS
May 12, 2021 · The posthumous right to privacy is not an alienable one as the right of privacy of an individual, extinguishes with his or her death and cannot be inherited.
[35]
Can the Family Legally Deny a Post-Mortem? Clarifying Rights ...
Oct 13, 2025 · A family may express strong emotional or religious objections to a post-mortem, but such objections cannot override legal mandates when a death ...
[36]
Data ownership after death is 'a complete legal mess'
Feb 14, 2019 · Other things, like photos or short compositions, are treated as intellectual property and should pass onto heirs following copyright rules, said ...
[37]
Regulations and guidelines on handling human materials obtained ...
Human materials obtained from medico-legal autopsy have been used for research without consent from surviving relatives in majority of the cases in Japan.
[38]
Right of Publicity in Brazil - Lexology
Mar 26, 2019 · Post-mortem rights can be enforced by natural heirs, an assignee or entity who receives such rights. Are there any actions that rights owners ...
[39]
State of Privacy Brazil
Jan 26, 2019 · According to a regulation from the Ministry of Health, patients from the SUS have the right to confidentiality of their medical records, even ...
[40]
Full article: Privacy law and the dead – a reappraisal
Jan 6, 2025 · This article considers the importance of post-mortem privacy and reviews the law of privacy and post-mortem privacy in England and Wales including under the ...
[41]
FOIA Post (2004): Supreme Court Rules for "Survivor Privacy" in ...
Apr 9, 2004 · The Court ruled that several death-scene photographs of former Deputy White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr., properly can be withheld from the public.
[42]
Court allows privacy claims over relatives' autopsy photos
Oct 5, 1998 · The court held that “the immediate relatives of a decedent have a protectable privacy interest in the autopsy records of the decedent,” adding ...Missing: landmark mortem
[43]
Postmortem Email Privacy? Don't Bet Your Life on It | Insights
Jan 31, 2019 · The handling and access to password-protected accounts (such as email) after the death of the accountholder receives surprisingly little attention.
[44]
ECtHR upholds Article 8 breach in relation to reputation of a dead ...
Oct 24, 2021 · The recent ECtHR judgment in ML v Slovakia 34159/17 (14 October 2021) challenges the principle that actions cannot be brought for defaming the dead.
[45]
Confidentiality - AMA Code of Medical Ethics
In general, patients are entitled to the same respect for the confidentiality of their personal information after death as they were in life, with a few ...
[46]
[PDF] Reporting Patient Information: A Guide to Exceptions to the Duty of ...
Confidentiality does not cease when a patient dies. All medically related confidences disclosed by a patient to a physician and information contained within a ...
[47]
Decedents | HHS.gov
The HIPAA Privacy Rule recognizes that a deceased individual's protected health information may be relevant to a family member's health care.
[48]
HIPAA rules for deceased patients - Paubox
Mar 6, 2024 · The HIPAA Privacy Rule applies to the individually identifiable health information of a decedent for 50 years following the date of death of the individual.
[49]
Understanding posthumous data protections - HIPAA Times news
Mar 25, 2025 · 50-year PHI protection: HIPAA mandates that covered entities protect a deceased individual's PHI for 50 years post-mortem under 45 CFR §164.502( ...
[50]
Confidentiality of Health Information Postmortem - Allen Press
Sep 1, 2001 · The report emphasizes the importance of maintaining confidentiality for information held within a deceased patient's medical record.
[51]
Henrietta Lacks (1920–1951) | Embryo Project Encyclopedia
Oct 9, 2020 · Henrietta Lacks, born Loretta Pleasant, had terminal cervical cancer in 1951, and was diagnosed at The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore ...<|separator|>
[52]
The Legacy of Henrietta Lacks | Johns Hopkins Medicine
Lacks' cells were unlike any of the others he had ever seen: where other cells would die, Mrs. Lacks' cells doubled every 20 to 24 hours. Today, these ...
[53]
Significant Research Advances Enabled by HeLa Cells
Henrietta Lacks, a 31-year old African-American woman, seeks treatment for cervical cancer at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland. During her ...
[54]
Henrietta Lacks: science must right a historical wrong - Nature
Sep 1, 2020 · And, for decades after her death, doctors and scientists repeatedly failed to ask her family for consent as they revealed Lacks's name publicly, ...
[55]
Who would own the HeLa cell line if the Henrietta Lacks case ...
May 16, 2023 · The HeLa cell line was created in 1951 without consent from Henrietta Lacks, the person whose tissue sample was used.
[56]
Decades After Henrietta Lacks' Death, Family Gets A Say On Her Cells
Aug 7, 2013 · Sequencing Of HeLa Genome Revives Genetic Privacy Concerns. Hidden in the sequence is potential biomedical information about Henrietta's ...
[57]
Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens
Thus, if Henrietta Lacks were a patient in the United States today, biospecimens collected solely for her clinical care would not require her consent for use in ...
[58]
Tissue Issues: The Law Gets Very, Very Personal - Alexi
The Estate argued that the profits from the sale of HeLa cells should be disgorged.It remains to be seen how the courts will view the Lacks Estate's claim.<|control11|><|separator|>
[59]
No consent should be needed for using leftover body material for ...
Research on tissue can harm patients by disclosing health or other information resulting in discrimination in employment or insurance (breach of confidentiality).
[60]
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10508422.2025.2478389
[61]
Using Biomedical Ethics Model to Explore Use of Postmortem ...
This paper analyzes the ethical issues of using human tissues through discussion of principles of biomedical ethics, respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, ...
[62]
Disclosure of Medical and Postmortem Law Enforcement Records
Aug 8, 2025 · RCW 68.50.105 prohibits the disclosure of autopsy or postmortem records in most instances. This includes autopsy photos and suicide notes ...Missing: protections | Show results with:protections
[63]
The 2025 Florida Statutes - Online Sunshine
The 2025 Florida Statutes · (2)(a) A photograph or video or audio recording of an autopsy held by a medical examiner is confidential and exempt from s. · (b) An ...Missing: forensic | Show results with:forensic<|control11|><|separator|>
[64]
Federal appeals court finds right to privacy over death images ...
May 30, 2012 · A federal appeals court ruled for the first time that the right to privacy over death images is protected under the US Constitution.
[65]
Some Gene Hackman death investigation records to be released ...
Mar 31, 2025 · But photos from Hackman's and Arakawa's autopsy reports will not be released, the court ruled. The Oscar winner and his wife were found dead ...
[66]
Confidentiality obligations of forensic pathologists - Paubox
Apr 17, 2025 · Forensic pathologists must maintain confidentiality, respect the deceased's dignity, and only disclose to authorized persons with legitimate ...
[67]
Are autopsy reports protected health information? - Paubox
Apr 16, 2025 · Autopsy reports are not typically PHI unless they contain identifiable information, and are not protected by HIPAA if the medical examiner is ...
[68]
When are Autopsy Photos Admissible in a Murder Trial?
Aug 9, 2023 · Autopsy photos are only admissible iif they are relevant to the issues and if their probative value outweighs their prejudicial effect.
[69]
What records are available in a death investigation case?
Jan 6, 2020 · Photos, videos, or audio recordings of an autopsy are available for inspection, but copies are not provided except through discovery. The Office ...<|separator|>
[70]
STATES' LAWS ON DISCLOSING CRIME SCENE PHOTOGRAPHS ...
Sep 18, 2013 · The law bars the copying of photographs taken for the coroner at the death scene. They are available for use only in a criminal action or ...Missing: United | Show results with:United
[71]
Emmett Till's Open Casket Funeral Reignited the Civil Rights ...
Sep 2, 2015 · Emmett Till's open casket funeral reignited the Civil Rights movement. Mamie Till Mobley's decision for her slain son's ceremony was a major moment in Civil ...
[72]
Mamie Till-Mobley (U.S. National Park Service)
Aug 7, 2023 · Till-Mobley was alerted of secret plans to quickly bury Emmett, she intervened and refused to allow her son to be buried Mississippi. She ...
[73]
Mamie Till-Mobley Chooses to Hold an Open-Casket Funeral
Mar 31, 2023 · Mamie Till-Mobley describes why she insisted on an open-casket funeral. She told the funeral director, “Let the world see what I've seen”.
[74]
What the Director of the African American History Museum Says ...
Feb 3, 2017 · In Chicago, 55,000 people viewed Till's body, his remains contained in an open casket that was covered in glass so that all could see. And as of ...
[75]
The Photo That Changed America's Civil Rights Movement | TIME
Jul 10, 2016 · 60 years before the harrowing images of Philando Castile's and Alton Sterling's deaths, one photograph changed America's take on race.
[76]
Emmett Till, Seventy Years Later
Aug 28, 2025 · Jet magazine published photos of Emmett Till's brutalized body that shocked the nation. They sold out so fast that Jet reprinted the issue ...
[77]
Emmett Till's Death Inspired a Movement
The photo of Till with his mother earlier that year alongside Jet's photo of his mutilated corpse horrified the nation and became a catalyst for the bourgeoning ...
[78]
Emmett Till's Funeral | American Experience | Official Site - PBS
Emmett Till's mother declined an offer from the mortician to “touch up” her son's body, and she made the decision to have an open casket funeral.
[79]
The Lasting Power of Emmett Till's Image - The New York Times
Apr 5, 2017 · The controversy over a white artist's painting of Emmett Till's corpse raises issues of appropriation without historical context.Missing: mortem interest
[80]
TCU Race & Reconciliation Initiative: Emmett Till: Impact
May 12, 2023 · Describes how photos of Emmett Till's brutalized body impacted civil rights activists. Emmett Till's Death Inspired a Movement | Smithsonian.
[81]
[PDF] Exemption 7(C) - Department of Justice
Oct 3, 2019 · In order to determine whether Exemption 7(C) protects against disclosure, courts require that agencies engage in the following four-step ...
[82]
[PDF] PUBLIC ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT DEATH RECORDS AND
This Article examines the contentious relationship between public rights to access government-held death records and privacy rights con-.
[83]
State court rules in favor of public disclosure of autopsy records in ...
Jul 15, 2023 · In a 6-1 ruling this week, Commonwealth Court ruled that the public should have access to autopsy records regardless of whether coroners are ...Missing: justice | Show results with:justice
[84]
Disclosure of autopsy photos/videotapes - My Florida Legal
Jun 6, 2003 · A court may allow the inspection and copying of autopsy photographs or videotapes by any person when good cause is found.
[85]
New Mexico's open records law survives an unusual day in court
Apr 7, 2025 · The judge's order will also allow the release of autopsy reports, as long as images of bodies are either removed or blurred. Santa Fe County ...
[86]
Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act, Revised
Provides states with non-partisan, well-conceived and well-drafted legislation that brings clarity and stability to critical areas of state statutory law.
[87]
What is RUFADAA: The Revised UFADAA Explained - Bequest.com
Nov 22, 2023 · ... Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (RUFADAA) was adopted instead. ... adopted by 46 states so far, a marked improvement ...
[88]
Crypto Keys & Passwords: Planning for Digital Asset Inheritance
Aug 2, 2025 · Unlike physical assets, digital property isn't easily located or passed down. Passwords and encryption often act as barriers, and without proper ...
[89]
Why Managing Digital Assets is Critical In Estate Planning - Kitces.com
Mar 5, 2025 · Without proactive planning, heirs and fiduciaries may face substantial obstacles when trying to access a deceased individual's digital assets.
[90]
Beyond the Grave: Navigating Post-Mortem Data Privacy
Jun 2, 2025 · In the digital age, the fate of personal data after death remains a captivating enigma. · Importance of Post-mortem Privacy · Post-mortem Rights.
[91]
Digital legacies in 2025 | DW Observatory
While the Act grants the right to access and manage the data and digital assets of the deceased with a fiduciary, some may question that it may infringe the ...<|separator|>
[92]
Are deepfakes of dead people rewriting the past? - NBC News
Oct 12, 2025 · The ability to generate such deepfakes of nonconsenting deceased individuals has already caused complaints from family members. In an ...
[93]
[PDF] LEGAL REMEDIES FOR POSTHUMOUS DEEPFAKES
The issue of who should be able to subject a deceased person to posthumous deepfake exploitation for commercial reasons raises concerns implicating surviving ...
[94]
AI videos of dead celebrities are horrifying many of their families
Oct 11, 2025 · ... AI expert who studies deepfakes and coined the term “synthetic resurrection” to describe creating digital copies of the dead. “With deceased ...
[95]
Deepfakes of your dead loved ones are a booming Chinese business
May 7, 2024 · Deepfakes of your dead loved ones are a booming Chinese business ... Example of a deepfake video call Super Brain did in July 2023. The ...
[96]
The Law of Digital Resurrection by Victoria J. Haneman :: SSRN
Jul 24, 2024 · Users may now have a completely immersive experience simply by loading the personal data of the deceased into a neural network to create a ...
[97]
Keeping the Dead Alive: AI Grief Bots and Privacy Concerns
Apr 22, 2025 · The primary issue with grief bots arises with the data privacy and lack of consent of the deceased who are being emulated. Under common law, ...
[98]
[PDF] THE LAW OF DIGITAL RESURRECTION
320 Carrying this forth to the law of digital resurrection, the deceased does not have a right to privacy at common law after death, but there are moral rights ...
[99]
Who Speaks for the Dead? AI, Consent, and the Digital Afterlife
Jun 30, 2025 · In a recent and dramatic court trial, a victim's voice was digitally resurrected using artificial intelligence to give a posthumous victim ...
[100]
https://www.californialawreview.org/print/left-dead
[101]
Promising for patients or deeply disturbing? The ethical and legal ...
This could have serious drawbacks, not only for the grief counselling case where deepfake therapy might undermine the authentic relation with the deceased.
[102]
A Privacy Torts Solution to Postmortem Deepfakes
Feb 22, 2023 · While the law could provide redress for mental and emotional harms caused by deepfakes, privacy torts exclude the deceased.
[103]
law of digital afterlife: the Chinese experience of AI 'resurrection' and ...
Jan 8, 2025 · This article considers the prominent private law and regulatory problems relating to the practice of AI 'resurrection' where a digital replica with the ...Missing: mortem | Show results with:mortem
[104]
How to draft a will to avoid becoming an AI ghost—it's not easy
Jun 13, 2025 · Writing "no AI resurrections" into a will remains a complicated process, experts suggest, and such requests may not be honored by all unless laws are changed.Missing: challenges | Show results with:challenges
[105]
49 out of 50 states have adopted the Revised Uniform Fiduciary ...
Oct 11, 2025 · 49 out of 50 states have adopted the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (RUFADAA), creating a clear legal framework for ...
[106]
https://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/access-to-digital-assets-of-decedents.aspx
[107]
https://europeanlawinstitute.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/p_eli/Documents/CD_2023/CD_2023-17_on_Projects__Adoption_of_the__Model_Rules_on_Succession_of_Digital_Assets__Data_and_other_Digital_Remains__Project_.pdf
[108]
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/madras-high-court-recognises-cryptocurrency-as-property-under-indian-law-9519596
[109]
https://www.varindia.com/news/cryptocurrency-recognised-as-property-rules-madras-high-court
[110]
What Is Post-Mortem Right of Publicity? - Nova Estate Lawyers
Mar 20, 2022 · Under the postmortem right of publicity, a deceased individual can protect their name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness against ...Missing: United | Show results with:United<|separator|>
[111]
The Post-Mortem Right of Publicity - Wilmington Trust
Jan 24, 2022 · The post-mortem right of publicity (ROP) allows an executor or heir to exploit a deceased individual's persona.Missing: United | Show results with:United
[112]
New York's new post-mortem publicity rights law: What does it mean ...
Dec 9, 2020 · New York's new post-mortem law will only protect a person's rights of publicity that have commercial value at the time of their death, or resulting from their ...
[113]
New York Enacts New Post Mortem Right of Publicity | CCC
Feb 11, 2021 · New York State has created a right of publicity for certain deceased NY residents (“performers” and “personalities”) that can be enforced by ...
[114]
AI and the Right of Publicity: A Patchwork of State Laws the Only ...
Dec 12, 2023 · For example, the duration of protection after death varies widely; while Tennessee protects the post-mortem right of publicity for 10 years, ...
[115]
"The Right to Publicity After Death" by Aubrie Hicks
Oct 4, 2012 · The most notable cases involve well-known celebrities such as Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley, and Jimi Hendrix. In each case, the court refused ...Missing: key | Show results with:key
[116]
The Estate Tax and De/Valuing Postmortem Publicity Rights
Nov 7, 2024 · The right of publicity protects against the unauthorized commercial use of an individual's name, image, or likeness, with some states also ...
[117]
The Right of Publicity: An Often Overlooked Asset in Estate Planning ...
Jan 24, 2022 · Estate practitioners are increasingly considering the right of publicity for the purposes of planning and tax compliance.<|separator|>
[118]
When I Die Put My Money in the Grave - American Bar Association
Apr 28, 2023 · i) The applicant must show ownership of the post-mortem right through assignment, license, or any other method of conveyance. b) For the ...<|separator|>
[119]
Cairns v. Franklin Mint Co., 24 F. Supp. 2d 1013 (C.D. Cal. 1998)
Plaintiffs allege that defendants are using their advertising to improperly benefit from the goodwill associated with Princess Diana's identity. According to ...Missing: lawsuit | Show results with:lawsuit
[120]
Charities Win in Settlement of Suit Against Diana Fund
Nov 11, 2004 · A memorial fund for Princess Diana agreed Wednesday to earmark $25 million for charitable causes to settle a lawsuit brought against the fund ...Missing: outcome | Show results with:outcome
[121]
Elvis Presley Estate Sues Over Likeness Used In Gun Advertisements
Apr 18, 2014 · Elvis Presley's estate has taken legal action against firearm manufacturer Beretta for the unauthorized use of the King's image in an ad.
[122]
Conflict of Laws -- Textbook : Elvis Presley Enterprises Inc. v. Capece
Plaintiff claims that Defendants' use of the name, image, likeness, and other indicia of Elvis for the purposes of trade constitutes an appropriation of ...Missing: lawsuits | Show results with:lawsuits<|control11|><|separator|>
[123]
George Carlin Estate Settles Lawsuit Over AI Imitation - Variety
Apr 2, 2024 · The estate sued, alleging that the special violated the estate's copyrights and its publicity right to Carlin's name, image and likeness.
[124]
George Carlin's estate settles lawsuit over comedian's AI ...
Apr 3, 2024 · Suit claimed Dudesy podcast violated Carlin's copyright, calling it 'a casual theft of a great American artist's work'
[125]
George Carlin's estate settles lawsuit over AI-generated comedy ...
Apr 3, 2024 · The makers of Dudesy took down the routine six days later and settled the case on April 1, according to court filings from Tuesday.
[126]
Milton H. Greene Archives, Inc. v. Marilyn Monroe LLC, et al., No. 08 ...
Marilyn Monroe LLC and its licensee sued Milton Green in the federal district court, claiming ownership of Marilyn Monroe's right of publicity.
[127]
[PDF] Scope and Justification of the Right of Publicity
A notion of our obligations with respect to the privacy of the dead might indicate that the scope of a post-mortem right of publicity ought to be tailored to ...<|separator|>
[128]
[PDF] Reconciling California's Pre, Post, and Per Mortem Rights of Publicity
This Note uses the term "post mortem" to describe the right of publicity as recognized for identities with commercial value at the time of their death. This ...Missing: key | Show results with:key
[129]
New York Gives Life to Post-Mortem Right of Publicity and Deters ...
Jun 10, 2021 · Section 50-f recognizes a post-mortem right of publicity in celebrities and performers domiciled in New York State at the time of their death.
[130]
Postmortem Rights of Publicity: The Federal Estate Tax ...
Apr 1, 2008 · An unrestricted postmortem publicity right that survives a decedent's death likely will receive estate tax treatment similar to certain tort ...Missing: arguments | Show results with:arguments<|control11|><|separator|>
[131]
[PDF] the right of publicity - Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
The Theory of Property Rights ... For example, the scope and duration of the post mortem right of publicity vary significantly from state to state.
[132]
[PDF] The Right to Publicity After Death: Postmortem Personality Rights in ...
Mar 19, 2008 · Principles Could Not Gain Jimi Hendrix's Heirs a Post-Mortem Right of Publicity: Court Rules ... property rights to justify applying Washington ...
[133]
[PDF] Death and Privacy in the Digital Age
Mar 1, 2016 · The article discusses how privacy interests are traditionally terminated at death and how online accounts are handled after death, where ...
[134]
[PDF] RIGHTS OF THE DEAD - Hofstra Law
The dead have rights such as testamentary distributions, burial requests, organ donation, and possibly publicity and reproductive autonomy, despite not having ...
[135]
[PDF] PROTECTING POST-MORTEM PRIVACY: RECONSIDERING THE ...
post-mortem privacy: rights of privacy for the dead. Post-mortem privacy is not a recognised term of art or institutional category in general succession law ...
[136]
The Dead Unborn, Postmortem Privacy Cases, and Abortion Rights
Jun 6, 2024 · In 2017, in Jackson v. Mayweather, a California court found that a woman could bring a right-to-privacy lawsuit against a man who disclosed an ...
[137]
Health Information of Deceased Individuals - HHS.gov
Sep 19, 2013 · The HIPAA Privacy Rule protects the individually identifiable health information about a decedent for 50 years following the date of death of the individual.
[138]
Use of Deceased Controls in Epidemiologic Research: A Systematic ...
Jul 6, 2017 · McLaughlin et al. concluded that “as with hospital controls, deceased controls can be useful in epidemiologic studies of cancer and other ...Missing: benefits | Show results with:benefits
[139]
Stakeholders' perspectives on the post-mortem use of genetic ... - NIH
Sep 16, 2019 · The majority of biobank policies and consent forms do not address post-mortem use of data for medical research, thus causing uncertainty ...
[140]
[PDF] What Can We Do with the Data of Deceased People? A Normative ...
Jul 28, 2021 · Abstract: The health and genetic data of deceased people are a particularly important asset in the field of biomedical research.
[141]
Why You Should Donate Your Medical Data When You Die
Feb 16, 2017 · Data donation after death should be discussed to avoid data dying along with patients, in turn leading to other deaths by setting back medical ...
[142]
THE CONSTITUTION AFTER DEATH - Columbia Law Review
The first is that the dead are incapable of being rights-holders and, therefore, cannot be deprived of such rights. The second is that there are no sound policy ...