Netflix Uses AI to Resurrect Gene Wilder's Voice: Who Owns the Dead?

The Event

Netflix's new series *Wonka's The Golden Ticket* launches September 23rd, following *Squid Game* as another live-action competition show adapted from fiction. The critical detail: the narration uses an AI-generated voice of Gene Wilder.

According to Deadline, Netflix partnered with AI audio company ElevenLabs and obtained the Wilder family's consent before proceeding. This isn't the first time—Wilder passed away in 2016, and his vocal characteristics, intonation, and speech patterns have now been parameterized into digital assets.

On the surface, this appears to "respect the family's wishes." But the deeper question emerges: what does a person truly own after death?

Context: The Acceleration of Identity Commodification

Over decades, the boundaries of celebrity likeness rights and voice rights have steadily expanded:

• 2017: Holographic Tupac appears on the Coachella stage
• 2022: The Weeknd's AI virtual avatar performs onstage
• 2024: Multiple companies launch "celebrity voice cloning" services

The critical distinction: the first two were virtual avatars where audiences knew they were witnessing illusions. But Netflix's approach treats the AI voice as a genuine narrative tool—it doesn't announce "this is an AI reconstruction"; instead, it immerses viewers as if Wilder himself were telling the story.

Three Layers of Problems

First Layer: The Validity of Consent

Family consent ≠ personal consent. Wilder died in 2016, when AI voice replication was still science fiction. Did he ever explicitly state during his lifetime that "my voice may be used commercially after my death"? Did the family consent because of money, or because they genuinely believe he would support it?

This is the "proxy dilemma": When the person cannot speak, who represents their wishes? In democracies we hold referendums for public matters, but identity ownership is a family matter? The law remains ambiguous.

Second Layer: The Boundary Between "Voice" and "Character"

Netflix isn't just using Wilder's vocal characteristics—it's using his voice *as the character Wonka*, complete with the 1971 film's intonation, phrasing, and performance style.

This isn't "preserving legacy"; it's creating new instances of a character. Wilder performed Wonka once during his lifetime; now AI lets him perform it forever. This resembles involuntary actor replication—his "voice template" is duplicated infinitely, with each new work being unpaid labor he never contracted for.

Third Layer: Commerce Versus Dignity

Why does Netflix want the AI voice? The business rationale is straightforward: - Hiring a living actor for narration requires payment, contracts, and royalty negotiations - Using AI Wilder: one-time payment, zero future complications

From a business standpoint, this is "optimization." From a humanistic standpoint, it's treating the dead as permanent, cheap labor. Wilder in the afterlife (or grave) has no voice and receives no compensation—he's simply been "very politely" extracted and exploited.

Why Does This Transgress Something?

People typically object to AI resurrection of the deceased through three arguments:

1. Psychological trauma: Family members witnessing their loved one duplicated and exploited undergo secondary grief 2. Identity theft: Using someone's voice without consent violates their rights 3. Commercial exploitation: Duplicating celebrity estates cheaply and infinitely violates moral likeness rights

But Netflix + family consent appears to circumvent the first two. The third one?

This touches a fundamental question: Do the dead have economic rights?

In most legal systems: - Living people hold "likeness rights" (prohibiting unauthorized use of face/voice) - Dead people's likeness rights typically pass to the family (depending on jurisdiction) - But the dead themselves have no voice, no power to protest or negotiate

So Netflix's approach is legally "safe"—the family signed, the company respected protocol. But it remains morally ambiguous.

Reflection: The Endpoint of Identity Commodification

If we accept Netflix's logic, what does the future look like?

• Every deceased celebrity could be infinitely duplicated by AI, requiring only family consent
• New films could "rehire" actors from 100 years ago who never age and never demand raises
• A person's voice becomes permanent commercial property, repurposed across centuries

Rather than "respect," this represents the ultimate commodification—your voice doesn't merely get bought and sold during your lifetime; it continues being sold after death.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Possible regulatory directions:

1. "Pre-mortem consent documents": Require explicit authorization or prohibition for AI replication while the person is alive 2. "Family revenue-sharing": If commercial applications use AI dead-person voices, a portion of profits goes to the family 3. "Transparency labeling": All AI-generated voices must be clearly marked in opening credits or subtitles as "AI-generated," not obscured to viewers 4. "Time restrictions": For example, voices cannot be replicated for 50 years after death; afterward they enter the public domain

Netflix chose the "smartest" approach—obtaining family consent, technically impeccable, but never asking itself the deeper questions at the intersection of morality and human dignity.