Greta Garbo photographed by Clarence Sinclair Bull for Mata Hari in 1931. Credits: Clarence Sinclair Bull / public domain.
The Swedish group SKF launched, on September 30, 2026, an ad featuring Greta Garbo, who died in 1990, to promote its magnetic bearings. The actress’s appearance and voice were recreated with artificial intelligence, with the consent of her rights holders. This collaboration raises several distinct questions: who authorizes the use of her identity, her performances, and the works that shaped her image?
A Real Actress Behind the Synthetic Face
In its launch statement, SKF says it wanted to draw attention to a technology that keeps a shaft rotating in a magnetic field, without physical contact. The group credits it with energy savings and reduced wear. The choice of Garbo, the company says, refers to her participation in an old promotional film for Swedish industry, with which SKF was associated.
The campaign brings together the Nord agency and the production company Artistic Intelligence. Its main character is based on several steps. According to the making-of account published by The Guardian, the creators used text prompts in tools such as Seedream and Nano Banana Pro to achieve Garbo’s appearance. An actress played the scenes, and then this synthetic appearance was superimposed on her performance.
The creators say they did not provide the tools with any photographs or video clips of Garbo to generate her face, citing copyright law. This statement concerns the elements used during the making of the ad. It does not say anything about the data that may previously have been used to train the AI models.
The Family Approves This New Appearance
SKF says it worked with the actress’s family and Harriet Brown & Company Inc. Craig Reisfield, her great-nephew and one of the three relatives who manage her estate, told The Guardian he was thrilled with the result. He especially praised the recreation of her gestures and her voice.
This agreement reflects the choice of the actress’s current representatives. It does not tell us what she herself might have wanted in response to a technique that appeared after her death. Craig Reisfield also says he is open to possible film roles for this digital double. This is a possibility he raises, not the announcement of a new movie.
The Right of Publicity Is Not Transmitted The Same Way Everywhere
The phrase “agreement of the rights holders” can conceal different legal regimes. In France, the Cour de cassation recalled, in a ruling of January 31, 2018, that the right to one’s image attached to a person ends at death and is not passed on to heirs.
This rule does not eliminate intellectual property issues. Copyright in a work and the rights attached to a recorded performance must be distinguished from protection of a person’s image. The French ruling also is not enough to determine the rules applicable to SKF’s international campaign. The existence of a family agreement therefore does not, by itself, answer all these questions.
The Voice and the Films Raise Other Questions
According to the explanations reported by The Guardian, the synthetic voice is based on a recording from an old film. The title of that work and the terms governing use of the excerpt are not specified. This step is separate from generating the face from written prompts: an existing recording was indeed used to recreate the voice.
Digital law attorney Claire Poirson interviewed by franceinfo raises another issue. Garbo’s screen identity was shaped by films, studios, directors, and costume designers. In her view, recreating this figure may involve questions of rights over audiovisual heritage, beyond the actress’s identity alone.
This is a legal analysis, not a decision finding an infringement. To assess the necessary authorizations, it would be necessary to determine precisely which protected elements are being reused and which rights remain in effect. Resemblance to a star and reuse of a work are not automatically the same thing. Conversely, the fact that no images were provided to the tools does not mean that all uses are authorized.
AI Disclosure Meets A Separate Requirement
In the European Union, the transparency obligations of Article 50 of the AI Act have applied since August 2, 2026, the European Commission recalls. They apply in particular to deepfakes: images, sounds, or videos generated or altered by AI that resemble real people or situations and may be mistaken for authentic.
Article 50 requires the professional users concerned to indicate that such content is artificial. The information must be clear and identifiable from the first exposure. For works that are clearly artistic, creative, or fictional, the text provides for an appropriate disclosure that preserves their presentation and appreciation.
Franceinfo notes a mention of AI use in the first seconds of the ad. This disclosure informs viewers about how the character was made. It is neither authorization to use a recording nor a general validation of the rights involved in producing the film.
The financial terms, the duration of the family agreement, and any future uses of the avatar are not detailed in SKF’s statement. These contractual limits will matter if this character is reused. Each new performance would also raise a practical question: what words and gestures can be attributed to an artist who can no longer accept or refuse them?