I am planning to create a posthumous AI avatar for a celebrity estate. Who manages the ethics/rights?

For a posthumous celebrity AI avatar, there usually isn’t one single “ethics/rights manager.” You’ll want a rights-and-ethics structure involving the estate, entertainment counsel, and potentially the performer’s union.

Who should be at the table

• The celebrity’s estate / authorized representative — usually the primary decision-maker for postmortem publicity rights, licensing, and the deceased person’s wishes. Exactly what the estate controls depends heavily on the jurisdiction and existing contracts.
• Entertainment/IP attorney — essential for determining who actually owns or controls the relevant name, image, likeness, voice, performances, trademarks, copyrights, and publicity rights. Don't assume that the estate owns all of these.
• SAG-AFTRA, if the celebrity was a covered performer — its current agreements contain specific consent requirements for digital replicas, including posthumous replicas. SAG-AFTRA says that where a performer is deceased, consent may need to come from the estate/authorized representative, depending on the applicable agreement.
• Existing licensors/business partners — record labels, studios, publishers, game companies, advertisers, etc. may have contractual rights that intersect with the avatar.
• An independent ethics/privacy advisor — not necessarily a legal requirement, but strongly advisable. They can address questions such as whether the avatar should be allowed to generate new statements, endorse products, discuss controversial subjects, or interact with fans as though it were the person.
• The AI/avatar vendor — should be contractually restricted from training on, reusing, sublicensing, or retaining the celebrity's likeness/voice beyond the authorized project.

The key distinction: rights vs. ethics

Legally, you're principally asking “Who has authority to authorize this?” Ethically, you're asking “What uses would the person reasonably have wanted?”

Those aren't necessarily the same. SAG-AFTRA's guidance, for example, emphasizes informed consent, specific descriptions of intended use, compensation, and additional consent for different uses, rather than treating a digital replica as a blanket license.

And this is an actively changing area: SAG-AFTRA specifically highlighted postmortem digital-replica protections in 2026, including a recent statement concerning the use of Val Kilmer's digital replica.

If you're setting this up for an estate

I'd recommend creating a “Digital Likeness Governance” agreement/committee before building the avatar. At minimum, it should establish:

1. Who can authorize uses
2. Permitted and prohibited subject matter
3. Whether the avatar can generate novel speech
4. Whether it can make political, commercial, or product endorsements
5. How disclosures to users work — e.g., clearly identifying it as an AI representation
6. Who approves new training data
7. How the replica is secured and eventually destroyed
8. Revenue/royalty allocation
9. What happens if the estate changes hands
10. A process for handling complaints and taking the avatar offline

For a real celebrity, I would not start by commissioning the model. Start with a rights audit and governance charter, because the answer to “who manages the rights?” can change depending on the celebrity's state, union status, contracts, and the particular use (film, game, advertising, interactive chatbot, etc.).

If you tell me which celebrity, what country/state the estate is based in, and what you want the avatar to do (e.g. conversational fan experience, film performance, advertising, hologram), I can map out the likely rights holders and approval process.

When creating a posthumous AI avatar for a celebrity, management of the rights and ethics is split between legal executors/heirs, state legislation , and an emerging framework of ethical self-regulation.

Because no single federal law explicitly governs "digital replicas" or AI ghosts, authority is decentralized across several key entities:

• The Celebrity Estate and Designated Trustees
  • The executor, personal representative, or trustee of the estate holds the immediate fiduciary duty. They manage the intellectual property and commercial interests. If the celebrity left specific instructions in a posthumous rights addendum or trust prohibiting or permitting digital replicas, the trustee is legally bound to follow them.
• The Post-Mortem Right of Publicity Holders
  • Around half of U.S. states (including major hubs like California, New York, and Texas) recognize a post-mortem right of publicity. This means the exclusive right to control, license, and profit from a celebrity's name, image, likeness (NIL), and voice passes down to their heirs or designated beneficiaries—lasting anywhere from 20 to 70+ years post-mortem depending on the jurisdiction.
• Entertainment Unions and Talent Guilds
  • If the avatar incorporates archival audio, video performances, or synthesized acting, organizations like SAG-AFTRA maintain strict collective bargaining agreements and guardrails regarding the digital recreation of performers, requiring distinct consent and compensation structures.
• The Estate’s Legal and Ethical Advisory Board
  • High-value estates typically assemble a specialized team of entertainment attorneys, digital ethics consultants, and brand guardians. They evaluate qualitative risks: Does the avatar say things the celebrity would have morally opposed? Does it cheapen their legacy or artistic integrity?

If you'd like to narrow this down, let me know:

• Which state or country is the estate domiciled in?
• Does the celebrity's existing will or trust have specific language regarding digital likeness or AI?

If you’re planning a posthumous AI avatar of a celebrity, there usually isn’t one single “ethics/rights manager.” You’ll want to treat it as a combination of estate authority, publicity/likeness rights, copyright, contracts, and an ethical governance process.

Who should manage it

• The celebrity’s estate / successor rights-holder — This is the primary authority for deciding whether the deceased person’s name, voice, image, likeness, and persona can be commercially recreated. In California, for example, postmortem publicity rights can pass through a will, trust, contract, or other testamentary instrument.
• Entertainment/IP counsel — Have an attorney specializing in right of publicity, entertainment law, copyright, licensing, and AI/digital replicas determine exactly what rights the estate controls and where the avatar will be distributed. The rules vary substantially by state.
• The estate's executor, trustee, or licensing company — Operationally, this person/entity can administer approvals, licenses, brand standards, revenue, and permitted uses on behalf of the estate.
• An independent ethics advisor or review committee — This is not generally a statutory requirement, but I would strongly recommend it. It should address questions such as: What would the celebrity have consented to? What statements can the avatar make? Can it endorse products? Can it create new political or personal opinions? How should uncertainty be disclosed?
• The celebrity’s union/contractual representatives, where applicable — Existing performer agreements can contain relevant provisions governing digital replicas. California, for example, enacted laws specifically addressing digital replicas of performers, including deceased performers.

The legal issue you should focus on first

The key concept is postmortem right of publicity / digital-replica rights, rather than simply “copyright.”

The U.S. Copyright Office has specifically studied digital replicas and concluded that existing state laws leave significant gaps; it recommended creation of a federal digital-replica right while retaining state publicity protections.

California is particularly important for entertainment projects: its law covers highly realistic computer-generated representations of a deceased person's voice or likeness and generally requires consent from the person controlling the deceased personality's rights. Those rights can be transferred or inherited.

Tennessee is another important jurisdiction for celebrity estates because its ELVIS Act provides unusually broad protection for a person's name, image, likeness, and voice, including after death.

I'd structure the project this way

Estate → Rights counsel → Ethics committee → AI/production team

And before training or producing anything, create a “digital persona charter” specifying:

1. Exactly what the estate has authorized.
2. Which recordings, photographs, performances, writings, and interviews may be used.
3. What the avatar may and may not say.
4. Whether it can express new opinions or beliefs.
5. Whether it can endorse products or enter commercial relationships.
6. Whether users must be told that they're interacting with an AI recreation.
7. Who can approve new capabilities and commercial uses.
8. What happens if family members, co-rightsholders, or beneficiaries disagree.
9. How the model, source material, and generated content will be secured.
10. A shutdown/revocation mechanism.

Most importantly: don't assume that “the estate owns the celebrity” or that a copyright license automatically gives you the right to create an AI person. Those are different bundles of rights.

If you tell me which celebrity and which jurisdiction the estate is based in, I can map out the specific rights-holders, applicable postmortem publicity law, likely licenses/consents, and an appropriate ethics-governance structure.

Estate → Rights counsel → Ethics committee → AI/production team

And before training or producing anything, create a “digital persona charter” specifying:

Creating a posthumous AI avatar for a celebrity requires navigating a complex web of legal rights, estate executors, and ethical boundaries. Because federal laws specifically targeting AI likeness are still evolving (such as proposed frameworks like the NO FAKES Act), management is handled through a combination of state statutes, intellectual property law, and private estate governance.

The management of ethics and rights is distributed across several key entities:

1. The Celebrity Estate and Executor / Trustee
   • The legal personal representative, executor, or trustee of the celebrity’s estate holds the primary authority. They manage the deceased’s postmortem right of publicity —which legally protects a person's name, image, voice, and likeness from commercial exploitation after death.
   • Depending on how the celebrity set up their will, living trust, or a posthumous rights addendum, the executor is bound by explicit boundaries or granted discretion on what projects are approved.
2. State Right of Publicity Statutes
   • Publicity rights are governed at the state level rather than federally, and laws vary wildly. For instance, states like California and New York have robust postmortem publicity statutes that protect a deceased personality's likeness for a specific number of years (e.g., 70 years in California).
   • Recent state expansions—like New York's legislation targeting unauthorized digital replicas of deceased performers —mean estates and creators must strictly adhere to regional statutory limits and disclosure laws.
3. Intellectual Property (IP) and Trademark Holders
   • Beyond basic likeness, distinct elements like copyrighted sound recordings, film footage, or trademarked logos/catchphrases associated with the celebrity are managed by the respective copyright or trademark owners (which could be the estate, record labels, or film studios). Licensing agreements must clear these separate IP hurdles alongside the publicity rights.
4. The Estate's Legal and Ethical Advisory Board
   • Ethically, estates often rely on specialized entertainment attorneys, legacy managers, and sometimes an ad-hoc ethical board. Even if an estate has the legal right to license an avatar, public backlash or a violation of the celebrity's known life values can damage the brand. Many high-profile estates use moral clauses and advisory teams to ensure the AI representation respects the persona's dignity.

To help narrow this down, could you tell me:

• Which state or jurisdiction is the estate primarily tied to?
• Is the intended avatar for advertising, a narrative film, or an interactive experience?

If you mean who should have authority to approve the avatar and set its ethical boundaries, it is usually not one person or agency. For a deceased celebrity, you should treat it as a rights + estate governance + ethics issue.

Who typically manages it

• The celebrity’s estate / personal representative — This is the primary rights holder where the celebrity's publicity rights have passed through a will, trust, contract, or applicable state law. In California, for example, deceased-personality rights are transferable and descendible, and consent can be exercised by the person(s) who received those rights.
• The estate's entertainment/IP attorney — You will want counsel to determine exactly what rights the estate controls: name, image, voice, likeness, existing performances, trademarks, copyrights, archival recordings, etc. The answer can vary substantially by state and by the celebrity's contracts.
• The celebrity's licensing/brand-management representative — If the estate already has a licensing agent or company managing commercial uses, that organization may administer approvals, contracts, and brand consistency.
• A dedicated ethics/AI advisory group — This isn't generally a legally mandated body, but for a serious posthumous avatar I'd strongly recommend establishing one. It can include an estate representative, entertainment lawyer, AI specialist, someone familiar with the celebrity's wishes and biography, and ideally an independent ethics/privacy expert.
• The technology vendor — The AI/avatar company should be treated as a service provider, not as the party deciding what the deceased person "would have said." Your agreement should tightly define permitted training data, uses, outputs, moderation, provenance, security, and termination.

California is particularly important

If this celebrity has significant California connections, California Civil Code §3344.1, as amended by AB 1836, is especially relevant. California now specifically addresses unauthorized digital replicas of deceased personalities' voices and likenesses in expressive audiovisual works and sound recordings. The statute generally requires consent from the person controlling the deceased personality's rights, subject to specified exceptions.

California's governor specifically described AB 1836 as requiring estates' consent for commercial uses of digital replicas of deceased performers in things such as films, television, video games, audiobooks, and sound recordings.

There is also a broader unresolved U.S. legal issue: the U.S. Copyright Office concluded that existing protections for digital replicas are inconsistent and inadequate and recommended creation of a federal digital-replica right.

The ethical question is broader than "does the estate consent?"

I'd recommend the estate establish an explicit Posthumous Digital Likeness Policy before development. Among other things, it should answer:

• What can the avatar say and do?
• Is it allowed to generate new opinions, political statements, endorsements, or personal advice?
• Can it appear to promote products?
• Can it interact with fans as though it were actually the deceased person?
• What happens when the model produces something the person never said?
• Should every interaction disclose that it is AI?
• Who can approve new capabilities?
• Who can shut it down?
• What happens to the model and training data if the estate changes hands?

I'd also separate "reconstructing the person" from "creating a fictional character based on the person." The latter gives you considerably more creative latitude; presenting an AI as the actual deceased celebrity raises much more significant rights, authenticity, and ethical concerns.

If you tell me which celebrity and which jurisdiction the estate is based in, I can map out the likely rights holders, applicable laws, and a practical governance structure for the avatar.

When creating a posthumous AI avatar for a celebrity, authority and responsibility are shared between the legal estate (the executors/heirs) and an evolving patchwork of state and federal laws . Because a person’s death doesn’t automatically free their digital persona for public use, navigating this requires careful management of legal rights and ethical guidelines.

Here is how the management of rights and ethics breaks down:

• The Personal Representative or Trustee: Legally, the person or corporate entity designated as the executor, personal representative, or trustee of the celebrity's estate holds primary authority. If the celebrity established a "posthumous rights addendum," digital trust, or specific instructions in their will, the trustee is legally bound to follow those parameters regarding how their image, voice, or biometric data is deployed.
• The Heirs / Next of Kin: If there is no explicit instruction or active trust, post-mortem right of publicity laws generally dictate that control and licensing power pass to the surviving spouse, children, or designated beneficiaries. However, reliance purely on next-of-kin can sometimes lead to friction if family members disagree on what honors the deceased's legacy versus what exploits it.
• State-Specific Right of Publicity Statutes: The U.S. does not currently have a single unified federal law for personality rights, meaning enforcement heavily depends on state jurisdiction. States with robust post-mortem statutes—such as California (which protects a celebrity's likeness for 70 years post-mortem), New York (40 years for deceased performers/personalities), Indiana (100 years), and Tennessee—allow estates to legally license or aggressively sue over unauthorized digital replicas.
• Emerging Frameworks (The NO FAKES Act): Federal legislative efforts like the bipartisan No Fakes Act seek to establish a baseline federal right stopping unauthorized AI-generated digital replicas of both living and dead performers, giving estates an extra layer of federal recourse.
• Ethical and Curation Oversight: Beyond the minimum legal requirements, estates often appoint an ethics or legacy committee (frequently including literary agents, long-time collaborators, or estate attorneys). This helps prevent "spectral labor" traps—such as AI-generated works that lack human curation and fail to qualify for copyright—and ensures the avatar doesn't endorse products or express viewpoints the celebrity would have morally opposed in life.

To help narrow down the legal and structural roadmap, could you tell me:

• What state or country is the celebrity's estate domiciled in?
• Is the intended avatar meant for commercial use (advertising, a film, a residency) or non-commercial/commemorative purposes?

For a posthumous AI avatar of a celebrity, responsibility usually sits with a combination of the estate, legal rights holders, ethics advisors, and the technology company. There is rarely one universal “ethics manager”; instead, governance is typically designed as a stewardship structure.

Key stakeholders:

1. The celebrity’s estate (primary rights steward)

   • The executor, trust, heirs, or a designated legacy representative often controls:
     • name, image, likeness, and voice licensing (where applicable)
     • approval of commercial uses
     • brand protection
     • whether the avatar is created, retired, or modified
   • In some jurisdictions, postmortem publicity rights can pass to heirs or estate representatives, but the scope and duration vary significantly by location.

2. Entertainment lawyers / IP counsel They handle:

   • right-of-publicity issues
   • copyright and archival material licenses
   • contracts with AI vendors
   • restrictions on new performances, statements, endorsements, or political uses
   • compliance with state-specific laws (for example, California has protections for certain commercial uses of a deceased personality’s voice and likeness without consent).

3. An ethics or legacy advisory board Many estates create a group separate from the business decision-makers to address questions such as:

   • Would the celebrity likely have approved this use?
   • Does the avatar preserve the person’s values or distort them?
   • Is it being used for remembrance, entertainment, education, advertising, or something else?
   • Should it be allowed to generate new opinions or only reproduce documented material?

   Researchers studying “digital afterlives” commonly emphasize consent, transparency, limited purposes, audience controls, governance, and restrictions on autonomous behavior as key safeguards.

4. The AI technology provider The vendor should manage:

   • data provenance (what recordings, interviews, photos, and writings were used)
   • model security
   • disclosure that the avatar is synthetic
   • preventing unauthorized expansions of the avatar’s behavior
   • audit logs and takedown mechanisms

5. Fans, family, and affected communities While they may not legally control the avatar, they can be important ethical stakeholders—especially if the avatar affects grief, public memory, or cultural legacy.

A strong governance model for a celebrity estate would usually include:

• a written avatar charter defining allowed and forbidden uses
• a named digital legacy steward
• a review board with estate, legal, creative, and ethics representation
• strict rules on:
  • no unscripted “new beliefs” attributed to the celebrity
  • clear AI disclosure
  • approval for endorsements or commercial appearances
  • limits on training data and future updates
  • a process to retire the avatar

The biggest strategic question for an estate is whether it treats the avatar as a licensed entertainment asset or as a memorial representation of a person’s legacy. Those lead to very different governance choices.

If you are setting one up professionally, the usual first hire is an entertainment/IP attorney experienced with estates and digital likeness rights, followed by an ethics/legacy governance group.

When creating a posthumous AI avatar for a celebrity, control over the ethics and rights is split between legal ownership via the estate and a patchwork of state and emerging federal laws . Because no single global regulatory body governs digital resurrection, management depends on a mix of designated executors, intellectual property laws, and ethical self-governance.

1. Who Manages the Legal Rights?

• The Estate Executor or Personal Representative: The legal authority to license, approve, or sue over a celebrity's Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) is vested in the executor, trustee, or personal representative named in the celebrity’s will or digital asset trust. If no specific instructions were left, these rights typically pass to statutory heirs (surviving spouse, children, or designated family members).
• Specialized Estate Management Companies: Many high-profile estates are managed by professional third-party asset management firms or specialized entertainment law practices appointed to handle licensing, protect the brand, and maximize commercial value.
• Guilds and Unions: For actors and performers (such as SAG-AFTRA members), labor agreements and collective bargaining contracts increasingly dictate strict rules regarding digital replicas, requiring specific consent even posthumously.

2. The Legal Framework Governing the Rights

• Post-Mortem Right of Publicity: Unlike regular copyright or privacy (which often expire or weaken upon death), the right of publicity allows an individual or their estate to control the commercial exploitation of their likeness.
• State Statutes: Protection varies dramatically by jurisdiction. States like California, New York, Tennessee, and Illinois have robust statutes explicitly extending post-mortem right of publicity protections to cover AI-generated digital replicas and deepfakes. For instance, laws require explicit, prior authorization from the estate before a digital replica of a deceased performer's voice or likeness can be commercially exploited.
• Federal Legislation (The NO FAKES Act): Federal proposals like the No Fakes Act aim to create a unified nationwide right preventing the unauthorized creation of digital voice and image replicas for both living and deceased individuals, giving estates direct avenues for legal recourse.

3. Managing the Ethical Considerations

Because statutory frameworks primarily focus on commercial exploitation and property rights rather than human dignity or emotional impact, estates and developers often rely on self-imposed ethical guidelines:

• Adherence to Known Wishes: Ethicists and estate managers look to whether the celebrity expressed explicit preferences about digital replication or synthetic media during their lifetime.
• Brand and Legacy Protection: Even if an estate is legally permitted to license an avatar, doing so in ways that feel invasive or out-of-character risks severe backlash from fans and can permanently tarnish the celebrity's legacy.
• Transparency and Disclosure: Ethical deployment typically requires clear public disclosure indicating that the interaction is synthetic, ensuring consumers aren't deceived into believing the deceased person is genuinely conscious or acting of their own accord.

To help narrow down the legal and structural approach, could you share:

• Which state or country is the celebrity's estate domiciled in?
• Is the intended avatar for commercial use (advertising, entertainment) or memorialization/educational use?

For a posthumous AI avatar of a celebrity, there usually isn't one single person or organization that “manages the ethics.” You need to separate legal rights, estate authority, and ethical governance.

Who should be at the table

1. The celebrity's estate / successor-in-interest

   • Usually the primary decision-maker for commercial uses of the deceased person's name, image, likeness, and voice—where the applicable jurisdiction recognizes postmortem publicity rights.
   • New York, for example, expressly protects deceased personalities and performers against certain unauthorized commercial uses of their likeness, voice, and digital replicas.
   • New York also expanded its definition of a protected digital replica in legislation taking effect in 2026.

2. The estate's entertainment/IP lawyer

   • This is the person I'd involve before building the model, not merely before releasing it.
   • They should determine who actually owns/controls the relevant rights: publicity rights, trademarks, copyrights, recordings, photographs, film/TV performances, contracts, and any existing licenses.
   • The answer can vary substantially depending on where the celebrity was domiciled when they died. Some states recognize strong postmortem publicity rights; others don't.

3. A dedicated ethics/legacy committee

   • This can be appointed by the estate and should ideally include a family/estate representative, entertainment counsel, an AI/technology specialist, and an independent ethics or digital-identity expert.
   • Its job isn't simply “is this legal?” but questions such as: Would the celebrity have wanted this? What should the avatar be allowed to say? Can it endorse products? Can it create new artistic works? How should uncertainty or fabricated memories be handled?
   • Recent scholarship on “digital ghosts” specifically emphasizes premortem intent, consent, transparency, limited purposes, family/estate stewardship, and restricted behavioral agency.

4. The celebrity's union/contractual representatives, where applicable

   • If the person was an actor, musician, performer, etc., check union agreements and individual employment/recording contracts. AI-replica rights are increasingly addressed through entertainment-industry agreements.

One important distinction

The estate owning the likeness doesn't automatically mean the estate should give the avatar unrestricted autonomy.

I'd recommend treating the avatar as a licensed digital performance, with an explicit governance charter covering:

• permitted topics and uses
• prohibited statements/endorsements
• whether it may generate new opinions
• whether it can interact privately with fans
• disclosure that it is AI
• approval procedures for commercial appearances
• rules for political/religious/controversial content
• treatment of intimate/private information
• who can modify or retrain it
• who can shut it down
• audit logs and provenance of its training material

That's particularly important because the legal framework is still fragmented. Tennessee, for example, has unusually strong postmortem protections—including voice protections under the ELVIS Act—and courts have recognized that publicity rights can survive death and be enforceable by an estate or its licensees.

If you're actually developing one for an estate, I'd structure governance as: Estate/Trustee → IP/entertainment counsel → Ethics & Legacy Committee → AI developer. The developer should not be the party deciding what the deceased person “would have wanted.”

If you tell me which celebrity and which country/state the estate is based in, I can map out exactly who holds the relevant rights, what approvals you'd need, and what an ethical governance structure should look like.

Creating a posthumous AI avatar for a celebrity sits at the intersection of evolving state laws, intellectual property, and deeply complex moral questions.

Who Manages the Rights?

The legal control of a celebrity’s digital persona falls primarily to the Executor, Personal Representative, or Designated Trustee of the celebrity's estate.

• Post-Mortem Right of Publicity: Unlike regular privacy rights (which generally die with the person), the right to control and profit from a celebrity's name, image, likeness (NIL), and voice survives death. However, there is no single federal standard; it is governed by a patchwork of state laws.
• State-Specific Durations and Rules:
  • California protects a celebrity's publicity rights for 70 years post-mortem (Civil Code Section 3344.1) and explicitly expands coverage to AI-generated "digital replicas" via legislation like the Astaire Celebrity Image Protection Act.
  • New York protects digital replicas and commercial likenesses for 40 years after death for domiciliaries of the state.
  • Other states like Tennessee (via the ELVIS Act) and Indiana have heavily fortified laws specifically targeting unauthorized AI voice cloning and digital re-animation.
• The Estate's Fiduciary Duty: The estate managers are legally bound to act in the financial and structural best interest of the beneficiaries or heirs. They can license, sell, or restrict the use of the avatar. If a contract or explicit directive was left in a will, living trust, or posthumous rights addendum, the executor must strictly follow those boundaries.

Who Manages the Ethics?

Unlike legal rights, ethics are decentralized and heavily contested , often managed by an uneasy coalition:

1. The Family / Heirs: Immediate family members often act as the moral compass, though their financial incentives as estate beneficiaries can sometimes conflict with the public legacy or actual wishes of the deceased. High-profile pushback from relatives (such as public pleas from the families of late stars like Robin Williams to halt unauthorized AI recreations) highlights the severe reputational and emotional risks involved.
2. Specialized Ethics Committees / Advisors: Leading estate projects increasingly establish independent advisory boards or internal ethics committees to vet scripts, tone, and brand associations.
3. Public and Consumer Trust: Because current legal frameworks for posthumous data and AI training are still catching up, public backlash acts as a harsh regulator. If an avatar is used in a way that feels exploitative, out-of-character, or disrespectful to the person's legacy, the brand damage can outweigh the financial return.

To help narrow down the compliance roadmap, could you tell me:

• What state is the celebrity's estate domiciled in?
• What is the intended use of the avatar (e.g., interactive chat, documentary, or commercial advertising)?