Swedish Company Uses A.I. Likeness of Greta Garbo in Ad

A small Swedish manufacturing firm has stirred controversy this week after a new advertisement featuring the late Swedish‑American actress Greta Garbo was released online. The ad, which was designed to promote the company’s line of precision components, used an artificial‑intelligence model that generated a photorealistic image of Garbo in a scene set in a modern factory. The company said the image was produced with the assistance of a technology partner that specializes in deep‑fake and synthetic media..

They also claimed that the likeness was licensed through an agency that represents the actress’s estate.The use of Garbo’s image has prompted a flurry of reactions from fans, legal experts, and commentators on the ethics of AI‑generated likenesses. Some argue that the ad is a harmless homage, while others see it as a blatant exploitation of a deceased icon’s persona. The company’s statement, which appeared on its website and was shared widely on social media, explains that they obtained permission from the agency that manages the rights to Garbo’s image and that the AI model was trained on publicly available footage and photographs..

It also claims that the advertisement was not intended to mislead viewers into believing that Garbo herself had endorsed the product.Legal experts warn that the situation remains murky. While a person’s image rights can persist after death, the scope of those rights varies widely by jurisdiction. In the United States, the law generally allows the estate of a deceased celebrity to control the use of that person’s likeness in commercial contexts..

In Sweden, the law is similarly protective, though the duration of the rights and the exact conditions under which an estate may grant licenses can be contested in court. The fact that the company consulted with a licensing agency does not automatically shield it from potential infringement claims, especially if the agency’s authority to grant such licenses is unclear.Ethical questions also surface when considering that the image was not created by a human photographer but by an algorithm that learned from a dataset of Garbo’s public appearances. The use of AI to generate likenesses of real people has raised concerns about authenticity, consent, and the potential for misrepresentation..

The ad’s creator has argued that the technology allows for new forms of artistic expression and that it can revive cultural heritage by allowing contemporary audiences to connect with historical figures in a fresh context. Critics, however, claim that such practices reduce a living person—or in this case, a deceased icon—to a commodity that can be endlessly reshaped to fit commercial narratives.The advertising campaign itself was launched on the company’s official channel on YouTube and was promoted on several social media platforms, including Instagram and Twitter. Within hours of the release, the ad had amassed millions of views..

Some viewers praised the creative use of technology and the nostalgic appeal of seeing Garbo in a modern setting. Others, however, took to comment sections to denounce what they saw as a disingenuous marketing ploy, arguing that the ad exploited a cultural legacy for profit. A number of hashtags trended, including #RespectGarbo, #AIethics, and #CopyrightCrisis.The company’s marketing director defended the campaign in an interview with a Swedish business magazine, stating that the goal was to highlight the precision and elegance of the manufacturing process..

“Greta Garbo was an icon of timeless grace,” she said. “We wanted to draw a parallel between her enduring influence and the enduring quality of our components.” She added that the ad was carefully curated to avoid any suggestion that Garbo had personally endorsed the product and that the image was used only as a visual reference point. The director also indicated that the company had consulted with legal counsel before launching the campaign.Meanwhile, representatives from the agency that holds the rights to Garbo’s image have issued a statement that remains ambiguous..

The statement acknowledged that the company had approached the agency for a license and that the agency had provided a brief approval. However, the agency declined to comment further on the legal basis of the approval or on the nature of the AI technology used. Some observers note that the agency’s silence could be interpreted as a lack of confidence in its own licensing authority, or it could be a deliberate strategy to avoid drawing further public attention to the matter.The controversy has also sparked a debate among scholars who study the intersection of technology and culture..

Anika Johansson, a professor of media studies at Stockholm University, remarked that the case illustrates the “growing tension between the commodification of cultural heritage and the preservation of individual legacy.” She added that the use of AI-generated likenesses may create “new legal frontiers that existing statutes were not designed to anticipate.” Johansson argues that while the law can adapt, it may do so at a pace that lags behind technological innovation, leaving gaps that can be exploited by advertisers and other commercial entities.In addition to legal and ethical concerns, the case has raised questions about the impact on the public’s perception of AI. Some commentators suggest that the widespread use of synthetic media to resurrect historical figures could erode trust in visual content, especially if audiences cannot reliably distinguish between real footage and AI‑generated imagery. The European Union’s recent draft regulation on digital services, which includes provisions on the disclosure of AI-generated content, could influence how companies approach such practices in the near future..

The EU regulation requires that synthetic media be clearly labeled as such, a requirement that, if applied, would mandate that the company’s advertisement disclose that Garbo’s image was generated by AI.The company has stated that it will comply with forthcoming regulations and that it plans to update the ad to include a disclosure statement. The updated version, which now appears on the company’s website, features a small banner that reads: “Artificial‑intelligence generated image.” The banner also directs viewers to a page explaining how the AI model was trained and the steps taken to ensure that the depiction was respectful of the actress’s legacy.Public opinion remains divided. While a segment of the audience appreciates the homage, a broader segment expresses discomfort with the notion of a deceased person’s likeness being used without explicit personal consent..

Some argue that the estate should have a say in how the image is portrayed, particularly if the portrayal could influence public perceptions of the individual. Others contend that the estate’s decisions should prioritize the commercial viability of its holdings rather than cultural considerations.The broader industry response has been cautious. Several advertising agencies have issued statements reminding clients that the use of AI-generated likenesses carries inherent risks..

They also emphasized the importance of securing clear, documented permissions from rights holders and of providing transparent disclosures to audiences. The International Advertising Association, in a press release, urged its members to review current contracts and to consider incorporating AI usage clauses that address the unique challenges posed by synthetic media.As the debate continues, the Swedish manufacturing company has announced plans to conduct an internal audit of its marketing practices.