Research on the technologies, institutions and concepts changing the vocabulary of the future.
TECHNOLOGY / IDENTITY
WHO OWNS A DIGITAL TWIN?
INTRODUCTION
A digital twin can mean many things: a computational model of a physical object, a simulation used in industry, or increasingly, a digital representation of a person.
The last category raises a different set of questions.
If a system is trained on someone's appearance, voice, writing, behaviour or personal history, what exactly has been created? Is it simply software? Is it a representation of the person? Who controls it? And what happens when that representation is used in ways the original person did not authorise?
These questions sit at the intersection of intellectual property, privacy, personality rights, data protection and emerging AI regulation.
The law already protects some elements of a person's identity. Copyright can protect certain works. Trademark law can protect commercial identifiers. Privacy and publicity laws can restrict some uses of a person's image or likeness.
But a sufficiently sophisticated digital representation can combine many of these elements at once.
That makes the digital twin an unusually difficult legal object.
WHAT IS ACTUALLY BEING OWNED?
The phrase “digital twin” can obscure an important distinction.
A digital representation may contain data, software, images, recordings, behavioural patterns and model outputs. Different parts may belong to different parties or be governed by different legal rules.
The person represented may have rights over their likeness or personal information.
A developer may own the software and model architecture.
A company may control the infrastructure on which the system operates.
A user may have contractual rights over the resulting service.
There may be no single answer to the question of ownership because there may be no single object to own.
The more useful question may therefore be:
Which rights attach to which part of the representation?
This institutional shift mirrors the transition from feudal land rights to corporate personhood in the 19th century. However, the velocity of digital asset replication introduces a recursive complexity that traditional legal frameworks are ill-equipped to handle.
REPRESENTATION IS NOT IDENTITY
A digital model can reproduce aspects of a person without becoming that person.
That distinction matters.
A system may speak in someone's voice, resemble their appearance or reproduce patterns derived from their past behaviour. None of those capabilities necessarily establish legal personhood or independent rights.
The difficult issue is control.
Who can create the representation?
Who can modify it?
Who can authorise its use?
Who can profit from it?
And who can require it to be removed?
These questions become more complicated when the person represented is deceased, when consent was never obtained, or when the model develops uses that were not contemplated when the underlying data was collected.
AFTER DEATH
A digital representation also raises a particularly difficult problem after death.
A person's photographs, correspondence, voice recordings, social-media history and other digital material may continue to exist long after they do.
A sufficiently advanced system could potentially use those materials to generate new interactions that resemble the deceased person.
That does not mean the resulting system is the person.
It does mean that questions of consent, inheritance, privacy, publicity and control can continue beyond the individual's lifetime.
Different legal systems approach posthumous rights differently, and there is no universal framework governing digital representations of the dead.
That uncertainty is likely to become more significant as the technology becomes more capable.
THE QUESTION AHEAD
The central issue is not whether a digital twin is a new kind of person.
It is whether existing categories of law are sufficient to deal with increasingly convincing representations of people.
A useful framework may ultimately need to distinguish between the person, the data used to represent them, the model built from that data, the software operating the model and the commercial uses to which it is put.
The technology is developing faster than those distinctions are being tested.
That is what makes the digital twin worth watching.
The future will need new words. It will also need better questions.
RELATED RESEARCH
RELATED PORTFOLIOS
A curated collection of naming assets defining the future of digital presence.