Reanimated AI Greta Garbo stars again in a ball-bearing advert
Hearing Greta Garbo’s voice deliver a line about wasted energy in a 99‑second spot for a ball‑bearing company is quietly disorienting. It’s exactly the kind of cultural friction AI image and audio synthesis creates.
What happened
The Guardian reported that a 99‑second advert for Swedish engineering firm SKF features an AI‑generated likeness of silent‑era star Greta Garbo layered over a human performer, and a speaking voice reconstructed from an early film recording. The commercial closes with Garbo’s famous studio line: “I want to be alone.” In the spot, a line in the recreated voice frames the engineering pitch: “around 20% of all global energy is lost to friction: a terrible waste.”
How the creators say they did it
According to the reporting, the production team told journalists they avoided feeding moving or still images of Garbo into generative models, citing copyright and provenance concerns. They say they used text prompts to generate a likeness and composited that output onto a human actor. The Guardian named specific models in its coverage, citing systems including a China‑based model called Seedream and a Google model reported as “Nano Banana Pro.” Those model names come from the reporting and have not been independently verified here.
Family reaction
The custodians of Garbo’s legacy, reported as a group of relatives who manage her name, image and publicity, saw the advert and reacted publicly. Craig Reisfield, one of the relatives quoted, said he was “flabbergasted” and impressed by the result. He told reporters:
“I won’t say no, especially having seen what I’ve seen. It’s pretty incredible and lifelike. So what’s to say that you can’t bring Greta Garbo back in some kind of fashion in a film role?”, Craig Reisfield
Reisfield added he was “totally impressed: the mannerisms that they could capture and manipulate, her dress, facial images and even her voice, ” and later called the effect “startling” and “touching.” Reporting also notes a historical connection between Garbo and SKF, going back to an early promotional film linked to the company.
Why this matters to brands and business leaders
This advert is not just a neat VFX trick. It sits at the intersection of four business realities:
- Legal and rights complexity: Estate consent, studio copyrights and model training provenance are separate issues. Producers may need both estate permission and any studio or copyright clearances for archival audio or footage.
- Reputational and consumer risk: Nostalgia can strengthen a campaign or trigger accusations of “ghostploitation, ” a term some critics use for posthumous digital reuse. Audience acceptance is unpredictable and can spread quickly online.
- Technical transparency matters: Vendors’ claims about what went into a model (text prompts versus fine‑tuning on archival material) change legal exposure and the risk profile for brands.
- Estate approval shifts the framing: When family or rights holders endorse a reuse, projects gain a degree of legitimacy that anonymous deepfakes lack, but endorsement is not a legal or ethical fix on its own.
Where this sits in a wider trend
The Garbo spot appears alongside growing industry activity. Studios and production companies are investing in or partnering with AI firms, veteran directors and AI‑native filmmakers are experimenting with synthetic performers, and estates are increasingly getting offers to license likenesses. Reporting has highlighted recent cases where estates cooperated with filmmakers to recreate or restore performers’ appearances and voices, showing both a path forward and the controversies that follow.
Those controversies play out across advertising, independent cinema and studio production. Some projects are explicitly therapeutic or restorative, others are commercial. Consent, transparency and context make the difference, both legally and in the court of public opinion.
Unanswered and underreported questions
Many operational and legal specifics about the Garbo advert remain unreported in the public coverage:
- Model provenance: Which vendors and models were used, and what datasets comprised their training? The Guardian named models in its story. Independent verification and vendor disclosure would clarify liability and license terms.
- Voice rights: Which recording was used to recreate the voice, and what clearances (if any) were obtained from studios or rights holders?
- Production credits and chain of title: Who produced the VFX and compositing work, and what contractual terms govern reuse or resale of the generated assets?
- Audience and industry response: Beyond the family’s comments, how did audiences, critics, unions (such as SAG‑AFTRA) and advertising bodies react?
A practical due‑diligence checklist for teams considering posthumous likeness use
If you’re a brand, agency or studio thinking about similar work, treat it as a specialized partnership rather than a creative shortcut. Minimum standards to require before proceeding:
- Get narrow, written estate authorization: A project‑specific license that defines permitted uses, duration, geographic scope, moral rights, and approval processes.
- Confirm studio and copyright clearances: If any archival audio or film was consulted, secure licenses from the copyright holders as well as the estate.
- Demand model provenance disclosure: Require a signed vendor statement of training data sources and a warranty that no protected images or recordings of the individual were used without permission.
- Define compensation and reuse terms: Set fees, residuals or revenue shares and limit downstream sublicensing without additional consents.
- Pretest with representative audiences: Run A/B tests (with and without the likeness), measure sentiment and purchase intent, and set minimum acceptance thresholds before wide release.
- Buy explicit E&O coverage: Ensure errors‑and‑omissions insurance expressly covers synthetic‑media and likeness litigation risk.
- Include union and guild checks: Confirm whether talent unions or industry bodies require additional consent or notification, and secure any mandatory clearances.
Bottom line for leaders
AI can recreate faces and voices at a quality that now calls for business judgment, not technical wonder. The core choices are legal, ethical and reputational. Obtain clear, narrowly drafted rights, insist on vendor transparency about training data, and test public reaction before scaling. Treat recreated likenesses like any other sensitive partnership, with contracts, disclosure and a clear exit plan.
Key questions, and honest, short answers
- Was an AI Greta Garbo really created for an SKF advert?
The Guardian reports a 99‑second AI‑generated Garbo performance made for SKF, created with text prompts, composited onto a human performer, and using a reconstructed voice from an early recording.
- Did Garbo’s family sign off?
Craig Reisfield, one of the relatives who manage Garbo’s legacy, told reporters he was “flabbergasted” and “totally impressed, ” and said he would not rule out future AI uses, while adding that the family aims to “preserve, protect and enhance” her legacy.
- Were archival images of Garbo used to train the models?
The production team told reporters they did not feed moving or still Garbo images into the generative models, reportedly citing copyright and provenance concerns; they say they used text prompts and compositing instead.
- Is this legally and ethically settled?
No. Estate consent helps but does not remove copyright, contract or model‑provenance issues, and critics are already using terms such as “ghostploitation” to describe objectionable reuse.
- Should brands rush to adopt this tactic?
Proceed only with explicit legal clearance, detailed vendor disclosure, audience testing and insurance; the upside is cultural resonance, but the downside includes reputational harm and litigation risk.
AI gives companies new ways to reach audiences and new responsibilities. Treat digital likenesses as partnership assets that require permission, transparency and care before you let them speak for your brand.