Deepfakes and the Law: What Is Permitted and What Is Not

The technology itself is neutral; its application is not. The legal landscape around synthetic imagery took shape over the last few years, and the common line is the same in every jurisdiction.

The governing principle

Almost everywhere the decisive factor is the consent of the person whose image is used. Not the source of the photograph, not its public availability, not the absence of commercial gain — consent. A picture posted to an open profile confers no right to process it.

Prohibited practically everywhere

• Intimate imagery bearing the face of a real person without their consent
• Any synthetic material involving minors — a grave criminal offence with no exceptions and no mitigation
• Using someone's face to mislead: fabricated statements, forged evidence, fraud
• Presenting a synthetic image as an authentic record of an event

Usually permissible

Working with your own image. Working with the image of a person who has given written consent to a specific kind of processing and publication. Parody and satire — with caveats that vary by country and almost never extend to intimate content.

On labelling

A growing number of jurisdictions require synthetic material to be marked as generated. The requirement normally applies to public distribution rather than private use. In some cases absence of a label is itself a violation, even where the content is innocuous.

The practical conclusion

The only reliable protection is a document. A model release that explicitly mentions digital processing, synthetic material and methods of publication covers almost every contested situation. A verbal understanding covers none.

This material is intended for adults over 18 and is informational in nature.