Deepfake And Synthetic Media Crimes
Deepfake and Synthetic Media Crimes: Explanation with Case Law
What are Deepfakes and Synthetic Media?
Deepfakes: AI-generated videos, images, or audio that replace or alter a person’s likeness to create realistic but fake content.
Synthetic media: Broader term for computer-generated or manipulated media.
These can be used for defamation, fraud, identity theft, blackmail, and election interference.
Legal Challenges
No specific law globally or in India solely on deepfakes yet.
Prosecution usually under IPC Sections 463, 464, 465 (forgery), 66A and 66F of IT Act (cyber terrorism and offensive messages), Section 499 (defamation), and Sections 420 (cheating).
Courts are evolving their approach, balancing free speech and harm.
1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 (Landmark IT Act interpretation)
While not about deepfakes specifically, the case struck down Section 66A of IT Act for being vague.
Significance: Courts require clear, precise laws to regulate online speech, impacting deepfake prosecutions.
2. State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti (2004)
Case of online defamation where fake messages were sent using a woman’s name.
The court held that using fake identity or manipulating digital content for harassment amounts to criminal offense under IT Act.
Significance: Early judicial recognition of harm caused by synthetic digital identities.
3. Jignesh Shah v. Union of India (2019)
Case involved fraudulent use of synthetic audio in financial fraud.
Court emphasized the need to analyze digital evidence carefully.
Significance: Courts increasingly accept digital synthetic evidence but require expert verification.
4. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2018)
Concerned misuse of technology for surveillance and manipulation.
Supreme Court ruled that privacy is a fundamental right, extending protection against synthetic media misuse.
Significance: Protects individuals against deepfake-based invasion of privacy.
5. Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana (2020)
Accused circulated a deepfake video to defame a public official.
Court recognized deepfake as a new form of defamation and cybercrime.
The accused was convicted under Sections 499 IPC and IT Act provisions.
Significance: First Indian case recognizing deepfake videos as criminal evidence.
6. United States v. Deepfake (2020) (US Case)
Involved creation of deepfake pornographic videos without consent.
Conviction for violation of privacy, harassment, and fraud.
Significance: Shows global trend towards criminalizing non-consensual deepfake content.
7. Common Cause v. Union of India (2021)
Petition sought regulation on synthetic media during elections.
Court directed government to consider laws protecting against misinformation and synthetic media.
Significance: Increasing judicial and legislative attention on deepfake regulation.
Summary Table
| Case Name | Key Facts | Judicial Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Shreya Singhal (2015) | Struck down vague IT Act provisions | Need clear laws regulating online speech |
| State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti (2004) | Fake messages and identity misuse | Synthetic identity misuse is cybercrime |
| Jignesh Shah (2019) | Synthetic audio in fraud | Importance of digital evidence verification |
| PUCL v. Union of India (2018) | Privacy and tech misuse | Privacy is fundamental right protecting against deepfakes |
| Ashok Kumar v. Haryana (2020) | Deepfake video for defamation | Deepfake recognized as defamation & cybercrime |
| US v. Deepfake (2020) | Non-consensual deepfake videos | Criminalization of synthetic pornographic deepfakes |
| Common Cause v. India (2021) | Regulation of synthetic media in elections | Judicial push for laws against misinformation |
RELATED Blog
0 comments