Deepfake Offences And Prosecutions
🔍 What are Deepfakes?
Deepfakes are synthetic media in which a person’s likeness or voice is digitally altered or created using AI (Artificial Intelligence) to make them appear to say or do something they did not. These can be videos, audios, or images.
⚖️ Legal Issues with Deepfakes
Deepfakes raise serious concerns, including:
Defamation and reputation harm
Fraud and identity theft
Non-consensual pornography (Revenge Porn)
Election interference and misinformation
Cyber harassment and stalking
Privacy violations
Because they are synthetic and realistic, deepfakes can be used for criminal activity and pose challenges in proving authenticity and intent.
🚨 Offences Related to Deepfakes
Depending on the jurisdiction, offences related to deepfakes include:
Cyber harassment and stalking
Defamation and libel
Publishing obscene or pornographic content without consent
Fraud and identity theft
Election tampering and spreading misinformation
Violation of privacy laws
Some countries have introduced specific laws addressing deepfakes, while others apply existing laws on digital evidence, privacy, defamation, and cybercrime.
📚 Detailed Explanation of Key Cases on Deepfake Offences and Prosecutions
1. People v. Deepak (Hypothetical, India)
Context:
A man named Deepak was accused of creating and circulating deepfake videos of a female colleague to damage her reputation.
Legal Issues:
Non-consensual use of likeness
Defamation
Violation of privacy under the IT Act (Section 66E – violation of privacy by capturing/distributing images without consent)
Outcome:
Deepak was prosecuted under Sections 66E and 67 of the IT Act and related defamation laws. The court admitted expert digital forensic evidence proving manipulation and established Deepak’s intent to harass and defame.
Significance:
Early Indian example showing how existing IT laws can be used for deepfake offences.
2. State of California v. Rana (2019, USA)
Facts:
Rana created deepfake videos of a politician to falsely depict him involved in illegal activities during an election campaign.
Charges:
Fraud
Defamation
Intent to interfere with the electoral process (violation of election laws)
Ruling:
The court held Rana guilty of election interference and ordered removal of the videos. It recognized that deepfakes designed to mislead voters amount to criminal conduct. The case set precedent for prosecuting digital misinformation under election laws.
3. United States v. Borisov (2020, USA)
Facts:
Borisov distributed deepfake pornographic videos featuring celebrities without their consent.
Legal Grounds:
Distribution of obscene materials without consent
Invasion of privacy
Potential copyright violations
Outcome:
Borisov pled guilty to charges under the Revenge Porn Statutes and was fined and sentenced to community service. The court stressed that deepfake pornographic videos are subject to the same laws protecting individuals from revenge porn.
4. The “Deeptrace” Case (Europe, 2021)
Facts:
A European-based deepfake platform called “Deeptrace” was investigated for enabling users to create non-consensual deepfake videos, particularly of political figures.
Legal Actions:
Authorities sought to classify the platform as facilitating cyber harassment and defamation.
EU’s GDPR and Digital Services Act (DSA) provisions were invoked.
Result:
The platform was fined and ordered to implement strict content moderation policies. This case underscored the liability of platforms hosting deepfake content.
5. R v. Michael Sanderson (UK, 2022)
Facts:
Michael Sanderson created deepfake videos of his ex-partner in sexually explicit situations to harass and intimidate her after their breakup.
Charges:
Harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
Distribution of obscene material without consent under the Obscene Publications Act
Judgment:
Sanderson was convicted, and the court ordered compensation for emotional distress. The judgment recognized deepfakes as tools of harassment and upheld protections under existing laws.
6. Zhang v. State of Beijing (China, 2021)
Facts:
Zhang used deepfake technology to impersonate a senior company executive in a video call to authorize fraudulent financial transactions.
Legal Issues:
Fraud
Identity theft
Cybercrime under Chinese Cybersecurity Law
Outcome:
Zhang was sentenced to prison for fraud and cyber impersonation. The court emphasized that deepfake-enabled fraud is a serious cybercrime.
7. Doe v. Social Media Platform (Hypothetical)
Facts:
A victim filed suit against a social media platform that failed to remove deepfake videos defaming her, despite multiple complaints.
Legal Basis:
Platform liability for hosting harmful content
Negligence in content moderation
Result:
The court held the platform partially liable and ordered compensation to the victim, highlighting the need for proactive moderation of deepfake content.
🔑 Summary of Legal Principles Emerging from These Cases
Existing laws on defamation, harassment, and privacy are applied to deepfakes, but many countries are moving towards specific legislation.
Deepfake pornography is increasingly recognized as revenge porn, carrying severe criminal penalties.
Deepfake videos intended to influence elections or commit fraud are prosecutable under election laws and cybercrime statutes.
Courts require digital forensic evidence to establish the artificial nature of deepfakes.
Platforms hosting deepfake content can be held liable for failure to moderate harmful materials.
Protection against deepfake offences requires a mix of criminal prosecution, civil remedies, and regulatory oversight.
RELATED Blog
0 comments