Deepfakes and Defamation — Fabricated AI-Generated Publications and Legal Tools
Deepfake technology makes it possible to produce convincing fabricated videos, images and recordings, in which a person 'appears' or 'is heard' saying or doing things they never said or did. When such a forgery is defamatory — showing a person committing a shameful, criminal or humiliating act — the harm to their good name can be especially severe, because of the ostensible credibility of visual 'documentation.' This guide explains which legal tools are available to someone harmed by a defamatory deepfake — beyond defamation — and how to act.
1. A Defamatory Deepfake as Defamation
When a deepfake shows a person committing an act they did not commit — in a way that disgraces them, attributes an offense to them, or harms their job and business — the elements of defamation are present: 'publication' of false, disgracing content about an identifiable person. In fact, a deepfake may be especially severe: unlike a verbal statement, visual or audio 'documentation' is perceived as credible and convincing, so the harm and the spread may be greater. The fact that the content is fabricated does not weaken the defamation cause of action — on the contrary, the falsehood is the heart of the matter. Creating the forgery with intent to harm may also bear on the severity of the act and the compensation.
2. Legal Tools Beyond Defamation
A defamatory deepfake may be accompanied by additional torts that expand the toolbox: the Protection of Privacy Law, 5741-1981 may apply — for example, in using a person's likeness or voice, or in a publication liable to humiliate them; in a commercial context, commercial torts may apply (such as false description, if the forgery harms a business); and in serious cases criminal aspects may also exist. Combining the causes of action gives the injured party more than one angle of attack, and sometimes strengthens the available remedies — including an order to remove the content and compensation. Choosing the right combination of causes depends on the forgery's content and the circumstances.
3. The Challenge of Evidence and Verification
A central challenge in a deepfake is evidentiary — from two directions. On the injured party's side: one must prove the content is fabricated, which may require technical analysis of the forgery. On the other hand, the prevalence of deepfakes also creates a reverse risk — the claim that 'everything is fabricated' may be used to deny genuine documentation. So, in a deepfake case, it is especially important to: fully document the fabricated publication and the scope of its distribution; preserve evidence that the event did not occur (for example, an alibi, the source of the original image); and, in appropriate cases, use a technical examination. Establishing the forgery is a central component of the case.
4. Harmed by a Deepfake? Here's What to Do
If a defamatory deepfake was published about you: first, document immediately — save the video/image/recording, the place of publication, and the scope of distribution, before the content is removed or spread further. Second, act quickly for removal — approach the platform (many prohibit harmful deepfakes) and a warning letter to the publisher. Third, consider a request for an injunction to remove it, given the severity of the harm. Fourth, collect evidence that the event is fabricated. Fifth, consult quickly — combining the causes of action (defamation, privacy and more) and the remedies requires a tailored strategy. Speed of response is critical because of the viral potential of fabricated visual content.
Checklist
- Document the full forgery, the place of publication and the scope of distribution immediately
- Preserve evidence that the event is fabricated (alibi, original source)
- Approach the platform for removal — many prohibit harmful deepfakes
- Consider a warning letter and an injunction request given the severity
- Examine additional causes — privacy protection, commercial torts
- Act quickly — fabricated visual content has viral potential
Common Pitfalls
- Assuming the forgery is 'self-evident' — you must prove the content is fabricated
- Delay in responding while the forgery spreads
- Relying on defamation alone without adjacent torts
- Failing to preserve evidence that the event did not occur
- Failing to document the forgery before it is removed or spread further
שאלות ותשובות
A fabricated deepfake showing me — is that defamation?
Yes, if it is false, disgracing and identifies you. In fact a visual forgery may be especially severe because it is perceived as credible. The falsehood does not weaken the cause of action — it is the heart of the matter.
What legal tools are there beyond defamation?
The Protection of Privacy Law may apply (use of likeness/voice), and in a business context — commercial torts. In serious cases criminal aspects too. Combining the causes strengthens the remedies.
How do you prove a video is a deepfake?
Technical analysis of the forgery may be required, alongside evidence that the event did not occur (an alibi, the source of the original image). Establishing the forgery is a central component of the case.
What should I do immediately if a deepfake of me is published?
Document the forgery and the scope of distribution immediately, approach the platform for removal, consider a warning letter and an injunction, and collect evidence of fabrication. Act quickly — fabricated content has viral potential.