Practice areas: Intellectual Property, Internet and IT Law
One Dutch celebrity after another recently announced that they had fallen victim to deep fake porn videos. These are AI-edited videos in which victims ostensibly feature, while in reality this is not the case. This has major consequences for them. Recently, several victims announced that they will collectively file criminal charges. A criminal charge can lead to the conviction of creators (and sometimes those who publish the video on their own, i.e. publicists) of deepfake porn videos. Unfortunately, a criminal conviction does not undo the online publication of the videos. Like an oil slick, images continue to spread online and the disclosers are often based abroad. Publishing the footage is not always punishable abroad. In this blog, we look at what civil law remedies are available to victims to fight online publications of the footage.
AI software makes it possible to fit one person’s face over another person’s face, as it were, in existing moving image material. The algorithm does that all by itself so there is no manual editing involved. So it is child’s play. The face edited into the footage even adopts the facial expressions of the original face. This now looks lifelike and has major implications for victims.
Several Dutch celebrities announced recently that they will file criminal charges. Those criminal charges are likely to focus mainly on the makers of the videos. Last year, for the first time in the Netherlands, a creator of deepfake porn was sentenced to 180 hours of community service. That conviction was based on Article 139h of the Penal Code, which criminalises so-called “revenge porn”. This centres on the manufacture of an image of a person of a sexual nature. Although the deepfake videos did not contain a real image of a person, the Amsterdam court ruled that deepfake sexual imagery could also qualify as an image of a sexual nature. This paved the way for the criminal conviction of creators of deepfake porn.
The problem with deepfake porn videos is that their creator will be unknown in most cases. Of course, for a criminal conviction, the creator must first be tracked down. Moreover, a criminal prosecution does not always lead to a conviction.
Although publicists could also be criminally prosecuted under Dutch law, to my knowledge this has not yet happened in practice. In addition, the criminal prohibition of revenge porn is not regulated by law in every country. So the criminal route does not always offer a solution for victims.
Making and publishing the footage is not only criminally culpable. Publishing such visual material can also be unlawful in a civil law sense. This therefore gives victims another option besides criminal law to act against the publication of deepfake porn videos.
The first way to tackle such videos civilly lies in portrait law, which is part of the Copyright Act. Portrait law allows a person portrayed to oppose the publication of their portrait under circumstances. The Copyright Act distinguishes between commissioned and non-commissioned portraits. In the case of deep-fake porn videos, these are (obviously) not commissioned portraits. The publication of such a portrait is not allowed if the person portrayed has a reasonable interest against it. This therefore involves a weighing up of interests.
A reasonable interest against disclosure may consist first of all of a commercial interest. For example, BN celebrities may oppose the disclosure of their portrait if they have a so-called redeemable popularity. The rationale behind this is that others should not profit from someone’s accumulated reputation without permission.
A so-called moral interest is also considered a reasonable interest . This includes, for example, respect for privacy. The Dutch Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that privacy is particularly violated when a publication places a person portrayed in “a public sphere of eroticism and freedom of opinion“. At issue in that case was an advertisement about nude recreation in which someone was portrayed naked unsolicited. Of course, compared to today’s deep-fake porn videos, that is not a big deal. We may assume that this premise certainly applies to such videos.
The privacy interest will still have to be weighed against the right to freedom of expression. Given the serious intrusion of deepfake porn on the privacy of the victims, there is little reason to doubt that the balancing of interests would not turn out in their favour. The victims of deepfake porn videos therefore have a good basis on portrait rights to oppose publications of deepfake porn videos.
Besides portrait rights, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) also provides a basis to stand up against deep-fake pornography, as the image of someone’s face qualifies as personal data. Processing personal data requires a valid processing basis. One such basis is consent. It may be clear that this is lacking in this case. Another processing basis may be the legitimate interest of the controller. In that context, a balancing of interests will also be made.
If there is no valid basis for processing personal data, then under the GDPR the data subject has, among other things, the right to erasure of his data – in this case, to erasure of the footage.
So there are at least two civil law bases besides criminal law to stand up against deepfake porn, but how can victims use these as a basis to ensure that the publications are actually taken offline?
The first step will be to summon the disclosers of deepfake porn to take the publication offline. If it is not possible to identify the discloser, it is possible to write to the host, the party technically responsible for the website on which the footage is published. Does a company or hosting company not voluntarily comply with the summons? Then the court can be asked to impose a publication ban.
There is also the possibility of suing search engines for references to websites hosting the visual material. Indeed, those references may be unlawful in themselves. Moreover, under the GDPR, references in search results from search engine operators constitute their own processing of personal data. Finally, there is the possibility of engaging the Data Protection Authority. Among other things, it can proceed to warn parties or mediate with parties that do not comply with the GDPR.
Incidentally, the European Commission is currently working on a proposal for a Directive to combat violence against women. The proposal also regulates something with regard to deep-fake pornography, and for the situation where it involves material withclear similarities to existing persons. Recital 19 reads:
19) […] The unauthorised production or manipulation, for example by image manipulation, of material giving the impression that another person is engaged in sexual activities should also fall within the definition of this offence, to the extent that the material is subsequently made accessible to a large number of end-users by means of information and communication technology without the consent of the person concerned. This includes so-called ” deepfakes ” – material bearing clear similarities to existing persons, objects, places or other entities or events, depicting sexual activities of another person and which would be falsely perceived by others as authentic or truthful. To effectively protect victims of such behaviour, threats of such behaviour should also be included in the definition.
In addition to criminal law, there are therefore other options for taking action against publications of deepfake porn. Have you become a victim of deepfake porn yourself? We are happy to help you fight online publications.
Door het leggen van conservatoir (derden) beslag worden vermogensbestanddelen van een wederpartij per direct bevroren. Er kan geen overdracht meer plaatsvinden en in bepaalde gevallen kunnen vermogensbestanddelen zelfs elders in bewaring worden gegeven. Deze actie kan druk zetten op de wederpartij waardoor een snelle oplossing kan worden bereikt.
Beslaglegging moet wel altijd worden gevolgd door een bodem of arbitrage procedure, tenzij eerder een buitengerechtelijke oplossing wordt bereikt.
Onterecht leggen van beslag moet worden voorkomen; het kan leiden tot een schadevergoedingsactie.
Wij onderzoeken graag of dit rechtsmiddel in uw situatie tot een spoedige oplossing kan leiden.
Snel een uitspraak nodig van de rechter over een bepaalde urgente situatie? In dat geval is een kort geding een oplossing voor uw situatie. De rechter geeft een voorlopig oordeel waaraan partijen zich al dan niet op straffe van een dwangsom dienen te houden.
Wij denken graag mee over de voor uw situatie passende juridische oplossing.
Dit is in het civiele en bestuurlijke recht de procedure die (al dan niet na hoger beroep) leidt tot een definitieve beslechting van het geschil. Anders dan in een kort geding ligt de nadruk hier veel meer op een schriftelijke uitwisseling van processtukken.
Wij onderzoeken graag of dit de aangewezen procedure is voor uw geschil.
Een partij die zich beroept op de rechtsgevolgen van de door haar gestelde feiten of rechten moet deze bewijzen. Voorafgaand aan iedere gewenste procedure moet derhalve de bewijspositie worden bekeken.
Soms is het bewijs nog niet voldoende in handen van de cliënt. In dat geval is nadere actie gewenst. Te denken valt dan bijvoorbeeld aan het instellen van een (voorlopig) getuigenverhoor of het afdwingen van het verkrijgen van inzage in bepaalde documenten die zich bij de wederpartij bevinden (exhibitieplicht).
Wij zoeken graag met u naar de mogelijkheden om uw bewijsprobleem op te lossen.
Soms ontstaat er in een onderneming een intern geschil tussen aandeelhouders of tussen het bestuur en (enkele) aandeelhouders. Dit kan bijvoorbeeld gaan over de te volgen strategie van de onderneming. In dat geval kan aan de Ondernemingskamer, een speciaal daarvoor geëquipeerde afdeling van het Hof Amsterdam -- bij ons kantoor om de hoek -- een onderzoek naar de gang van zaken binnen de onderneming worden gevraagd. Zo'n onderzoek kan worden voorafgegaan door het vragen van voorlopige voorzieningen, zoals het schorsen van een bestuurder voor de duur van de procedure of het tijdelijk ontnemen van het stemrecht van een aandeelhouder.
Wij denken graag mee over de voor uw situatie passende oplossing.