INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 06,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 100
AI-GENERATED DEEPFAKES AND PERSONALITY RIGHTS: A NEW FRONTIER
FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
Abdusattorov Shokhjakhon Jurabek ugli
Penn state law LL.M, Legal Assistant, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract:
The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly in generative media,
has given rise to deepfakes — hyper-realistic digital manipulations of a person’s likeness. This
phenomenon challenges the boundaries between intellectual property (IP), privacy, and
personality rights. While existing copyright law protects expressions of creativity, it does not
squarely address the unauthorized use of a real person’s image or voice through AI. This article
explores whether and how personality rights can serve as a legal response to the rise of
deepfakes, comparing U.S. jurisprudence with emerging perspectives in jurisdictions like
Uzbekistan. The study argues for a reconceptualization of legal identity in digital space,
proposing stronger integration between personality rights and IP frameworks.
Keywords:
Deepfakes, Artificial Intelligence, Personality Rights, Right of Publicity, Digital
Identity, Intellectual Property Law, Moral Rights, AI Regulation, Comparative Law,
Uzbekistan Legal Framework, Synthetic Media, Image Rights, Legal Harm, Privacy
1.Introduction
The advent of AI-generated deepfakes has transformed the way we understand identity,
creativity, and control over one’s likeness. These synthetic media outputs — often
indistinguishable from authentic content — raise critical legal and ethical questions: Who owns
the digital representation of a person? Can a manipulated image be copyrighted? Does the
subject of a deepfake possess legal remedies under current personality rights frameworks?
This paper focuses not on the general risks posed by AI, but specifically on the
intersection
between deepfake technology and personality rights
, a field inadequately protected under
traditional intellectual property regimes. While the United States has developed some protection
under the “right of publicity,” and through tort law such as appropriation and false light, these
measures remain fragmented and jurisdiction-specific. In contrast, civil law countries often
conceptualize personality rights as moral and inalienable — but how these principles adapt to
digital clones remains uncertain.
The present study seeks to address this gap through a focused, comparative lens — analyzing
the legal treatment of AI-generated impersonations and proposing doctrinal innovations to
prevent reputational harm, identity theft, and unauthorized commercial exploitation.
1
Deepfakes, created using Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs), have blurred the line between authentic and
synthetic media (Chesney & Citron, 2019).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 06,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 101
2.Methods
This study adopts a
comparative doctrinal methodology
, analyzing statutory laws, court
decisions, and scholarly commentary from the United States and Uzbekistan, with additional
references to European Union developments. Key materials include:
U.S. state-level right of publicity statutes (e.g., California, New York)
Federal court cases involving AI impersonation and First Amendment defenses
Uzbek legislation on image rights and draft discussions on digital regulation
Legal scholarship on moral rights and the digital self
The research is also informed by interdisciplinary sources, including media ethics, digital
forensics, and AI policy literature, to account for technological complexity and socio-legal
impact. Unlike broader philosophical works, this article emphasizes doctrinal precision and
normative reform within existing IP and personality rights frameworks.
3. Results
The legal landscape, as currently structured, fails to address the scope and scale of harm caused
by AI-generated deepfakes. Key findings from the comparative analysis include:
3.1 U.S. Jurisprudence: Commercial Protection with Constitutional Limits
In the United States, the
right of publicity
provides a cause of action against unauthorized
commercial use of one’s name, image, or likeness. However, it is not federally codified and
varies by state. California's Civil Code §3344 offers a robust framework, but First Amendment
challenges — particularly in entertainment and political satire — create legal friction. Courts
are reluctant to extend liability to creators of expressive content, even if synthetic.
For instance, in Comedy III Productions v. Gary Saderup, the California Supreme Court
established the "transformative use" test, where works of art containing celebrity likenesses are
protected if they add significant expressive content. This test has been extended to video games
(Keller v. Electronic Arts), but how it applies to AI-generated synthetic media remains
uncertain. Deepfakes that are hyper-realistic but non-parodic often fall into a gray zone —
arguably expressive, but reputationally harmful
.
3.2 Uzbekistan’s Silence: Absence of Enforcement Tools
In Uzbekistan, personality rights exist under general civil law principles, including the Civil
Code and the Law on Informatization. Article 99 of the Civil Code mentions the right to
protection of honor, dignity, and image, but enforcement is weak and
no specific legal
mechanism addresses AI-generated impersonation
. The existing legislative language
2
In
Comedy III Productions v. Saderup
(2001), the California Supreme Court introduced the "transformative use"
test to balance publicity rights with free expression.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 06,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 102
presumes tangible harm — such as defamation — but does not recognize digital identity as a
freestanding legal interest.
There is also
no jurisprudence
on deepfakes in Uzbek courts. Law enforcement lacks digital
forensic capacity, and cultural awareness of deepfake technology is minimal. The absence of a
statutory “right of likeness” leaves victims without clear remedies. This creates a significant
regulatory vacuum
, particularly as AI-generated media enters entertainment, advertising, and
political arenas in Uzbekistan.
3.3 Convergence and Divergence
While both jurisdictions recognize some form of personality right, the U.S. emphasizes
economic harm
(via commercialization of likeness), whereas Uzbekistan still centers on
moral
and reputational harm
. Neither, however, adequately addresses
non-consensual synthetic
media
, which is typically non-defamatory but highly intrusive.
4. Discussion
The results of this study reveal a critical gap between the pace of technological
advancement and the responsiveness of legal systems — a gap that is especially evident when
analyzing the treatment of deepfakes through the lens of personality rights. As a legal scholar
trained in both the post-Soviet and U.S. legal traditions, I find it deeply troubling that
individuals’ control over their own identity is so tenuously protected in the digital realm.
In the United States, the right of publicity remains a powerful, yet fragmented, doctrine. It
offers strong protection in commercial contexts, but it fails to adequately address the
non-
economic harms
caused by realistic deepfakes — such as psychological trauma, reputational
erosion, and loss of personal agency. Moreover, the courts’ tendency to defer to the First
Amendment when synthetic media is at issue often leaves victims with no recourse unless the
content crosses clear lines into defamation or commercial exploitation.
This legal asymmetry disproportionately impacts marginalized individuals, public
figures, and women — who are frequently targeted by AI-generated synthetic media in abusive
or exploitative contexts. The current U.S. framework effectively prioritizes
artistic expression
over personal dignity
, which raises normative questions about how we define "harm" in a
digital society.
In Uzbekistan, the problem is not doctrinal conflict but doctrinal
absence
. There is no
jurisprudential dialogue on deepfakes, and the law remains silent on AI-generated
impersonation. This silence, however, should not be mistaken for immunity. As deepfake
technology becomes more accessible and its use more widespread — including in political
propaganda, advertising, and personal vendettas — Uzbekistan must move beyond abstract civil
protections and develop concrete legal tools.
As a jurist deeply familiar with Uzbekistan’s civil law heritage, I believe that the
personality right should be explicitly codified to include image, voice, and digital identity
,
3
Uzbekistan’s Civil Code provides limited image rights under Article 99, but lacks specific provisions addressing
AI-generated likenesses (Civil Code of Uzbekistan, 1996).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 06,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 103
regardless of whether commercial use is present. Furthermore, this right should be inalienable
and invocable
without proof of tangible harm
, to account for the psychological and moral
injuries deepfakes can cause.
The convergence of IP and personality rights is no longer speculative — it is necessary. In my
view,
deepfakes represent a paradigm shift
that challenges the traditional boundaries
between creative expression and personal ownership. Just as copyright law protects the original
expression of authors, personality rights must protect the individual as their own “intellectual
property.” The law should reflect this duality.
5. Conclusion
AI-generated deepfakes expose deep fault lines in our current legal frameworks —
particularly in how we value human identity, reputation, and dignity. Neither the United States
nor Uzbekistan offers a complete solution: the former struggles with First Amendment
constraints and fragmented publicity rights, while the latter lacks even a foundational legal
dialogue on the issue.
This article has argued that
personality rights must be reconceptualized
in response to
synthetic media, with explicit legal recognition of digital likeness as a protected interest. In the
U.S., this could mean rebalancing free speech and identity protections; in Uzbekistan, it
requires building a doctrine of digital personality rights from the ground up.
As AI technologies continue to evolve, we are not simply confronting legal loopholes —
we are confronting the boundaries of what it means to “own” oneself in the age of machines.
My position is clear: identity is not public domain. A person’s voice, face, and mannerisms are
not raw material for machine creativity without their informed, voluntary, and ongoing consent.
The law must evolve — not to stifle technology, but to protect the humanity it risks erasing.
Moreover, the deepfake phenomenon urges us to rethink not only legal norms but also
the ethical foundations of personhood in the digital age. When machines can replicate a
person’s face, voice, and expressions with near-perfect fidelity, the law must ask not just “what
is protected?” but “who defines the self?”
In this regard, personality rights must evolve from static, image-based concepts to
dynamic, multidimensional protections that include biometric identity, behavioral mimicry, and
emotional resonance. These elements are not only personal but existential — they define how
we present ourselves, how others perceive us, and how we exist in increasingly virtual spaces.
From a comparative legal perspective, the convergence of IP and personality rights is no
longer theoretical. The rise of synthetic media demands a bold redefinition of legal boundaries
4
The European Union’s Digital Services Act (2022) mandates that online platforms take accountability for
identifying and labeling AI-generated content (European Commission, 2022).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 06,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 104
— one that does not compromise freedom of expression, but that also does not sacrifice human
dignity at the altar of technological innovation.
Thus, protecting personality in the age of AI is not simply a legal obligation; it is a
civilizational imperative.
References:
1. Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 25 Cal. 4th 387 (2001).
2. Keller v. Electronic Arts Inc., 724 F.3d 1268 (9th Cir. 2013).
3. California Civil Code §3344 (Right of Publicity Statute).
4. McCarthy, J. Thomas. The Rights of Publicity and Privacy. (Westlaw, 2023 Edition).
5. Thaler v. Perlmutter, 2022 WL 17609602 (D.D.C. 2022).
6. Uzbekistan Civil Code (1996), Article 99.
7. Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On Informatization” (2003).
8. European Union, Digital Services Act (Regulation (EU) 2022/2065).
9. Farahany, Nita A. The Battle for Your Brain: Defending the Right to Think Freely in the
Age of Neurotechnology. (St. Martin’s Press, 2023).
10. Chesney, Robert & Citron, Danielle. Deepfakes and the New Disinformation War: The
Coming Age of Post-Truth Geopolitics. 93 Tex. L. Rev. 175 (2019).
