Article 26 of the Law on the Protection of Copyright and Neighboring Rights provides more specific protection for images by restricting their display, distribution, or publication without the permission of the person they represent, with exceptions related to public events, public figures, and the public interest, as well as guarantees that protect honor, dignity, and reputation. However, if the image is entirely generated by artificial intelligence, determining the texts that protect its owner requires examining how it is used and the resulting damage; the article does not explicitly address this technology.
But what if a cooking content creator posts a video of herself explaining a recipe online, and then an organization uses her voice in a new advertisement generated by artificial intelligence without her permission? Here, Article 4 of the Personal Data Protection Law No. 24 of 2023 comes into play, which makes prior consent or a legal basis the foundation for processing. Article 5 requires that consent be explicit, documented, and specific in duration and purpose. However, making a recording available to the public requires examining the exceptions in Article 6; the legality of the new AI-generated advertisement is not determined solely by the presence of the recording on the internet or the absence of consent. If the advertisement involves an unlawful infringement on the content creator's rights inherent to her personality, she may rely on Article 48 of the Civil Code to request the cessation of the infringement and compensation for the damage she sustained.
In cases where offensive clips or images are generated, or for the purpose of extortion, these cases are subject to the Cybercrime Law, which includes provisions for crimes of defamation, slander, insult, and extortion. Paragraph (b) of Article 20 addresses the fabrication or modification of recordings and images under conditions related to what a person is keen to keep private and not show to the public, with the intent of defamation, abuse, or gain. These restrictions are important; the text cannot be summarized by saying it criminalizes all unauthorized digital simulation.
Here, the need arises for the necessity of drafting clearer legal texts that regulate the generation of voice and image by artificial intelligence, and that define the limits of use, liability, and ways to stop infringement and seek compensation, whether by developing existing legislation or issuing a special law. This must be coupled with protecting individuals while ensuring freedom of expression, the press, and artistic production, so that confronting forgery does not become a pretext for restricting legitimate uses.
