Deepfakes of Your Image or Voice: How to Prove the Fraud and Seek Compensation

This page is a translation of the original Portuguese text, provided for convenience. It deals with Brazilian law. If there is any discrepancy, the Portuguese version prevails. Read the original in Portuguese

Having your face or voice reproduced without consent in fake videos or audio recordings is no longer the stuff of fiction. It is now part of the daily workload of police stations and civil courts in Brazil. Digital fabrications that make a person appear to say or do something that never happened harm the victim’s honor, image, and privacy. Knowing how to gather evidence, demand removal of the material, and hold creators and distributors accountable is the way to limit the damage and restore the truth.

How to Technically Prove the Manipulation

The first concern of anyone who discovers a fake video or audio recording using their face or voice is proving that the content was fabricated. That evidence has to be secured before the material disappears from the internet. The recommended approach is to have the page recorded in a ata notarial (a notarized record of online content) at a notary office. It captures the URL, the date, the time, and the content displayed. It also gives the record public faith, which makes later claims of tampering harder to sustain.

Besides the notarized record, you should preserve the full web address, screenshots, the name of the profile that posted the content, and any protocol number generated by the platform. The file’s metadata, when accessible, shows the creation date, the software used, and traces of editing. This initial set of material supports a later expert examination and shows the link between the posting and the harm the victim suffered.

Technically proving that content was fabricated usually requires a specialized digital forensic examination. The expert looks for inconsistent lighting, imperfect lip sync, artifacts around the edges of the face, abnormal frequency shifts in the voice, and a lack of continuity between frames. The expert report translates these signs into technical language capable of convincing the court that the image or audio is not an authentic recording.

When the victim has the original material that served as the basis for the fabrication (a public photo, an interview, a story), comparing the legitimate content with the forged version strengthens the evidence. Keeping the hash value of the preserved files is also important. A hash is a code that changes with the alteration of even a single bit. It protects the integrity of the evidence and shows that the material was not modified after it was collected.

First Steps to Remove the Content

Once the evidence is gathered, the next step is to stop the material from circulating. The platforms themselves offer reporting channels for content that violates image, honor, or privacy rights. A report to the platform, accompanied by the victim’s identification and the exact URL, often leads to quick removal, especially when the content shows fabricated nudity or a simulated sexual act.

When the platform route fails or drags on, you can send an extrajudicial notice to the person responsible for the post and to the application provider, demanding immediate removal and warning of legal action. The Marco Civil da Internet (Brazil’s Internet Civil Framework, Law 12.965/2014) provides that a provider is civilly liable for damages when it fails to remove the identified content after a specific court order.

For sexual content produced without consent, the Marco Civil itself allows removal upon direct notice from the victim or the victim’s representative, with no prior court decision required. This route speeds up removal when the fabrication simulates nudity or an intimate scene, a situation that aggravates the harm and calls for an urgent response.

If removal is still refused, the victim can file a lawsuit with a request for urgent injunctive relief. The request can seek an order to remove the material, block new identical posts, and, when necessary, require the disclosure of access logs that make it possible to identify the author. Showing a risk of irreparable harm, which is inherent in online dissemination, usually supports a preliminary injunction.

Documenting every step, from the initial report to any refusal by the platform, strengthens the court request and shows the inaction of those who had a duty to act. This record also supports the claim for compensation, because it shows that the harm lasted longer because those who could have stopped it failed to do so.

The platforms themselves offer reporting channels for content that violates image, honor, or privacy rights.

Holding Accountable Those Who Create and Those Who Spread

Creating and spreading fake fabrications can lead to liability in more than one sphere. In civil law, the author and the distributors must compensate the moral and material damages they caused, under Articles 186 and 927 of the Civil Code, which require anyone who causes harm to another through an unlawful act to pay compensation. Liability reaches both the person who fabricated the content and the person who shared it knowing it was false.

In criminal law, the same conduct can amount to crimes against honor: calúnia (criminal slander), when someone is falsely accused of a crime; difamação (defamation), when a fact damaging to someone’s reputation is attributed to them; and injúria (insult), when a person’s dignity is offended. Impersonating someone to deceive third parties can also constitute the crime of false identity under the Penal Code.

When the fabrication simulates nudity or a sexual act, criminal law provides a specific offense for spreading that content without consent, with a heavier penalty if the parties had an intimate relationship or the motive was revenge. Repeated harassment through digital means, in turn, falls under the crime of stalking, added to the Penal Code in a recent reform.

Data protection is another dimension. Capturing and using image and voice, which are data that identify a person, without a legal basis and without consent violates the Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados (Brazil’s General Data Protection Law). The victim can add this ground to the compensation claim and bring the matter to the competent authority, which widens the avenues for holding the offender accountable.

Personality Rights Violated by Unauthorized Synthetic Media

The Federal Constitution reinforces this protection by declaring that people’s privacy, private life, honor, and image are inviolable, and by guaranteeing compensation for material or moral damage resulting from their violation. A fabrication that puts words in someone’s mouth or actions on someone’s body violates, all at once, the truth about that person’s identity and the control each of us has over our own representation.

The voice receives the same protection as the image because it identifies the person. Reproducing it synthetically to simulate false statements harms a person’s honor and can mislead others, with consequences for work, family, and finances. Recognizing the scope of these rights guides both the request for removal and the setting of the amount of compensation, which must take into account the extent and impact of the harm.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do I need an expert examination to prove the video is fake?

A digital forensic examination is the most reliable way to show fabrication, because it identifies technical inconsistencies the naked eye cannot catch. Still, the evidence starts earlier, with preserving the material through a notarized record and keeping the metadata and screenshots. This set of material guides the expert’s work and supports both the removal request and the compensation claim.

Is the platform required to remove the fake content?

For most content, the provider is civilly liable only if it fails to comply with a specific court order for removal. When the fabrication simulates nudity or a sexual scene, removal can be demanded directly through a notice from the victim, with no prior court decision. Documenting the report and any refusal strengthens the later request in court.

Is someone who only shared the fabrication also liable?

Yes. Anyone who spreads the content knowing it is false contributes to the harm and can be held liable in both civil and criminal proceedings, alongside the person who created it. Sharing widens the reach of the offense and worsens the damage, which is why the chain of distribution is usually included when responsibility is determined.

As informações deste artigo são de caráter informativo e não substituem consulta jurídica individualizada. Cada caso possui particularidades que exigem análise específica.