Abstract
The rapid development of generative artificial intelligence has transformed the ways in which human identity can be represented, reproduced, and manipulated. Deepfakes, in particular, enable the creation of highly realistic synthetic representations of individuals’ faces, voices, and gestures, often without their knowledge or consent. This technology challenges traditional concepts of personality rights and raises complex questions concerning image, voice, privacy, dignity, reputation, and the allocation of liability among individuals, platforms, and technology providers. Against this background, this article examines the legal protection of identity against deepfakes through a comparative analysis of Chinese and Brazilian law. It first examines the Chinese framework, focusing on the 2021 Civil Code and its express protection against technologically generated forgery, as well as administrative regulations governing deep synthesis and generative artificial intelligence. It then analyzes the Brazilian framework, based on constitutional guarantees, personality rights under the Civil Code, the General Data Protection Law, the Marco Civil da Internet, and emerging judicial responses to synthetic content. The comparative analysis identifies two distinct regulatory approaches: a more preventive and technologically specific framework in China and a more reactive and jurisprudential model in Brazil. The article argues that, despite their different institutional structures, both systems face unresolved challenges concerning consent, platform responsibility, rapid content removal, freedom of expression, and the protection of identity in artistic, commercial, political, and personal contexts. It concludes by examining the extent to which existing personality rights can accommodate synthetic identity and whether additional legal and institutional mechanisms are necessary to provide effective protection in an increasingly synthetic information environment.
References
Bryson, Joanna J., Mihailis E. Diamantis & Thomas D. Grant, Of, for, and by the People: The Legal Lacuna of Synthetic Persons, 25 Artificial Intelligence & Law 273 (2017).
Civil Code of Brazil (Código Civil), Lei No. 10.406, de 10 de janeiro de 2002 (Braz.).
Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China (promulgated May 28, 2020, effective Jan. 1, 2021) (P.R.C.).
Constituição Federal [C.F.] (Braz. 1988).
Han, Mengqi, The Infringement of Deepfake Technology on Personal Privacy and Legal Protection: A Discussion Based on Article 1032 of the Civil Code, 41 J. Educ., Human. & Soc. Sci. (2024), https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1786/77ea3bbf08ceef700d35a5aa02822f7c35e2.pdf.
Hine, Emmie & Luciano Floridi, New Deepfake Regulations in China Are a Tool for Social Stability, but at What Cost?, Nat. Mach. Intel. (2022), https://www.nature.com/articles/s42256-022-00513-4.pdf.
Huang, Jiaxing, The Protection of Personal Privacy in “Deepfake”: Risks and Countermeasures, J. East China Univ. Sci. & Tech., no. 1, at 129–30 (2022).
Kuźnicka-Błaszkowska, Dominika & Nadiya Kostyuk, Emerging Need to Regulate Deepfakes in International Law: The Russo–Ukrainian War as an Example, 11 J. Cybersecurity, art. tyaf008 (2025), https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyaf008.
Lei No. 13.709, de 14 de agosto de 2018 (Braz.) (Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados Pessoais).
Liang, Andrea, Navigating Public Personality Rights in China (Dec. 2, 2025), https://cnipcase.com/navigating-celebrity-portrait-rights-in-china/.
Radin, Margaret Jane, Market-Inalienability, 100 Harv. L. Rev. 1849 (1987).
Raz, Joseph, Legal Principles and the Limits of Law, 81 Yale L.J. 823 (1972).
Schreiber, Anderson, Felipe Ribas & Rafael Mansur, Deepfakes: regulação e responsabilidade civil, 27 Revista Brasileira de Direito Civil 251 (2021).
Schwartz, Paul M., Property, Privacy, and Personal Data, 117 Harv. L. Rev. 2056 (2004).
Shi, Dongxiu, On the Legal Regulation of Deepfake for Face Swap, 5 Shanghai Law Research Collection 77–78 (2021).
Silva, Emanuelly Ignez Alves & Filipe Eduardo Macedo Menezes, Regulamentação dos deepfakes no Brasil: desafios jurídicos e soluções tecnológicas, 1(1) Revista Mundo em Movimento 75 (2024).
Solum, Lawrence B., Legal Personhood for Artificial Intelligences, 70 N.C. L. Rev. 1231 (1992).
Stone, Christopher D., Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects, 45 S. Cal. L. Rev. 450 (1972).
Superior Tribunal de Justiça [STJ], REsp No. 1.660.168/RJ, Rel. Min. Nancy Andrighi (Oct. 17, 2017) (Braz.).
Supreme People’s Court of China, Typical Civil Cases on Personality Rights Protection (Apr. 11, 2022), https://english.court.gov.cn/2022-04/12/c_768408.htm.
Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo [TJSP], Proc. No. 1002353-33.2023.8.26.0100 (2023) (Braz.).
Tribunal Regional Eleitoral do Maranhão [TRE-MA], Recurso Eleitoral No. 0600260-92.2022.6.10.0000 (2022) (Braz.).
Zhu, Minming, The Application Risks of “AI Face Swap” Technology and Its Regulatory Guidance, Hangzhou Internet Court (June 22, 2024) (WeChat post).

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Jose Humberto Deveza Assola

