INTRODUCTION
The evolution of Artificial Intelligence (AI ) technology poised exponential change in today’s digital world. It ushered in transformative technologies such as deepfakes and augmented reality (AR), reshaping the global media and telecommunication landscape.
While these innovations augment creativity, interactivity, and user experience, they also pose complex legal, ethical, and regulatory challenges. This paper examines how AI-driven deepfakes and AR are disrupting traditional legal boundaries in areas such as intellectual property, data privacy, misinformation, and platform liability. It highlights notable instances of misuse, including synthetic media used for identity theft, electoral manipulation, and non-consensual content creation.
The discussion further explores the inadequacy of existing legal frameworks; both globally and within Nigeria in addressing these threats. Drawing on comparative legal regimes such as the EU AI Act (2024), the General Data Protection Regulation, and the Nigerian Data Protection Act (2023), and most essentially this paper identifies key regulatory gaps and proposes targeted reforms.
The rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence is no longer a far-fetched idea, we are already living with it. It has crossed the threshold of labs and revolutionised our media and telecommunications by creating hyper-realistic synthetic content known as deepfake and augmented reality (AR) technology.
The ability to manipulate information and realities has taken an exponential leap with these “AI technologies” solely through the magic of social media. While these technologies are evolving, they pose threats and serious legal concerns, which underscores the importance of legal and regulatory responses; an adaptive and harmonized legal response that safeguard fundamental rights while fostering innovation in the era of AI-mediated media and communication.
This Article explores how AI, particularly deepfake and AR is shifting the existing legal boundaries in media and telecommunication.
UNDERSTANDING THESE TECHNOLOGIES
- Deepfakes: The term “deepfake” is a combination of “deep learning” and “fake|”. Deepfake is a kind of Artificial Intelligence and hyper-realistic digital technology used to create or manipulate convincing fake video content, images, and audio.[1] The creator of deepfakes uses a process known as a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) to create deepfake content. GAN uses two competing neural networks: The Generator and Discriminator algorithms for the process.[2
- Augmented Reality: Augmented reality (AR), also known as mixed reality is the integration of digital information with the user’s environment in real life. To enhance interactive experiences of the real world with computer-generated perpetual information.[3] Augmented reality (AR) blends digital and three-dimensional (3D) components with an individual’s perception of the real world. Using mobile apps, AR glasses, and software.[4]
DEEPFAKES: LEGAL CHALLENGES AND REGULATORY GAPS
It was reported that deepfakes were one of the most notorious emerging technologies.[5] Deepfakes are revealed to blur the boundaries between genuine and fabricated material, raising significant concerns regarding manipulation, identity theft, and misinformation, among others. Even though they have legitimate use for businesses including adverts, thus:
- Intellectual Property: Intellectual property rights are often infringed upon, as deepfakes typically rely on existing media for training, leading to potential disputes over unauthorized use.[6] Hence, deepfake content typically does not qualify for trademark or patent protection, while Copyright law which extends to original works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium, is argued to potentially apply to deepfakes, provided that the final work exhibits a minimal degree of creativity and includes significant human inputs.[7]
- Privacy and Non-consensual Use: The rapid advancements of AI technology not only make life easier but also create menacing consequences when misused. Deepfakes use artificial intelligence to impersonate while creating synthetic content. Creators often use someone’s likeness without consent, utilizing it for unauthorized commercial and public use often for deceptive or exploitative purposes. Meanwhile, despite the rapid prevalence, existing legal frameworks fall short in addressing this harm comprehensively.[8]
- Misinformation, Democracy, and National Security: The ability to distort reality has taken an exponential leap forward with “deep fake” technology. Through the magic of social media, it all went viral: false news spread faster damaging reputation. Fake videos could feature public officials taking bribes or displaying racism, fake videos could place them in meetings with spies or criminals, launching public outrage, or even manipulation of the election. All these highlight how it facilitates misinformation, threatens democracy, and even national security.[9]
PLATFORM LIABILITY AND CENSORSHIP
Like any new technology, deepfakes are a double-edged sword. Depending on the intentions of the user. The synthetic media technology can be used for good or evil. Deepfakes are one of the most sophisticated vehicles of disinformation and misinformation. Hence, it poses a serious dilemma to online platforms, risk becoming the highways that enable their breakneck-paced dissemination.[10]
Adversely, excessive regulation could lead to accusations of censorship and infringement of freedoms of speech. However, most legal systems including Nigeria lack an explicit legal framework for liabilities for platforms in case of deepfake distribution leaving gaps for regulatory and accountability.
Nevertheless, some jurisdictions rely on notice and takedown or safe harbor provisions as seen in the United States, S. 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 1996 provides immunity to online platforms from liability for content posted by their users. It shields platforms from being treated as publishers of user-generated content.[11] However, they can still be held accountable for their speech. It only protects them from being held liable for things their users say online.[12]
Case Studies
In late January 2024, sexually explicit AI-generated deepfakes of American musician Taylor Swift proliferated on social media platforms with one post reported to have been seen over 47 million times before its eventual removal.[13] Similarly, during Nigeria’s 2023 presidential campaign, fake audio clips purportedly featuring Atiku Abubakar, Ifeanyi Okowa, and Aminu Tambuwal discussing election rigging were widely shared on Social Media platforms. Forensic analysis later indicated these were AI-generated voice deepfakes and not recorded from real meetings.[14]
AR IN MEDIA AND TELECOMMUNICATION: EMERGING LEGAL FRONTIERS
Augmented Reality (AR) has evolved and typically changed how individuals interact with content and the world around them while impacting various sectors, including entertainment, education, healthcare, and commerce. Despite their transformative potential, these technologies anchor a ton of legal challenges, thus;
- AR Applications in Intellectual Property: AR creator may likely infringe on existing copyright when they synchronize their work with a copyrighted work in a way that creates a new work or changes the economic reward for the original work. For instance, AR applications that overlay digital content on real-world landmarks may unintentionally infringe on copyrights or trademarks associated with those landmarks. Although, the United States has treated such ephemeral works as infringing, This position is similar under section 50(1) of the Singapore Copyright Act 2021.[15]This challenge is also tied to the question of ownership as to who owns these creations: the user, the platform hosting the environment, or the developer providing the tools. Clear IP policies are necessary to address ownership and licensing rights.[16]
- Privacy and Surveillance: The surge growth in adoption of AR may also lead to a multitude of data privacy concerns. One of the potential challenges is the protection of the user’s privacy and surveillance. AR is being used to collect and generate information to enhance user experience by overlaying it over individuals in the vicinity of the AR devices – an activity called “data enhancement”.[17] The vast amount of data collected by AR systems makes them attractive targets for cyberattacks. While unauthorised access to data can lead to identity theft, surveillance, or other forms of misuse. Legal frameworks must address the responsibilities of AR developers in securing user data.[18]
Case studies
In a post made on X, students, AnhPhu Nguyen and Caine Ardayfio were seen walking around the Cambridge, Massachusetts, campus and subway stations and asking people they had never met if the information they have is correct: such as “Are you Betsy?” Ardayfio asked, before a woman confirms she is.[19] A similar relevant case is two Harvard students who went viral as they demonstrated how they used Meta’s Ray-Ban smart glasses to access the personal information of people on Harvard’s campus—including name, age, home address, and phone number.[20]
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN AI: DEEPFAKE AND AR
- Informed Consent in Immersive Vicinity: Deepfakes and AR often create complex scenarios for their victims. Creators often use someone’s likeness without their consent. For ethical considerations, users and creators should consider the engine of informed consent.[21]
- Mental Health Risk: Victims are often traumatised by the harm caused to them by the deepfake effect. While prolonged use of AR often leads to issues such as motion sickness, disorientation, or addiction. Both immersive experiences might elicit strong emotional reactions that impact users’ mental health. Ethical considerations should include the development of safeguards to minimize these risks.[22]
- Developer Responsibility: Creators, Developers, and companies behind Deepfakes and AR technologies should be held accountable for the societal impact of their products. This includes ensuring that systems are free from biases, secure against misuse, and designed with user safety in mind.[23]
GLOBAL LANDSCAPES AND EXISTING LEGAL FRAMEWORKS APPLICABLE TO AI: DEEPFAKE AND AR
The global nature of AI: deepfake and AR technology complicates the legal framework, jurisdiction, and enforcement. Their application across national boundaries made it hard to determine which country’s law applies in the case of a dispute or violation. Thus, each nations have its standard of legal system. A few existing legal frameworks are:
- The EU AI Act, 2024: which aims to ensure AI systems are safe and do not infringe upon fundamental rights and values in the EU.[24]
- General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): The GDPR provides a robust framework for data protection in the European Union.[25]
- In India, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Information Technology (IT) Act of, 2000.[26]
- The Berne Convention, 1886: which covers certain aspects of Intellectual property protection.[27]
While Nigeria does not have specific AI: Deepfake and AR laws that regulate these technologies, some laws govern a few related offences. Such as:
- The Nigerian Data Protection Act, 2023
- The Copyright Act, 2023
- The Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2024 which strengthens the legal framework for combating cybercrimes.
MAJOR REGULATORY GAPS
Despite the apparent risk of unbridled access to sensitive user data deepfake and mixed reality systems may pose, legislative movement has been slow.
- Drawback in International Legal Frameworks: With Deepfake and AR being global technologies, the absence of standardized international regulations leads to inconsistent legal protections and enforcement.[28]
- Undefined Liability: Laws lack clarity on how to allocate liability among creators, users, developers, and manufacturers in deepfake and VR contexts.[29] The EU AI does not include provisions for victim compensation or civil claims. Instead, it focuses on preventing harm by imposing obligations on AI system providers and users—especially for “high-risk”.[30]
TOWARDS LEGAL SOLUTION AND POLICY RECOMMENDATION
- Global Cooperation: Addressing the legal challenges posed by these emerging technologies requires cross-border collaboration, international bodies, such as the United Nations, the AU, and the World Economic Forum, to create harmonised regulations for AI technologies. While encouraging collaboration between developers, industry leaders, and regulators to create voluntary codes of conduct and standards for AI technologies.[31]
- Education and Awareness: Most people who are not technologically literate are vulnerable and they are unaware of current technologies like Deepfake, AR, and thier effects. Public awareness campaigns, educational initiatives are crucial for mitigating potential harms and maximizing benefits.[32]
- New legal Framework for Defined liability: The rapid advancements of AI technologies: deepfake and AR introduce concerns like cybersecurity and data protection. There is a need for adaptive cybercrime legislation, all of which intersect with the integration of technology in media and telecommunications.
- Disclosure Standards: Mandatory disclosure standards that aim to inform users about how AI is being used, its potential impacts, and any associated risks. To promote transparency and accountability in the AI system including deepfakes and AR for seamless application in media and telecommunications.[33]
- Establish Regulatory Bodies: Establishing a specialized regulatory body that oversees deep and AR compliance is highly recommended. A body that would handle user complaints, enforce standards, and promote best practices.[34]
CONCLUSION
AI: Deepfake and AR applications have passed the threshold of labs into mainstream application. Thus, these technologies represent transformative advancements with the potential to reshape numerous aspects of human interaction, including education, healthcare, entertainment, and commerce. Hence, it’s revolutionising our media and telecommunications. Deepfakes and Augmented Reality have evolved and typically changed how individuals interact with media.
Despite their transformative potential, these technologies anchor a ton of legal challenges, stemming from data privacy, non-consensual, intellectual property, and cross-border challenges. It’s essential to refine the ethical considerations. Thus, by implementing the policy recommendations such as global cooperation for regulation, education and awareness, disclosure standards, defined liability, and establishing a specialised regulatory body. We can ensure a harmless application and the benefit of these technologies that would continue to thrive in media and telecommunications.
REFERENCES:
[1] Sumsub “Global Deepfake Incidents Surge Tenfold from 2022 to 2023.” (Sumsub, November 28, 2023)https://sumsub.com/newsroom/sumsub-research-global-deepfake-incidents-surge-tenfold-from-2022-to-2023/.
[2] Tech Target “what’s definition deepfake” https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/deepfake
[3] SAP Augmented Reality definition”(2023) https://www.sap.com/products/scm/industry-4-0/what-is-augmented-reality.html#:~:text=Augmented%20reality%20definition,real%2Dlife%20environments%20and%20objects.
[4] Ibid
[5] The Sun “Deepfake creator maria walsh-punishment ai threat” https://www.thesun.ie/news/14362633/deepfake-creator-maria-walsh-punishment-ai-threat/
[6]Rouse “Navigating the deepfake dilemma legal challenges and global responses” (2025) https://rouse.com/insights/news/2025/navigating-the-deepfake-dilemma-legal-challenges-and-global-responses
[7] LexisNexis “deepfakes and intellectual property legal issues” https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/practical-guidance-journal/b/pa/posts/deepfakes-and-intellectual-property-legal-issues
[8] Mahashreshty Vishweshwar, Shalini, “Implications of Deepfake Technology on Individual Privacy and Security” (2023). Culminating Projects in Information Assurance. 142.
[9] California Law Review “Deep fakes a looming challenges” https://www.californialawreview.org/print/deep-fakes-a-looming-challenge-for-privacy-democracy-and-national-security
[10] Digilabs Global legal opinion on deepfakes and platform responsibility. (2021) https://digilabs.global/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/LegalOpiniononDeepfakesandPlatformResponsibility.
[11] Communications Decency Act, 1996 s. 230 (US)
[12] EFF “Congress should not rush regulate deepfake” (2019) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/congress-should-not-rush-regulate-deepfakes
[13] CBS NEWS “Taylor Swift deepfakes spread online, sparking outrage” https://www.cbsnews.com/news/taylor-swift-deepfakes-online-outrage-artificial-intelligence/
[14] Collaborativemedia “Fact. Check how deepfakes audio was used to frame Atiku Okowa and others in 2023 election” (2023) https://collaborativemedia.wscij.org/fact-check-how-deepfake-audio-was-used-to-frame-atiku-okowa-and-others-in-2023-elections
[15] Mark A. Lemley & Eugene Volokh, ‘Law, Virtual Reality, and Augmented Reality’ (2018) 166 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1051, 1112.
[16] Research gate “Augmented and Virtual Reality: Defining Legal Boundaries and Responsibilities” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388122415_Augmented_and_Virtual_Reality_Defining_Legal_Boundaries_and_Responsibilities
[17] Brian Wassom, Augmented Reality: Law, Privacy, and Ethics (2015), Chapter 3: Privacy, at 56.
[18] Research gate “Augmented and Virtual Reality: Defining Legal Boundaries and Responsibilities” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388122415_Augmented_and_Virtual_Reality_Defining_Legal_Boundaries_and_Responsibilities
[19] Forbes “How 2 Students Used The Meta Ray-Bans To Access Personal Information” (2024) https://www.forbes.com/sites/lindseychoo/2024/10/04/meta-ray-bans-ai-privacy-surveillance/
[20] Forbes “How 2 Students Used The Meta Ray-Bans To Access Personal Information” https://www.forbes.com/sites/lindseychoo/2024/10/04/meta-ray-bans-ai-privacy-surveillance/
[21] Research gate “Augmented and Virtual Reality: Defining Legal Boundaries and Responsibilities” https://www.researchgate.net/publication388122415_Augmented_and_Virtual_Reality_Defining_Legal_Boundaries_and_Responsibilities
[22] Ibid
[23] Ibid
[24] The EU AI Act, 2024
[25] General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), 2018
[26] Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000.
[27] The Berne Convention, 1886
[28] SCL ‘‘The drawbacks of international law in governing AI” https://www.scl.org/the-drawbacks-of-international-law-in-governing-artificial-intelligence/
[29] EST “Closing the gap: Fair victim compensation in the EU AI liability regime”(2025) https://esthinktank.com/2025/05/05/closing-the-gap-fair-victim-compensation-in-the-eu-ai-liability-regime/
[30]EST ‘‘Closing the gap fair victim compensation in the EU AI liability regime”(2025) https://esthinktank.com/2025/05/05/closing-the-gap-fair-victim-compensation-in-the-eu-ai-liability-regime/
[31] World Economic forum “The global cooperation barometer” (2025) https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-global-cooperation-barometer-2025/
[32] Research Gate “Awareness to deepfake a resistance mechanism to deepfake” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353498120_Awareness_to_Deepfake_A_resistance_mechanism_to_Deepfake#:~:text=challenges.%20…-,…,materials%20proving%20beneficial.%20…
[33] SLOAN REVIEW “artificial-intelligence-disclosures-are-key-to-customer-trust” https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/artificial-intelligence-disclosures-are-key-to-customer-trust/
[34] Research gate “Augmented and Virtual Reality: Defining Legal Boundaries and Responsibilities” https://www.researchgate.net/publication388122415_Augmented_and_Virtual_Reality_Defining_Legal_Boundaries_and_Responsibilities
About the Author:
Ismail Abdrasheed is an undergraduate law student with an unbiased passion for legal writing he can be reached at: +234 816 369 3382