AI and Deepfakes in Mexico: The Dilemmas Beyond the Obvious

View on LinkedIn

An impossible reunion

Imagine turning on the television and seeing a commercial where El Chavo del Ocho chats with Eugenio Derbez, as if they had shared the screen together in life. It is not magic, but technology: thanks to deepfakes (hyperrealistic composites generated with AI), Chespirito "comes back to life" and stars alongside Derbez in an emotional DishLATINO advertisement.

The "Iconos" campaign pays nostalgic tribute to Roberto Gómez Bolaños. In the spot, El Chavo steps out of the screen to talk with Derbez about the success of Latinos and the changes in the world, creating a moving scene that captivated audiences.

Yet, beyond the initial emotion, uncomfortable questions arise:

Would Roberto Gómez Bolaños have agreed to this posthumous appearance? Would he really have said those words had he been asked? Who speaks for him now that he is no longer with us?

• Would Roberto Gómez Bolaños have agreed to this posthumous appearance?
• Would he really have said those words had he been asked?
• Who speaks for him now that he is no longer with us?

These doubts lead us to reflect on the ethical and legal dilemmas raised by artificial intelligence when it "resurrects" familiar faces. In Mexico, this emblematic case reveals an urgent issue: the legal vacuum surrounding deepfakes.

The legal vacuum in Mexico

Under current Mexican law, rights of image and honor are considered personality rights: inherent to the individual and non-transferable. By their very nature, they are understood to extinguish upon the rights-holder's death.

This reality has a troubling consequence: if someone uses AI to replicate the image or voice of a deceased person, what law prevents it?

Neither the Federal Copyright Law (Ley Federal del Derecho de Autor, LFDA) nor the Federal Civil Code (Código Civil Federal, CCF) explicitly address what happens to a deceased person's image in the context of deepfakes. During one's lifetime, anyone can defend their image — for example, actor Gael García Bernal sued a whisky brand for using his likeness without authorization. But after death, that direct legal protection vanishes.

Relatives inherit rights over the artist's already-recorded works and materials, but they do not inherit the right to the deceased's own image or voice as such.

The result: an exploitable vacuum

This legal vacuum is potentially exploitable. A company could digitally recreate a deceased celebrity with no fear of a lawsuit for violation of the right to one's image, since legally that right died with the person.

Cases such as the Derbez–Chespirito commercial illustrate how Mexican law has fallen behind: is it fair and lawful to "revive" someone digitally without their posthumous consent or that of their family? The current legal answer is murky.

Solutions in other jurisdictions

Other jurisdictions have already begun to fill these legal gaps:

In Spain, a "right of memory" exists for deceased persons: their relatives may protect their memory and prevent undignified uses of their image. In the United States, several states have enacted "posthumous rights of publicity," granting heirs control over the commercial exploitation of names and likenesses for decades after death.

• In Spain, a "right of memory" exists for deceased persons: their relatives may protect their memory and prevent undignified uses of their image.
• In the United States, several states have enacted "posthumous rights of publicity," granting heirs control over the commercial exploitation of names and likenesses for decades after death.

These examples demonstrate that regulating the use of deepfakes is not legal science fiction: other countries are already debating how to balance technological innovation with the protection of identity and human dignity.

Personality rights in the face of AI

Personality rights protect essential attributes such as image, name, honor, reputation, and voice. They are non-transferable and non-waivable: no one may sell or fully assign their own personhood.

In the case of the right to one's image, a person may grant express consent for its use in specific contexts, but that permission is limited and revocable at any time.

Artificial intelligence and deepfake technologies challenge these traditional concepts by enabling the replication of someone's appearance or voice without their participation or consent. This gives rise to problematic situations:

Key problems

Identity theft: Deepfake videos can make public figures "declare" things they never said. Non-consensual commercial exploitation: A person's image can be used to promote products without authorization. Defamatory content: Malicious deepfakes can place someone in fictitious embarrassing or illegal situations. Invasion of privacy: One of the most alarming uses has been the creation of non-consensual pornography. A well-known example involved Taylor Swift, whose face was inserted without authorization into pornographic images.

1. Identity theft: Deepfake videos can make public figures "declare" things they never said. 2. Non-consensual commercial exploitation: A person's image can be used to promote products without authorization. 3. Defamatory content: Malicious deepfakes can place someone in fictitious embarrassing or illegal situations. 4. Invasion of privacy: One of the most alarming uses has been the creation of non-consensual pornography. A well-known example involved Taylor Swift, whose face was inserted without authorization into pornographic images.

AI can be a double-edged sword: it opens up incredible creative possibilities, yet it also enables unprecedented abuses of image and identity. The law must be updated to clearly define and punish these behaviors.

The proposed legal reform: a comprehensive solution

Mexico has already seen legislative initiatives aimed at updating the legal framework. A recent proposal seeks to amend the Federal Civil Code, the Federal Penal Code, and the Federal Copyright Law. Below is what these reforms entail:

In the civil sphere (CCF art. 1916)

The aim is to establish that generating false content through AI that causes harm to a person's image, voice, honor, or reputation constitutes moral damages (daño moral). If someone creates a harmful deepfake, the victim could bring a civil action for the emotional, psychological, and financial damages caused.

In the criminal sphere (CPF art. 368 Sexties)

The reform proposes criminalizing identity theft by means of AI or other technological tools when carried out for unlawful purposes. Penalties would range from 10 to 15 years' imprisonment, plus substantial fines.

In the area of copyright (LFDA art. 231)

The initiative reinforces that using a person's image without authorization through algorithms or AI constitutes a trade infringement when carried out for profit. In short: profiting from another person's image through deepfakes without express permission would be prohibited.

Importance of the reform

This comprehensive reform is crucial because:

It fills the legal vacuum: It will no longer matter whether the person is living or deceased; unauthorized use of one's identity will be punishable. It provides identity protection: It recognizes that voice and face form part of a person's legacy and dignity. It deters abuse: Knowing that creating a malicious deepfake can result in imprisonment or damages will make people think twice before disseminating fabrications. It balances innovation and protection: It does not seek to "kill" AI, but rather to establish responsible boundaries, allowing legitimate creative uses while protecting against abuse.

• It fills the legal vacuum: It will no longer matter whether the person is living or deceased; unauthorized use of one's identity will be punishable.
• It provides identity protection: It recognizes that voice and face form part of a person's legacy and dignity.
• It deters abuse: Knowing that creating a malicious deepfake can result in imprisonment or damages will make people think twice before disseminating fabrications.
• It balances innovation and protection: It does not seek to "kill" AI, but rather to establish responsible boundaries, allowing legitimate creative uses while protecting against abuse.

Mexico thus joins a global trend: the United Kingdom, France, and several U.S. states have already enacted specific regulations against the misuse of deepfakes.