Background: Why This Panel Was Established
On April 17, 2026, Japan's Ministry of Justice established an expert panel to clarify civil liability when generative AI is used to create unauthorized reproductions of individuals' likenesses and voices. The first meeting is scheduled for April 24, 2026.
The panel was formed in response to several escalating social issues:
AI-Generated Celebrity Impersonation Scam Ads
Fraudulent advertisements using AI-manipulated celebrity photos and videos have flooded social media and websites. These ads falsely portray celebrities endorsing products or services. Victims include both the impersonated celebrities and consumers who purchase products based on fake endorsements.
The Deepfake Crisis
Rapid advances in AI technology have made it trivially easy to create deepfake videos that are virtually indistinguishable from reality. Cases of fabricated political speeches, non-consensual intimate imagery, and defamatory content have surged.
Voice Cloning Technology
Modern text-to-speech AI can replicate a specific person's voice with high fidelity from minimal audio samples. This raises concerns about voice fraud schemes and infringement of voice actors' and artists' rights.
Current Portrait Rights Framework in Japan
What Are Portrait Rights?
Portrait rights (shouzouken) protect an individual's right not to have their likeness photographed or published without consent. Japan has no statutory provision explicitly defining portrait rights — they are established entirely through case law (Supreme Court precedent).
#### Key Precedents
| Case | Significance |
|---|---|
| Kyoto Student Union Case (Supreme Court, Dec. 24, 1969) | Established that "every person has the freedom not to have their appearance photographed without consent," grounding portrait rights in Article 13 of the Constitution |
| "Utage no Ato" Case (Tokyo District Court, Sept. 28, 1964) | Pioneering decision recognizing portrait protection as an aspect of privacy rights |
Criteria for Portrait Rights Infringement
Under current case law, infringement is assessed by comprehensively considering the following factors:
- Manner of capture/publication (covert photography vs. public setting)
- Social status of the subject (public figure vs. private individual)
- Purpose of use (news reporting vs. commercial exploitation)
- Degree of emotional distress to the subject
- Necessity and reasonableness of the publication
Free Tool Related to This Article
Statute of Limitations Checker
Try our free simulator related to this topic.
Try for free →Publicity Rights: A Distinct Framework
What Are Publicity Rights?
Publicity rights (paburishitii-ken) protect the exclusive right to commercially exploit the customer-drawing power of a celebrity's name and likeness. While portrait rights protect "personal interests" (dignity and privacy), publicity rights protect "economic interests."
The Pink Lady Case (Supreme Court, Feb. 2, 2012)
The Supreme Court identified three categories of publicity rights infringement:
| Type | Description |
|---|---|
| Independent Appreciation | Using a likeness as an independent object of appreciation on merchandise |
| Customer Attraction | Attaching a likeness to products to differentiate them in the market |
| Advertising | Using a likeness in product/service advertising |
Portrait Rights vs. Publicity Rights
| Aspect | Portrait Rights | Publicity Rights |
|---|---|---|
| Protected interest | Personal dignity, privacy | Economic value, customer appeal |
| Who can claim | All individuals | Primarily celebrities |
| Legal basis | Constitution Art. 13 (case law) | Tort law (case law) |
| Damages | Emotional distress (consolation money) | Economic loss (licensing fee equivalent) |
New Legal Challenges Posed by Generative AI
Cases Where Existing Law Falls Short
Generative AI has created several novel infringement scenarios that existing portrait and publicity rights doctrines struggle to address:
#### 1. Likeness Generation Without "Photography"
Traditional portrait rights law assumes an act of "photography." However, generative AI learns from existing images and creates entirely new ones. Whether this constitutes "photography," and whether infringement occurs at the training stage or the generation stage, remains unclear.
#### 2. Images That "Resemble" but Are Not Identical
When AI generates an image that resembles a specific person but is not a direct copy, the question arises whether portrait rights infringement is established. No clear standard for judging "similarity" exists.
#### 3. Unauthorized Voice Use
Portrait rights have primarily protected "appearance and physical form." Whether portrait rights doctrine can be extended to cover AI voice cloning is not settled.
#### 4. Likenesses of Deceased Individuals
Portrait rights are considered personal rights that extinguish upon death. However, the legal treatment of AI-generated reproductions of deceased individuals' likenesses and voices is an open question.
Deepfakes: Legal Framework
Available Legal Remedies
| Legal Basis | Application |
|---|---|
| Civil Code Art. 709 (Tort) | Damages for portrait/honor rights infringement |
| Defamation (Penal Code Art. 230) | Criminal liability for reputation damage via fake videos |
| Credit Damage/Business Obstruction (Penal Code Art. 233) | Deepfakes damaging corporate reputation |
| Obscene Material Distribution (Penal Code Art. 175) | Distribution of sexual deepfakes |
| Revenge Porn Prevention Act | Non-consensual intimate imagery |
| Provider Liability Limitation Act | Identifying perpetrators through disclosure requests |
Limitations of Current Law
- No law directly criminalizes the creation of deepfakes (liability arises only upon publication)
- AI-generated "new images" may not be covered by existing portrait rights doctrine
- Cross-border enforcement is extremely difficult when content is hosted overseas
- Perpetrator anonymity makes identification challenging
Celebrity Impersonation Scam Ads
Common Tactics
- AI-manipulated celebrity photos/videos paired with fabricated endorsement quotes
- Mass distribution as social media ads at low cost (Facebook, Instagram, YouTube)
- Typically channel victims toward investment fraud or health supplement scams
- Landing pages are short-lived, making evidence preservation difficult
- Operators are based overseas, making domestic enforcement challenging
Key Issues for the Expert Panel
The panel is expected to focus on:
1. Clarifying Infringement Requirements
- Expanding the concept of "photography" to cover AI generation
- Establishing similarity standards
- Legal evaluation of training vs. generation stages
2. Expanding Publicity Rights
- Applying publicity rights to AI-generated content
- Clarifying voice publicity rights
- Post-mortem publicity rights (protection period after death)
3. Injunctive Relief
- Current law lacks clear grounds for injunctions based on portrait rights
- Whether pre-emptive injunctions against AI generation/publication are permissible
- Platform operators' obligations to remove infringing content
4. Damages Calculation
- Methods for calculating emotional distress damages
- Licensing fee equivalents for publicity rights infringement
- Damages for mass generation and viral distribution
Practical Guidance
For Businesses
- Verify that AI-generated content does not contain identifiable likenesses of real individuals
- Review AI tool terms of service to understand rights in generated outputs
- Always obtain permission from the individual or their management when using celebrity likenesses in advertising
- Establish internal AI usage guidelines that address portrait rights risks
- Prepare procedures for reporting and requesting removal of impersonation ads
For Creators
- Exercise caution when generating images resembling real people — unintentional resemblance can create legal risk
- Voice synthesis and cloning will likely require permission from the original voice rights holder
- Parody and satire may still constitute portrait or publicity rights infringement
- Check for rights infringement before publishing AI-generated content on social media or video platforms
Outlook
The panel aims to reach conclusions within fiscal year 2026. Depending on the outcome, the following legislative changes may follow:
- Codification of portrait rights (Civil Code amendment or new legislation)
- Clear injunctive relief framework for AI-generated content
- Statutory publicity rights (currently based solely on case law)
- Criminal penalties for deepfake creation itself
Generative AI technology continues to evolve rapidly, and the legal framework has struggled to keep pace. This expert panel represents a critical step toward fundamentally reconsidering portrait and publicity rights in the AI era.
Summary
Three key takeaways:
- Unauthorized use of others' likenesses or voices via generative AI can constitute infringement of portrait and publicity rights even under current law
- However, legal standards for AI-specific issues (likeness generation without photography, voice cloning, etc.) remain undeveloped
- Businesses and creators should fully recognize the legal risks of unauthorized likeness/voice use in generative AI and obtain necessary permissions
The panel's discussions will begin in earnest with the first meeting on April 24, 2026. Stay informed and consider updating your AI usage guidelines accordingly.
