The VIFLY guide France · European Union
A voice or face is not unrestricted material.
The question goes beyond editing quality. Check who is represented, permission, context and how the audience understands the result.
Sources checked on 23 October 2026
The short answer
Images, voices and deepfakes
An image or voice being online does not give you a general right to clone it. AI disclosure does not replace personal rights. Sharing synthetic sexual content without the person’s consent is already a criminal offense in France.
These guideposts distinguish the status of a rule; 'Pause and check' calls for review before acting.
Three permissions to distinguish
The person
Image, voice, context and agreed uses.
The original material
Photo, recording, music and associated rights.
Publication
AI disclosure and distribution rules.
From rule to practice
What does that look like in practice?
An actor’s voice in an advertisement
A public recording is used for an imitation implying brand endorsement.
Do not publish on that basis alone. Check necessary permissions and the truthfulness of the commercial presentation.
Your own presentation avatar
You use your face and own voice recordings to introduce a course.
Check tool terms and any other rights, then disclosure and platform labeling. Do not make it announce unchecked facts.
Clearly presented satire
The work is fictional but depicts a real person in an invented scene.
Examine freedom-of-expression context and other rights. Adapt AI disclosure without assuming a blanket exemption.
Define permission precisely
For commercial use of an identifiable person, obtain permission suited to their face, voice, alterations and intended media. Recording a voice for a podcast does not authorize making it sell an unrelated product. Keep the agreed limits and clarify sensitive uses.
Image rights have exceptions relating in particular to information and freedom of expression; these are not a commercial free pass. Public figures do not abandon their rights by becoming famous. Context, purpose and competing interests need examination.
Disclosure does not replace other rights
Article 226-8 covers, among other cases, sharing certain algorithmic content depicting someone’s image or words without consent when its artificial nature is not obvious or expressly disclosed. This criminal rule does not erase other possible grounds: privacy, reputation, copyright or deception.
Do not turn “I added a label” into “I have every right.” For dubbing, avatars or advertising, separately check the person’s permission, the original material’s license and publication rules.
Non-consensual sexual content: stop distribution
In France, Article 226-8-1 covers distribution to another person or the public of sexual montages and algorithmic sexual content reproducing someone’s image or words without consent. Adding “AI-generated” does not solve this prohibition. Do not reshare it to condemn it.
The European timetable adds specific system prohibitions from 2 December 2026. That future date does not make equivalent uses currently lawful under French law. Do not create or distribute sexual depictions of minors.
What if your image or voice is misused?
Keep the URL, date and useful reporting evidence without amplifying the post. Use the platform’s reporting process. Depending on context, request removal and appropriate help from authorities or a legal professional.
If the content was used in a campaign you manage, pause distribution and notify the responsible people. Deleting your own post does not mean every shared copy has disappeared.
Wording to get started
Disclosures to adapt to your case.
These examples are neither official forms nor a compliance guarantee. Check the wording, placement and display duration required. French statutory disclosures are retained in the examples.
Describe a fictional scene
AI-generated reconstruction. The words and scene are fictional.
Text copied. Adapt it before use.Copy unavailable: select the text to copy it.
Before taking action
Your essential checks.
A preparation aid, with no automatic compliance verdict.
Getting to the point
Questions people often ask.
Does a public video authorize cloning its voice?
No. Accessibility is not general permission to reproduce, imitate or commercially exploit it.
Is writing “parody” or “AI” enough?
Not to erase other rights. Satire and disclosure have their own rules to examine in context.
Can a sexual deepfake be shared if it is labeled?
Not when it falls within non-consensual distribution under Article 226-8-1. AI labeling does not replace that consent.
Sources and method
The sources behind the answers.
Editorial team: VIFLY. Documentary checks on 23 October 2026. This guide is an educational summary without individual legal validation. The links let you consult the text and its conditions.
- European CommissionAI Act — Article 50: transparency Legal text
- European CommissionAI Act — Article 5: prohibited practices Legal text
- European CommissionAI Act — Article 113: consolidated timeline Legal text
- DGCCRFCommercial influence: disclosures and duties Official explanation
- Service PublicImage rights and privacy Official explanation
- LégifranceFrench Criminal Code — Article 226-8 Legal text
- LégifranceFrench Criminal Code — Article 226-8-1 Legal text
Understand, then practise
Clear rules. Useful applications.
Explore AI courses and VIFLY resources to build a more considered practice.