Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law

Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law

Comparative Evaluation of Legal Mechanisms in Iran and the European Union in Addressing Deepfake Pornography

Articles in Press

Document Type : scientific research paper

Authors
zahra sadat mirhashemi 1
Fatemeh Najibzadeh Vamegh Abadi 2
1 Associate Professor of Department of Islamic Law, Faculty of Theology, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Ph.D. Student in Islamic Jurisprudence and Principles of Islamic Law, Department of Islamic Jurisprudence and Principles of Islamic Law, Faculty of Theology and Islamic Studies, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.
10.22034/law.2025.2064896.1669
Abstract
The emergence of deepfake technology, particularly in the form of digital pornography, poses serious threats to privacy and human dignity in the online environment. Produced through artificial intelligence and deep learning techniques, this phenomenon inflicts substantial psychological and social harm on victims. Accordingly, addressing such content, particularly from a legal perspective, requires the development of effective legislative and enforcement mechanisms. This article undertakes a comparative analysis of the legal frameworks of Iran and the European Union for combating deepfake pornography. Using a descriptive and analytical method, and drawing on library sources and reputable scholarly articles, the study examines the existing laws in Iran and the European Union in terms of their responses to deepfake related challenges. Within the Iranian legal system, provisions such as Article 14 of the Computer Crimes Act and Article 16 of the same statute, particularly with respect to defamation through alteration of digital content, address this threat. In the European Union, the Artificial Intelligence Act and the Digital Services Act establish frameworks for the removal of illegal content and the liability of platforms. The findings indicate that in Iran, despite existing regulations, challenges persist, including the lack of clear criteria for reputational harm and insufficient technical infrastructure for detecting deepfakes. In the European Union, although the legal frameworks are comparatively more comprehensive in relation to content removal and platform responsibility, issues such as technical divergences in detection and the transnational enforcement of rules remain. Finally, the study analyzes how combining the legal capacities of Iran and the European Union can generate innovative solutions for the evolution of legislative mechanisms to counter deepfakes in Iran, and on this basis, the Union’s framework, relying concurrently on the Artificial Intelligence Act, the Digital Services Act, and the General Data Protection Regulation, outlines an integrated scheme for the regulation of illegal content and the reinforcement of victim protection. Through mechanisms of transparency, labeling, and on platform reporting, this scheme promotes platform accountability and responsiveness, although its implementation faces cross border and technical challenges. In Iran, criminal categories addressing obscene and manipulated content provide initial coverage, yet practical effectiveness remains limited due to conceptual ambiguity and the absence of clear criteria for identifying deepfakes. Deficiencies in enforcement mechanisms and limited technical capacity for detection hinder the effectiveness of legal responses, underscoring the need to strengthen infrastructure and specialized institutions. Optimizing the national response requires revising and adopting context sensitive rules aligned with the European Union approach, with a focus on content governance and victim support. The development of diagnostic tools, the education and empowerment of law enforcement and judges, and the drafting of protocols for the preservation of digital evidence provide the operational foundation for this transformation. Advancing this trajectory becomes feasible and measurable through a time bound roadmap, the designation of a single coordinating authority, and periodic regulatory impact assessments.
Keywords
Pornography
Deepfake
Artificial Intelligence
Artificial Intelligence Law
Privacy
Human Dignity
1.       Abdi, Mikaeil, Farhoudinia, Hassan, & Sheikhzadeh, Mahmoud. (1392). Examination of the concept of public chastity with emphasis on the principle of legality of crimes and punishments in Iranian criminal law. Master’s thesis, Faculty of Law, University of Tabriz. (in Persian)
2.       Allahvardi, Farhad. (1399). Crimes against public chastity and morality. Tehran: Tafakkor Ayandehsaz. (in Persian)
3.       Azizi, Amir-Mahdi. (1402). Criminal law of computer crimes. Tehran: Majd. (in Persian)
4.       Babaei, Javad. (1397). Computer crimes and the rules of criminal procedure governing them. Tehran: Publications Center of the Judiciary. (in Persian)
5.       Citron, D. K. (2019). Sexual privacy. Yale Law Journal, 128(7), 1870–1960.
6.       Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). (2014). Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD), Mario Costeja González (Case C-131/12), ECLI:EU:C:2014:317, paras. 93–99.
7.       Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). (2019). Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek v. Facebook Ireland Limited (Case C-18/18), Judgment of 3 October 2019.
8.       Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). (2019). GC and Others v. CNIL (Case C-136/17), ECLI:EU:C:2019:773.
9.       Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). (2019). Google LLC v. Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL) (Case C-507/17), ECLI:EU:C:2019:772, paras. 72–76.
10.    European Commission. (2024). Proposal for an Artificial Intelligence Act (rec. 6–7). European Commission.
11.    European Court of Human Rights. (2015). Guide on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (p. 27). Council of Europe.
12.    European Parliament Research Service (EPRS). (2021). Artificial intelligence at EU borders: Overview of applications and key issues (pp. 30–33).
13.    FATA Police of the Law Enforcement Force of Iran (NAJA). (1400). Annual report on performance in the field of cyber crimes. Tehran. (in Persian)
14.    Feinberg, J. (1984). Harm to others. Oxford University Press.
15.    Hayes, S. C., & Paul, P. (2007). The pornography “addiction” model: Evidence for false claims. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(4), 515–533.
16.    Helberger, N., Pierson, J., & Poell, T. (2021). Governing online platforms: From contested to cooperative responsibility. The Information Society, 37(3), 146–158.
17.    Hijmans, H. (2020). The European Union as guardian of Internet privacy: The story of Art 16 TFEU. Springer.
18.    Kulk, S., & Borgesius, F. Z. (2014). Google Spain v. González: Did the Court forget about freedom of expression? European Journal of Risk Regulation, 5(3), 389–398.
19.    Kuner, C. (2021). The global reach of EU data protection law. International Data Privacy Law, 11(1), 35–52.
20.    Łabuz, M. (2024). Deep fakes and the Artificial Intelligence Act—An important signal or a missed opportunity? Policy & Internet, 5(6), 783–800.
21.    Latifzadeh, Mahdieh. (1403). Examining the mutual influence between autonomous artificial intelligence and Islamic law. Biannual Journal of Research and Development in Private Law, 1(2), 180–205. doi:10.22034/jpl.2025.720739 (in Persian)
22.    Leins, K., Culnane, C., & Rubinstein, K. (2023). Tracking deepfakes: Legal and regulatory responses to synthetic media. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 31(2), 101–120.
23.    Löfgren-Mårtenson, L. (2008). Adolescents’ perceptions of pornography. Journal of Sex Research, 45(3), 306–312.
24.    Lynskey, O. (2022). The foundations of EU data protection law. Oxford University Press.
25.    McGlynn, C., & Rackley, E. (2017). Image-based sexual abuse. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 37(3), 534–561.
26.    McGlynn, C., Rackley, E., & Houghton, R. (2020). The harms of image-based sexual abuse. Social & Legal Studies, 29(6), 1–22.
27.    Mousavi, Ali. (1394). The nature and instances of obscene content in Iranian law. Quarterly Journal of Law and Policy, 27(1), 45–68. (in Persian)
28.    Nouri, Masoud. (1386). The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, and an assessment of Iran’s accession. International Human Rights Law (Biannual), 2(3), 39–56. (in Persian)
29.    Parsa, Nahid. (1403). The role and requirements of human oversight of artificial intelligence in European Union law and Iranian law. Biannual Journal of Research and Development in Public Law, 1(2), 112–140doi: 10.22034/jrpl.2025.721655. (in Persian)
30.    Pascale, E. (2023). Deeply dehumanizing, degrading, and violating: Deepfake pornography and the path to legal recourse. Syracuse Law Review, 73(2), 335–366.
31.    Passive Defense Organization. (1400). Report on emerging cyber threats and countermeasures. Tehran. (in Persian)
32.    Peguera, M. (2020). The European Court of Justice and intermediary liability for third-party content. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, 11(2), 115–125.
33.    Razman, Ali. (1395). A criminal analysis of sexual offenses and acts contrary to public chastity with a view to cyberspace. Tehran: Qanunyar. (in Persian)
34.    Rezaei, Mohammad. (1396). A comparative study of obscene offenses in Iranian criminal law and the European Union. Legal Research, 12(3), 101–120. (in Persian)
35.    Schuett, J. (2023). The EU Artificial Intelligence Act: Regulating high-risk AI systems. Computer Law & Security Review, 49, 369–380.
36.    Schuett, J. (2024). Regulating artificial intelligence in the European Union: Risk, compliance, and enforcement. European Law Journal, 30(1), 1–23.
37.    Tabrizi, Sadegh. (1403). Advanced criminal procedure for cyber crimes. Tehran: Mizan. (in Persian)
Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 27 October 2025