AI in ads: Parody is safe, but there are dangerous minefields, says lawyer
AI-generated memes of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese may appear harmless. However, legal experts say businesses may face legal and reputational risks when using AI depictions of public figures.
Businesses have recently used AI depictions of Prince Harry, Meghan Markle and Albanese in promotional Instagram posts. AI-generated memes of Albanese reacting to the Federal Budget have also circulated online.
Charlotte Hale, disputes practice leader at LegalVision, said the availability of AI image tools is exposing some small businesses to legal risk. The issue often arises when businesses create viral content involving celebrities or politicians.
“Using an AI-generated image of a politician or celebrity is not automatically illegal in Australia,” Hale said. “There is no broad standalone ‘image right’ that gives a person complete control over commercial use of their likeness.”
However, legal risk may arise when content suggests a person endorsed, visited or is affiliated with a business. The ACCC states that images, social media posts and testimonials may be misleading if they create a false impression. This applies even when a business did not intend to mislead consumers.
Hale said businesses may face claims under consumer law, passing off, defamation or privacy law. Risk may arise if content falsely implies that a celebrity or politician supports a brand. In some cases, businesses may be required to remove content, issue corrections, pay compensation or defend court proceedings.
“For serious breaches of Australian Consumer Law, penalties can be significant,” Hale said. “Corporations may face fines of up to $100 million, or 30 per cent of adjusted turnover. Individuals may face penalties of up to $2.5 million.”
Hale said the distinction between acceptable and risky content depends on context and presentation. Content involving parody, political commentary or clearly labelled AI-generated content is less likely to create legal risk if it does not imply endorsement. However, disclaimers may not remove legal risk if the overall impression remains misleading.
“Posts showing Harry and Meghan ‘visiting’ cafés illustrate the problem: even if intended as a joke, some viewers may believe the visit happened,” Hale said.
She said legal risk increases when content is commercial, realistic, undisclosed or connected to false claims.
- Further reading: Australians have stopped believing what they see online.
Comment Manually
You must be logged in to post a comment.
No comments