Channel 4 in the UK is facing legal criticism after airing a segment in its documentary Vicky Pattison: My Deepfake Sex Tape that featured an AI-generated image resembling Scarlett Johansson in lingerie—a move that legal experts suggest might contravene the Sexual Offences Act of 2003.
During the documentary, viewers were shown what appears to be deepfake footage of the Black Widow star. In the scene, Johansson reclines on a bed in suggestive lingerie while a voiceover explains, “Over the past decade there has been a trend of using AI to create videos of celebrities like Scarlett Johansson and Margot Robbie in highly explicit and degrading scenarios.” This portrayal has sparked concerns among lawyers who specialize in the regulation of sexually explicit AI content.
Clare McGlynn, a law professor well-versed in the legal challenges of pornography, sexual violence, and online abuse, remarked that using a nonconsensual, computer-generated image of someone in lingerie could indeed fall foul of the act. “It could, I think, breach the Sexual Offences Act if this were a deepfaked image of someone taken without their consent,” McGlynn explained, highlighting that Johansson’s image might be covered under this legal provision if created and used without consent.
The controversy is deepened by Johansson’s own history with deepfake abuse—she was among the first high-profile figures to suffer from nonconsensual deepfake imagery. Known for her vocal opposition to such practices, Johansson has previously denounced the unauthorized use of her likeness as “demeaning,” expressing frustration at how easily her image can be manipulated to create hyper-realistic, nonconsensual content.
Some legal commentators have pointed out that while Channel 4’s decision to include the image might technically violate the law, the broadcaster might be able to defend its actions on the grounds of having a “reasonable excuse.” Associate lawyer Alice Trotter from Kingsley Napley explained that if Channel 4 reasonably believed the image had already been made public with consent—or if it was part of a broader effort to raise awareness of deepfake pornography—this might serve as a viable defense in court. Ultimately, however, the matter would be decided by the judicial system.
The backlash against Channel 4 isn’t limited to legal circles. Advocacy groups representing survivors of deepfake abuse have condemned the network’s choice to air an AI-generated pornographic clip featuring host Vicky Pattison. Critics argue that such decisions not only risk inflicting further harm on the subjects of these images but also inadvertently boost traffic to sites that proliferate nonconsensual content.
One campaigner, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, commented, “Using that image shows a real lack of understanding about the issue and the real-life harm it causes... It’s not just about nudity—it’s about the violation of someone’s identity, autonomy, and the breach of their consent as laid out in the Sexual Offences Act.”
Beyond the immediate controversy surrounding the documentary, legal experts worry that employing potentially unlawful imagery could undercut broader efforts to reform legislation in the era of deepfake technology. McGlynn, who participated in the documentary without being fully informed about the production details, expressed regret over the network’s editorial choice. “The programme’s intent was to shine a light on this issue, but unfortunately, focusing on the ethics and legality of using deepfake imagery detracts from the larger conversation—such as the role tech giants play in this phenomenon,” she noted.
A spokesperson for Channel 4 responded to the criticism, saying, “Celebrities worldwide have been affected by the rise of deepfake pornography. We took care to only feature those widely reported as victims and blurred any sexually explicit content. As with all our programmes, we have ensured compliance with all relevant laws and regulations.”
Lead image by Gage Skidmore, used under CC 3.0 BY-SA license.
It probably would have been helpful to indicate thie is Channel 4 in the U.K. and not Channel 4 Washington D.C., Channel 4 Charleston S.C. or Channel 4 Lake Havasu City AZ. It also would have been helpful to indicate that Clare McGlynn is a law professor at Durham University, Durham, England and has helped shape the legal landscape regarding this issue in the U.K.
Good point.