Federal judges meeting in Boston heard tech industry warnings that AI-generated images and video are becoming nearly impossible to verify, as a judiciary committee considers whether courts need new rules for evidence that may be deepfakes instead of the real thing.
The post OpenAI: AI-Generated Deepfakes Will Become Impossible to Verify appeared first on Breitbart.
Giorgia Meloni has applied to register her voice with the European Union Intellectual Property Office as governments and public figures look for new ways to counter increasingly convincing AI-generated deepfakes.
The Italian prime minister submitted a short audio recording in which she says “Io sono Giorgia Meloni” — “I am Giorgia Meloni” — to the EUIPO on Monday.
The four-second recording forms part of an application for a sound trademark intended to strengthen legal protection against unauthorised use of her voice.
The application filed with the EU intellectual-property system is currently listed as under examination. It is linked to categories including downloadable multimedia material, cultural activities and the organisation of political events.
Registration would not give Meloni ownership over every recording or imitation of her voice, nor would it automatically prevent AI systems from reproducing it.
It could, however, provide another legal basis for challenging certain commercial or misleading uses where the protected sound mark is employed without authorisation.
The distinction between a trademark and copyright is important in this case. Meloni has applied to protect a sound identifier through EU trademark law rather than to establish general copyright ownership over the natural characteristics of her voice.
Her application comes as voice-cloning technology becomes increasingly accessible.
Modern generative-AI systems can create convincing synthetic speech from relatively small samples of recorded audio. The technology is used legitimately for dubbing, accessibility and media production, but it can also be used for fraud, impersonation and political disinformation.
Meloni herself has previously been targeted by manipulated images and other deepfake material. She has also taken legal action in Italy over sexually explicit deepfake images created using her likeness.
The problem has acquired additional importance for politicians because synthetic recordings can be produced and circulated rapidly during election campaigns.
A false recording no longer requires sophisticated audio-editing equipment or extensive access to the target. Public figures provide large quantities of clean audio through speeches, television appearances, podcasts and social-media video — precisely the material needed to train voice-cloning systems.
The EU has already begun imposing specific transparency requirements on synthetic content.
EU Today reported in August that new provisions under the EU AI Act require certain AI-generated or manipulated audio, images and video to be marked in machine-readable form and impose disclosure obligations for deepfake material.
Those rules address transparency rather than ownership.
Trademark law potentially offers a different route by allowing an individual or organisation to claim rights over a specific sound used as a commercial or identifying mark.
Sound trademarks are not new. Companies have long registered jingles, tones and other distinctive audio signatures. What is unusual in Meloni’s application is the attempt by a serving head of government to use the system partly as protection against AI impersonation.
The phrase chosen for the application is itself closely associated with Meloni’s political identity.
“Io sono Giorgia” became widely recognised following a 2019 speech in which she described herself as a woman, mother, Italian and Christian. The phrase subsequently became the basis of online remixes before being adopted as the title of her autobiography.
Other performers have also sought stronger protection for their voices as generative AI improves.
Italian singer Giusy Ferreri has filed a similar application, while actors and musicians internationally have pressed governments and technology companies to prevent unauthorised voice cloning.
Meloni’s filing is unlikely on its own to settle the broader legal question of whether an individual can effectively control AI reproductions of his or her voice.
It does, however, illustrate how existing intellectual-property law is being tested against technology that can reproduce personal characteristics that were previously difficult to copy convincingly.
The EUIPO must now determine whether Meloni’s application satisfies the requirements for registration. Until that process is completed, the filing remains an application rather than an approved EU trademark.
The prohibition on so-called AI “nudifier” systems becomes applicable on 2 December 2026 following changes to the EU Artificial Intelligence Act approved earlier this year.
The legislation prohibits AI systems designed to create child sexual abuse material or realistic images, video or audio depicting an identifiable person’s intimate parts or sexually explicit activity without that person’s consent.
Providers cannot place systems intended for such use on the EU market. Systems capable of producing the material must have adequate safeguards intended to prevent it, while deployers are prohibited from deliberately using AI systems for that purpose.
The final agreement on the AI Act amendments gave companies until 2 December to bring their systems into compliance.
The latest intervention is intended to ensure that regulators are ready to enforce the prohibition rather than simply having the legislation on the statute book.
The letter supported by 119 MEPs was initiated by Green MEP Lena Schilling and Greens/EFA co-president Terry Reintke.
Its signatories include members from several political groups.
They want the Commission and member states to ensure that national authorities are designated to enforce the ban and that people targeted by non-consensual AI-generated sexual imagery know which authority to contact.
The letter also calls for stronger enforcement of the Digital Services Act against online platforms and search engines carrying or facilitating access to such material.
The initiative follows research cited by the organisers which identified 147 European politicians appearing on websites containing sexualised AI deepfakes.
Of those identified, 138 were women.
Schilling was among those affected and has used her own case to argue that the December prohibition needs an operational enforcement system from its first day.
The prohibition emerged during the EU’s broader revision of its AI legislation.
In March, the European Parliament adopted its negotiating position by 569 votes to 45, with 23 abstentions.
Parliament and Council subsequently reached agreement on the revised text, and the measure completed its formal legislative process in June.
EU Today reported at the time that the Council’s final approval combined delays to some high-risk AI requirements with new restrictions on non-consensual sexual imagery.
The issue is distinct from the wider transparency requirements applying to AI-generated content.
Under Article 50 of the AI Act, transparency obligations have applied since 2 August.
Providers of generative systems must in relevant cases make AI-generated or manipulated material machine-readable and detectable, while deployers face disclosure obligations covering deepfakes and some AI-generated material dealing with matters of public interest.
EU Today examined those changes when chatbot and deepfake disclosure rules entered into application in August.
There is, however, a transitional period for some AI systems that were already on the market before 2 August. Their machine-readable marking obligations take effect on 2 December.
That means the same date will bring both the new nudifier prohibition and the end of the transitional period for certain AI-content marking requirements.
Enforcement is divided between national regulators and EU institutions.
National market-surveillance authorities carry much of the responsibility for enforcing the AI Act. The Commission’s AI Office has direct enforcement responsibilities in more limited areas, including certain systems built on general-purpose AI models and systems integrated into very large online platforms or search engines.
The Commission’s guidance on Article 50 is intended to provide regulators and companies with a common interpretation of those transparency requirements.
The nudifier prohibition raises an additional problem because distribution of non-consensual intimate images also intersects with the Digital Services Act, national criminal and civil laws and EU legislation addressing violence against women.
The 119 MEPs are therefore seeking action beyond the AI Act itself.
Their letter asks for stricter use of the Digital Services Act against platforms and search engines, faster implementation of the EU directive combating violence against women and clearly identifiable national authorities able to respond to complaints.
The legal gap surrounding nudifier systems had previously been acknowledged by the Commission.
Its review of prohibited AI practices concluded that the original AI Act’s provisions on manipulation and exploitation of vulnerabilities did not adequately cover systems producing child sexual abuse material and non-consensual sexually explicit images.
That finding contributed to the explicit prohibition subsequently added during the Digital Omnibus negotiations.
The legislation is now settled. The immediate issue before the 2 December deadline is whether regulators across the 27 member states have the mechanisms in place to identify prohibited systems, investigate providers and respond when people report AI-generated intimate material produced without their consent.
Login