The dissertation presents a comprehensive criminal law study of the unlawful creation, digital modification, use, and dissemination of photographic works and photographic materials in the digital environment. The relevance of the research is determined by the capacity of digital photography for rapid copying, editing, and dissemination through social networks, messengers, cloud services, and online platforms, which generates new criminal law risks to copyright, privacy, the right to one’s image, digital identity, honour, and dignity. Particular dangers arise from the unauthorised dissemination of intimate materials, digital modification, synthetic media and deepfake images, as well as the dissemination of materials concerning minors and photographs capable of creating threats to information, military, and national security.
The purpose of the research is to develop a comprehensive criminal law approach to the assessment of the unlawful creation, digital modification, use, and dissemination of photographic works in the digital environment and to formulate proposals for improving the criminal legislation of Ukraine. The object of the research comprises social relations arising in connection with such acts, while the subject includes criminal law provisions of Ukraine, the legislation of individual Member States of the European Union, doctrinal approaches, law enforcement practice, European digital standards, and mechanisms of digital evidence. The methodological framework consists of the dialectical, formal legal, comparative legal, systemic-structural, logical-legal, and functional methods, as well as methods of classification and legal modelling.
The dissertation distinguishes between the concepts of “photographic work”, “photographic image”, and “digital photographic material”. It is demonstrated that an image may have independent criminal law significance regardless of its copyright status, and that consent to the creation of a photograph does not automatically imply consent to its use, dissemination, digital modification, or combination with other content. The application of Articles 176, 182, 301, and 301-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is analysed, and the absence of a coherent legislative model for assessing photographic materials of a private nature, modified materials, synthetic materials, and deepfake materials is established.
The criteria for distinguishing criminally punishable use include the manner in which the material was obtained, the scope of consent, the nature of the modification, the method and scale of dissemination, intent, motive, purpose, and consequences for the victim. New forms of unlawful use are identified as deepfake images, synthetic media, the unauthorised dissemination of intimate materials, sexualised discrediting, blackmail, cyberbullying, and digital humiliation. The necessity of establishing the origin, authenticity, and integrity of a digital file, the fact of its modification, and the time and route of dissemination is substantiated, with the use of metadata, digital watermarks, timestamps, hash-matching, AI forensics, and other digital forensic tools.
The experience of Germany, France, and Poland is summarised, together with digital mechanisms such as the GDPR, the Digital Services Act, eIDAS, Notice-and-Takedown, Notice-and-Stay-Down, trusted flaggers, and blockchain-based recording. A comprehensive model of criminal law assessment is proposed, combining the subject matter of assessment, unlawful acts, an assessment algorithm, an evidentiary mechanism, and directions for improving criminal law responses. The scientific novelty lies in the substantiation of this model, the refinement of the conceptual distinction, and the further development of provisions concerning synthetic media, deepfake content, intimate materials, and digital evidence. The practical significance of the results lies in their potential use in law-making, law enforcement, scientific and educational activities, as well as in online platform responses to unlawful visual content. It is proposed to supplement Article 182 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine with a provision concerning the unlawful creation, digital modification, and use of photographic materials of a private or intimate nature without the voluntary consent of the person concerned.
The main conclusions confirm the necessity of taking into account the manner of digital circulation, the scope of consent, the nature of modification, the scale of dissemination, the direction of intent, and the consequences.
Keywords: photographic work; photographic image; copyright; intellectual
property; right to one’s image; privacy; consent to the use of an image; digital
environment; digital modification; deepfake image; martial law; evidence in
electronic form; electronic evidence; digital evidence; criminal liability
