When Jennifer, a 37-year-old psychotherapist in New York City, applied for a research job in 2023, she did something many professionals might consider: she ran her new headshot through a facial recognition program. Her goal was to check if the technology could locate explicit videos she had made over a decade earlier, when she was in her early 20s. The results were both unsettling and unexpected. Not only did the software find some of her old content, but it also surfaced something she had never encountered before—a video of her body, but with a different face attached.
“At first, I thought it was just a different person,” says Jennifer, who requested a pseudonym to protect her privacy. “But then I recognized a really garish background from a video I shot around 2013. And I realized, somebody used me in a deepfake.”
The facial recognition had identified her because the image still retained some of her original features—her cheekbones, her brow line, the shape of her chin. “It’s like I’m wearing somebody else’s face like a mask,” she adds.
The Unseen Victims of Deepfakes
Most discussions about nonconsensual intimate imagery (NCII) focus on the individuals whose faces are superimposed onto explicit content. These targets are often celebrities, though in recent years more ordinary people—mostly women and occasionally minors—have been affected, sparking public alarm, fear, and even legislative action. Yet these conversations rarely address the bodies onto which those faces are placed.
Jennifer’s experience highlights a critical but overlooked aspect: “There’s never any discussion about whose body is this?” she says.
Historically, the answer has been adult content creators. Deepfakes first gained notoriety in November 2017, when a Reddit user with the handle “deepfakes” posted videos featuring the faces of celebrities like Scarlett Johansson and Gal Gadot pasted onto porn actors’ bodies. The nonconsensual use of performers’ bodies “happens all the time” in deepfakes, notes Corey Silverstein, an attorney who specializes in adult industry law.
Whose Body Is This?
The origins of those bodies often go unexamined. While some deepfakes directly lift physical likenesses from explicit videos, the problem has grown far more complex with advances in generative AI. “Nudify” apps and other tools now allow users to create entirely synthetic images. In these cases, performers’ bodies are not simply copied—they become part of the training data that teaches AI how to generate realistic human forms, movements, and actions.
This development threatens the livelihood and rights of adult performers. Their work, often created with clear consent and compensation, is being used without permission to train AI models that could eventually replace them. As Silverstein explains, “It’s not just about a video or a photo—their entire professional future could be impacted.”
From Reddit to Reality: The Evolution of Deepfakes
When deepfakes first emerged, the technology was relatively crude—faces could be swapped onto existing videos, but the results often looked unnatural. Today, improvements in AI have made deepfakes far more convincing. What’s more, the range of victims has expanded. Celebrities still suffer, but now everyday individuals can be targeted using photos scraped from social media or other public sources.
Yet the bodies in these images are not neutral. They belong to real people, many of whom are adult performers whose careers depend on controlling how their likenesses are used. When those bodies are appropriated—without consent, credit, or compensation—it constitutes a form of exploitation.
The Growing Threat to Adult Content Creators
Performers in the adult industry already face stigma and limited legal protections. Deepfakes add a new layer of vulnerability. Because AI can now synthesize bodies without directly replicating any single source, it becomes nearly impossible for performers to prove that their specific likeness was used. This makes seeking legal recourse extremely difficult.
Moreover, the proliferation of AI-generated content threatens to saturate the market, potentially devaluing the work of real performers. If anyone can generate custom explicit images using an actor’s physical type or style, the demand for authentic, ethically produced content may decline—harming those who earn their living through such work.
Jennifer’s case is a stark reminder that consent in the digital age is not just about faces. “My body was used without my permission,” she says. “And that feels like a violation, even if my face isn’t on it.”
The Need for Greater Awareness and Protection
Currently, laws addressing deepfake pornography vary widely by jurisdiction and often focus on the harm to victims whose faces are used. Few statutes consider the rights of those whose bodies are repurposed. Advocates argue that legal definitions of nonconsensual intimate imagery should be broadened to include any use of a person’s likeness—including body, form, or movement—without explicit consent.
Meanwhile, tech companies and platforms have begun to develop detection tools and content moderation policies, but enforcement remains inconsistent. For adult performers, the lack of recognition means their trauma often goes unseen.
As Jennifer reflects, “When people talk about deepfakes, they talk about faces. But what about the rest of us? Our bodies are being used, and no one is asking how that affects us.”
The silence around this issue underscores the need for broader public awareness and stronger protections. Until the conversation includes the question of whose body is being used, the hidden victims of deepfakes will continue to suffer in the shadows.