The NPC says your face in an AI photo is your data, and you can demand it be removed

The National Privacy Commission published a notice to the public on Tuesday afternoon, August 11, on the use of real people's faces in AI-generated images. Its position is short: your face and likeness are personal information under Republic Act 10173, the Data Privacy Act of 2012. Feeding a real person's face into an AI tool, then posting or sharing what comes out, is handling that person's personal data, no matter why you made it.

The commission pointed at two parts of the law. Section 25 covers unauthorized processing, which means handling someone's data with no lawful reason behind it, and it carries criminal penalties plus possible civil and administrative liability. Section 16(e) gives the person in the picture a separate right: if the data about them is false, they can demand it be blocked, removed, or destroyed. The commission called a fabricated image false personal data, since it shows someone doing something they never did, saying something they never said, or being somewhere they never were.

Why it matters

This is the part most people can actually use. If your face turns up in an AI photo or video you did not agree to, you can demand its removal from whoever posted or spread it, and you can file a complaint with the commission. The commission can then investigate, either from your complaint or on its own, and issue compliance or cease-and-desist orders while it does. It can send copies of those orders to the platform hosting the content and to other government agencies. It also said it will treat complaints involving the likenesses of minors with utmost priority.

The notice covers public officials too. They are data subjects like everyone else, and the commission's reasoning is that a fake image shows no real conduct, so it tells the public nothing about how an official does the job. Relatives who hold no public office, especially minor children, get the full protection of the law.

The catch to watch

This is a reminder of an existing 2012 law, not a new rule, and nothing about it is automatic. Satire, parody, commentary, and news reporting can be covered by free speech and by the law's carve-out for journalistic, artistic, and literary work, but the commission said that depends on the case: whether the image is passed off as real, whether it is labeled as AI-made, and whether the person's actual photorealistic face was even needed. Removal also still runs through a complaint and through the platform, so how fast anything comes down is not the commission's call alone.