DIGITAL IMAGE OF THE SUBJECT IN LAW: PROBLEMS OF THE CONCEPT DEFINITION

Abstract

The aim of the study is to overcome the terminological ambiguity of the concept of “digital image of a subject” (DIS) in law by systematizing existing approaches and developing a universal definition that integrates legal and technical aspects. The author analyzes five concepts that dominate the scientific literature: “general” (DIS as a set of data and IP addresses), “account” (emphasis on identification data in digital systems), “media approach” (visual representation through photo and video content), “avatar” (digital doubles in virtual environments) and “digitized consciousness” (neural networks that imitate behavior). The methodology includes a critical analysis of the limitations of each approach, such as the lack of clear criteria for identifying a subject, the risks of anonymity, the inconsistency of legislation with technological challenges (e.g. deepfakes, synthetic voices) and the difficulties of regulating collective digital profiles. Contradictions in the technical and legal understanding of the digital image system, the conflict between individual and collective subjectivity, and the uncertainty of the status of synthetic images are revealed. To resolve them, the author proposes a definition of the digital image system as a set of digital data that creates a representation of a real subject (an individual, legal entity, or public entity) in the digital space. It is emphasized that the digital image system is not an independent subject of law, but requires legal protection as an object that forms an online identity and influences automated decisions. The conclusion substantiates the need for a normative consolidation of a single definition of the digital image system, the development of mechanisms for identifying subjects and protecting against abuse, including the regulation of synthetic technologies. These measures will create a legal basis for adapting legislation to the challenges of digital transformation, ensuring a balance between innovation and the protection of the subjects’ rights.