Taking a pornographic movie and putting someone's face in place of one of the actor's does not violate their privacy in any way, since nothing private was shared that wasn't private before (their face).
Sharing a photo on Facebook doesn’t imply a public license for any pervert to use it for pornography. Don’t complain when that gets codified in law either — people like you are way too cavalier with other people’s livelihoods.
People are too entitled in trying to own a look. Can I spread porn fakes of myself? What if I look identical to Taylor Swift? Do I lose my right to free expression?
Blame Disney, not me. And I'd argue most individual people are interested in controlling what is done with their own visage more than anything. It's the same legal logic as revenge porn laws. If you are my enemy, all I have to do is find your sibling's Instagram account and I could make entire <yourlastname>hub website.
> What if I look identical to Taylor Swift? Do I lose my right to free expression?
Taylor Swift's corporate legal team would already do a pretty fine job of excising that right from you. No additional legislation needed.
Now, if you are trading commercially on the appearance similarity in a way which presents, either explicitly or implicitly on your images as Swift’s, then you open yourself up to right of publicity claims in some jurisdictions, and the same may be true of revenge porn laws in some jurisdiction, even without the context being commercial.
If you genuinely believe that my kosher, not-Swift deep fakes would ever legally survive -- regardless of context/provenance claims -- then I have a bridge to sell you.
No they could not easily sue and win, especially if no money was exchanged and the video wasn't presented by the maker as a actually being of the video in question. There are plenty of porn sites who's sole existence is deep faking rich and powerful people performing sex acts. Those sites use the word FAKE or something akin to that in the title/intro of the video to add some protection.