Denmark to tackle deepfakes by giving people copyright to their own features

2025-06-274:39145127www.theguardian.com

Amendment to law will strengthen protection against digital imitations of people’s identities, government says

The Danish government is to clamp down on the creation and dissemination of AI-generated deepfakes by changing copyright law to ensure that everybody has the right to their own body, facial features and voice.

The Danish government said on Thursday it would strengthen protection against digital imitations of people’s identities with what it believes to be the first law of its kind in Europe.

Having secured broad cross-party agreement, the department of culture plans to submit a proposal to amend the current law for consultation before the summer recess and then submit the amendment in the autumn.

It defines a deepfake as a very realistic digital representation of a person, including their appearance and voice.

The Danish culture minister, Jakob Engel-Schmidt, said he hoped the bill before parliament would send an “unequivocal message” that everybody had the right to the way they looked and sounded.

He told the Guardian: “In the bill we agree and are sending an unequivocal message that everybody has the right to their own body, their own voice and their own facial features, which is apparently not how the current law is protecting people against generative AI.”

He added: “Human beings can be run through the digital copy machine and be misused for all sorts of purposes and I’m not willing to accept that.”

The move, which is believed to have the backing of nine in 10 MPs, comes amid rapidly developing AI technology that has made it easier than ever to create a convincing fake image, video or sound to mimic the features of another person.

The changes to Danish copyright law will, once approved, theoretically give people in Denmark the right to demand that online platforms remove such content if it is shared without consent.

It will also cover “realistic, digitally generated imitations” of an artist’s performance without consent. Violation of the proposed rules could result in compensation for those affected.

The government said the new rules would not affect parodies and satire, which would still be permitted.

skip past newsletter promotion

“Of course this is new ground we are breaking, and if the platforms are not complying with that, we are willing to take additional steps,” said Engel-Schmidt.

Other European countries, he hopes, will follow Denmark’s lead. He plans to use Denmark’s forthcoming EU presidency to share its plans with his European counterparts.

If tech platforms do not respond accordingly to the new law, they could be subject to “severe fines”, he said, and it could become a matter for the European Commission. “That is why I believe the tech platforms will take this very seriously indeed,” he added.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By TrackerFF 2025-06-277:287 reply

    I wonder how that works for very similar looking people.

    There's one photographer, François Brunelle, who has a project where he takes pictures of doppelgängers: http://www.francoisbrunelle.com/webn/e-project.html

    • By m4tthumphrey 2025-06-278:412 reply

      This is very odd. Hardly any of them look alike let alone doppelgänger status...

    • By Fire-Dragon-DoL 2025-06-2816:07

      Twins become a big legal issue, then

    • By snthpy 2025-06-2718:161 reply

      Fascinating. I wonder how he finds them?

      • By rightbyte 2025-06-2719:27

        "He’s spent nearly 25 years locating pairs of these identical strangers and inviting them into his studios"

        Dunno. Grit?

    • By cesarb 2025-06-2710:301 reply

      > I wonder how that works for very similar looking people.

      AFAIK, copyright allows for independent creation (unlike patents), so unless one person had deliberately copied the other's appearance, there should be no problem.

      • By lifeisstillgood 2025-06-2720:05

        Suddenly Mystique from the X-Men looks like being an expensive superpower …

    • By twiceaday 2025-06-278:051 reply

      To me #3 sort of looks similar, but everybody else is clearly not close to similar.

    • By dominicrose 2025-06-278:231 reply

      This reminds me of conspiracy theories about famous people having doubles.

    • By hopelite 2025-06-278:482 reply

      There are indeed many people that look very similar, and that will only increase if the efforts to eradicate uniqueness and actual separated diversity are successful, but there is also a lesson in the basic concept of, similar is not same. A single wrinkle more or less or a shift in an angle, and it’s not you anymore. The whole concept of likeness is a spurious one at best, akin to how the aristocracy functioned in the past where e.g., the depiction of their profile on a coin was a means of control too.

      I was just recently trying to find an associate from my past with an unfortunately common whole full name in his language and was rather surprised at how many of the people depicted online with his name looked extremely similar to him, but upon closer discernment were surely not him. How do you discern that a “deepfake” (what a dumb term) is similar to you and not just similar to anyone else?

      Also, what if AI is just trained with images of you? The consequent image will similarly only be an inspiration of you, not you, not the same as even using images in an attempt to graft a very similar facial feature onto an image or map it into a video.

      It is in fact also what artists do in physical medium, they look at something/someone and are inspired by it to create an illusion that gives the impression of similarity, but it is not that thing/person. Will this new law possibly make art illegal too because people have not thought this through?

      On a digital screen, it is of course also not you at all, it is individual pixels that fool the mind or give an illusion. It is really a pernicious muddling of reality and logic we have allowed to emerge, where the impression of depiction is the property of someone even though it is not that person, but also only if it is the means for control, ie money. Mere peasants have no control over their image taken in public.

      The Sphere in Vegas is another good example of this on a large scale, each “pixel” is roughly 6” apart from the other and about 2” in diameter, for all intents and purposes separate objects, each only projecting one array of colors in a matrix of individual LEDs. Up close it looks no different than a colored LED matrix, only when you stand sufficiently far away is your mind tricked into believing you see something that is not really there.

      Frankly, these moves to “protect” are very much a direct assault on free expression and even may create unintended consequences if art exceptions do not apply anymore either. Is it now illegal for me to paint a nude, how about from an image that I took of someone? What about if I do it really well from my own memory? What about if I use a modeling tool to recreate such a nude as a digital 3D object from images or even memory? Is AI not also simply a tool? Or is it more?

      • By JimDabell 2025-06-279:471 reply

        > How do you discern that a “deepfake” (what a dumb term) is similar to you and not just similar to anyone else?

        Presumably the only reason to use a deepfake of a specific person is to produce things specifically in relation to that person. Otherwise, why bother? So “is this about the individual or just coincidence?” isn’t likely to be a factor in any complaint made. This seems like a hypothetical rather than something that is likely to need answering in practice.

        • By hopelite 2025-06-2710:051 reply

          You are missing the malicious intent. Maybe I simply claim that whatever you created is a “deepfake” of me and now you owe me. I’ll just assume you have heard of parent trolls? Wanted to make a very we will see AI/Deepfake trolls?

          You presume both too much and not enough.

          • By JimDabell 2025-06-2710:081 reply

            > Maybe I simply claim that whatever you created is a “deepfake” of me and now you owe me.

            How are you going to do that unless it actually looks like you?

            • By j-bos 2025-06-2712:151 reply

              Given a large enough set of generated character there will be many that look like some real person. The cited "you" could refer to any of aesthetic collisions.

              • By JimDabell 2025-06-2715:261 reply

                Yes, and what happens when they try to argue that somebody made a deepfake of some random person and they are asked what the motive is? Or when it goes through discovery and it’s plainly obvious deepfakes weren’t used? Courts aren’t gullible automatons.

                • By j-bos 2025-06-2812:58

                  You're right, they're not. But if it plays out anything like copyright enforcement on the web today, distribution platforms will take down more things without a whiff of court intervention.

      • By intended 2025-06-2710:08

        The amazing thing is that we have different countries and they can all do their own thing.

        Then we see how they’re doing and decide - hey let’s not be like them.

  • By Quarondeau 2025-06-279:582 reply

    I welcome the initiative. At the same time, there probably needs to be some kind of "freedom of panorama" exception to take and use pictures where someone's likeness just happens to be featured incidentally/in the background, like pictures of tourist attractions, public events, urban photography etc.

    Otherwise everyday photography in public spaces would become legally risky or impractical, especially in crowded areas where avoiding all faces is nearly impossible and where the focus clearly isn't on the individuals but the landmark or scene itself.

    • By nopcode 2025-06-2711:17

      The problem of filming/photographing in public is not new and this type of legislation already exists in many (all?) European countries and falls under existing privacy laws...

      If a deepfake is made of someone, that person was clearly the subject of the image/video and thus violates his/her privacy. This extra legislation would help protect in case the original image/video was taken with consent (so no privacy issue).

    • By wizzwizz4 2025-06-2711:021 reply

      There are image processing techniques that can remove the people from a crowded shot, allowing you to take pictures of landmarks during the day as though there are no people around.

      • By horsawlarway 2025-06-2711:441 reply

        Yes, but this is also fake.

        • By wizzwizz4 2025-06-2811:27

          Taking the median pixel values of a set of photographs isn't particularly fake. You might end up with the shadows being a bit off, but not noticeably so.

  • By sjducb 2025-06-276:505 reply

    I think this is great. It’s similar to the rights that brands have.

    Imagine I drew a Coca Cola logo in paint. Now I own the copyright to my picture of the Coca Cola logo. Next I stick it on my new brand of soda. That’s not allowed.

    Coca-cola own rights to their logo. You should own rights to your face and voice.

    • By rpdillon 2025-06-2713:17

      This is a bit of an unfortunate example because it mixes copyright law and trademark law, which are very different in their character.

      I think your conclusion is correct, but the child comments mentioning fair use would not apply because fair use is a copyright concept, not a trademark concept. And I'm really only familiar with US laws, so I'm not even sure if fair use is a concept in Denmark or not. They have a different notion of copyright than we do in the US.

      That said, I think Denmark did the wrong thing here. I think face and identity is much closer to a trademark than it is to something that is a created piece of artwork. Trademark law is a little bit narrower because it allows you to use the trademark to refer to the company, but it prohibits you from using the trademark to confuse customers about whether this is an authentic product. This feels quite analogous to the issue that Denmark is trying to address with the deep fakes, so I'm a little bit surprised on the copyright angle, since I can imagine a lot of legitimate uses for taking a picture of someone without needing their permission and distributing it. CCTVs, traffic cams, mug shots, police body cams, and the ever-increasing trend of recording in any situation that becomes tense or dangerous. Will a civilian be told by the cop that he's violating copyright because they want to film the interaction with the police? This reminds me of when cops would play Taylor Swift loudly in the background so that people couldn't post videos of the interaction on YouTube.

    • By eesmith 2025-06-278:59

      You must distinguish between copyright and trademark.

      Andy Warhol drew images of Campbell's soup cans in paint. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_Soup_Cans

      He controlled the copyright to that painting. That's transformative, and the result does not meaningfully affect Campbell's ability to trade.

      Quoting that Wikipedia link: "Although Campbell's never pursued litigation against Warhol for his art, United States Supreme Court justices have stated that it is likely Warhol would have prevailed.", with two quotes from two Supreme Court cases.

      The second such quote is from Neil Gorsuch: "Campbell's Soup seems to me an easy case because the purpose of the use for Andy Warhol was not to sell tomato soup in the supermarket...It was to induce a reaction from a viewer in a museum or in other settings."

      On the other hand, were Warhol to stick his copyrighted images on a new brand of soup, that would violate trademark law as it would confuse buyers.

    • By mongol 2025-06-277:387 reply

      But how would that work for news reporting? Imagine a politician doing something stupid in public. Should it not be possible to broadcast that if he disallows it?

      • By smoe 2025-06-2710:371 reply

        In Switzerland, where people have the legal right to control whether and how their image may be photographed and published, exemptions are made if the image/person is of public interest. This is decided on a case-by-case basis, so the news org has to be willing to argue this in court.

        Let's say, as an example, a married politician having an affair with someone. Generally, news sites will publish photos with the face of the politician visible but would blur the other person. The former is clearly a person of public interest, the latter is not. Even if it's a photo taken in a public space.

        • By bediger4000 2025-06-2712:511 reply

          Interesting concept. Case-by-case basis means that in practice only the rich and corporations have access to their exceptions, analogous to US copyright "fair use", which is on a litigated, case by case basis.

          • By unaindz 2025-06-2713:16

            In Switzerland and probably most or all EU countries. For example, in Spain, the schools need a signed form allowing each student's picture to be published.

            The issue of money gatekeeping legal rights is another issue entirely which should be addressed for everything, not just this specific problem. It's also, in my opinion, a lot more prevalent in the US than the rest of the first world countries.

      • By rsynnott 2025-06-277:421 reply

        Would likely fall under fair use or an analogous right in most places. If Coca-cola does something stupid, they do not have the ability to censor depictions of their logo from reporting on it.

        • By tfourb 2025-06-2719:17

          Probably worth noting that "fair use" is a concept based in US law and jurisprudence. The law in many EU jurisdictions works quite differently.

      • By sjducb 2025-06-2713:561 reply

        This isn’t about real photos of things that actually happened. This is about AI generated imagery.

        So it’s not a photo of a politician doing something bad. It’s an AI recreation of what they are alleged to have done.

        The law does have to be written very carefully.

        • By Yeul 2025-06-2719:16

          Slander is already illegal no? Not that it stops all kinds of smear campaigns and alternative truths.

      • By impossiblefork 2025-06-278:49

        Think of that like reproducing a particularly ill-conceived Coca Cola advertisement.

        Then, when someone uses their face to promote something, someone else can repeat the face with what it promotes.

        So I think the whole thing actually works in this particular case.

      • By xboxnolifes 2025-06-277:562 reply

        It works the same way as news currently does. You can report on people, but you can't take a picture of someone and use it as your brand's model/logo.

        • By aqme28 2025-06-278:31

          But you mostly already couldn't do that, right?

          What specific behaviors does this forbid that weren't already forbidden?

        • By HenryBemis 2025-06-278:56

          There is the (helpful to distinguish) 'gap' here. The media org that will report on a politician (for good or bad), will use the politician's 'news-PR-approved-actual-photo-provided-by-the-politician's-PR-team' (the serious one for war-news, the smiling one for the tax-breaks, and so on). They won't deepfake/use midjourney to create a photo of the politician eating an ice-cream while a pigeon is pooping on him (something that Colbert/Kimmel/Meyes/et al would do - clearly as a parody).

          But me (not really) on my website (I don't have one) where I trash politicians (I don't) and post a photo of said politician eating poop, that should be 'frowned upon'. (Or worse to shame an ex-gf or a colleague that 'won't yield to my sexual advances').

          While reading the article though, I thought of the cases where a paparazzo takes a photo of CelebrityA, then the CelebrityA posts said photo to her Insta (without getting permission from the agency) and the agency sues her. Now (in Denmark) the CelebrityA can sue the paparazzo for taking her photo in the first place (right?). This would protect people from getting uncomfortable photos.

      • By nashashmi 2025-06-279:53

        That could come under fair use. Like if you had a coke can on film, you could broadcast it. But you could not apply the coke brand on some other product.

    • By LocalH 2025-06-278:021 reply

      How do you plan on handling dopplegangers? They looks extremely similar (if not twin-like), yet they should each own the rights to their image and features.

      • By reustle 2025-06-2710:04

        Not sure why you're downvoted, it's an entirely valid question.

        What we'll probably see is, celebrity look-alikes will be contacted to license out their own "features".

    • By RataNova 2025-06-277:131 reply

      It's kind of wild that brands have had more robust protections than actual people when it comes to identity

      • By tfourb 2025-06-2719:20

        They don't, really. At least in Germany, the "right to one's likeness" already exists as an explicit law but entirely separate from copyright and trademark law, which is what governs brand likeness.

        What Denmark is proposing is simply an extension of the existing safeguards that many EU countries, as well as EU legislation generally, already provide regarding the control of their citizens over their likeness. It is not really revolutionary but a sensible addition in the light of technological advancements.

HackerNews