By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Danish government is planning to amend copyright law to protect individuals from AI-generated deepfakes by granting them ownership over their likeness, voice, and facial features. This proposed law, which enjoys cross-party support, aims to combat the misuse of digital imitations. Once approved, the legislation will allow individuals to demand the removal of unauthorized deepfake content and could result in compensation for those affected, with potential for severe fines for non-compliant tech platforms. The government intends to use its upcoming EU presidency to share these plans and encourage other European countries to adopt similar protections, hoping to send a clear message about individual rights in the age of AI.
Read the original article here
Denmark to tackle deepfakes by giving people copyright to their own features. Well, isn’t this a fascinating development? The idea of granting individuals copyright over their own voice, face, and body is a bold move, a direct response to the growing threat of AI-generated deepfakes. It’s like giving everyone a digital shield, allowing them to demand the removal of any content that misrepresents them. And the best part? It’s automatically granted, no complicated registration process needed.
This automatic copyright is a crucial detail. It avoids the bureaucratic hurdles that would otherwise bog down such a system. Imagine the chaos of a massive database filled with faces, voices, and bodies – a digital nightmare. This approach, where the copyright springs into existence with the individual’s existence, is much more practical. And the allowance of parody is a smart move, acknowledging the creative space and not stifling it.
However, the legal complexities start to emerge when we consider the practicalities. Let’s say someone has a striking resemblance to a celebrity. Suddenly, a potential copyright infringement battle begins. Or what about the issue of twins? Do they share the copyright, or does the first-born take precedence? It’s this kind of nuanced and grey area that the courts will have to untangle.
The question of public filming also arises. Can you be held liable if your likeness is captured in the background of a YouTube video or a public scene? And what about those who are not Danish citizens? How can they benefit from this protection? Navigating this legal landscape will undoubtedly require clarity and adaptation. This situation is made all the more relevant considering the recent viral deepfakes of the late Pope Francis.
The enforcement of this law is going to be a challenge. Proving that an AI model was trained on a specific individual’s features will require advanced techniques and potentially create a privacy minefield. Moreover, the idea of using someone’s likeness for advertising could easily lead to disputes.
The evolution of this is going to bring up many creative workarounds. Think of the ways people could potentially exploit the system. Like someone using the name of a celebrity and using their opinions in advertising but not using the celebrity’s likeness. This could certainly create a lot of grey areas.
The issue of look-alikes adds another layer of complexity. If someone naturally resembles you, can you sue them for copyright infringement? The legal precedent already exists, and this law is simply formalizing a pre-existing reality: copyright protects against replication, not simply general likeness.
The potential for legal battles over this is very real. This law, in principle, gives people the right to defend their likeness, but it will undoubtedly lead to its fair share of cases. The practical ramifications extend to everything from public filming to the use of AI in advertising and could get very interesting.
The legal system is going to need to address some pretty interesting questions, one of the most interesting of which will be how this works with twins. The legal system will also need to tackle the nuances of digital copyright. The main idea is to give people the ability to demand removal of content. So, it’s not all that different from existing mechanisms, like the DMCA, but instead focused on a specific feature and the ability to remove it.
The government of Denmark has a responsibility and the ability to make the situation better by being able to go to a platform and demand the removal of content. Because that is ultimately the goal, this isn’t much worse. With that being said, there are going to be all sorts of scenarios that fall outside of that. And in these cases, they’ll still have to go through the courts to get things sorted out. In this regard, there may be some added nuance to this scenario, but on the whole, this may not be a complete catastrophe.
Ultimately, in Denmark, the losing party generally pays for the legal fees of the winner. If there’s a real likelihood of winning, then people will bother. But it all comes down to whether someone is actually doing something egregious with someone’s likeness and whether it is considered an infringement.
So, like that. Well, there isn’t a centralized database of copyrighted faces needed. Instead, it’s a case of suing someone for using your likeness without your permission. Considering how much of our data is available to corporations, it’s odd to get upset about this type of measure. And the fact that this happens automatically is a massive advantage. Denmark is among the leaders in human rights and is just trying to establish the rights to protect the people of Denmark.