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

Scope and Nature of the New Right

• Many commenters are unclear what “copyright” means here:
  • Is it a moral right (non-transferable, inheritable?) or an economic right (licensable, sellable)?
  • Does consent include buried terms in big-tech ToS?
• Some note that in much of Europe, you generally can’t sell “copyright in yourself” the way the article implies; you license use.
• Others suspect the article is using “copyright” loosely for what is really a likeness/personality right.

Existing Personality / Likeness Protections

• Several point out that many EU countries already have rights to one’s image/likeness (e.g., “right to one’s own image”) separate from copyright and trademarks.
• The Danish move is seen by some as an update for AI/deepfakes, not a revolution.
• These systems already juggle privacy vs public interest (e.g., politicians vs private citizens).

Deepfakes vs Photography, News, and CCTV

• Distinction stressed between:
  • Real photos/video (paparazzi, dashcams, CCTV, protest footage)
  • AI-generated “what never happened” deepfakes.
• Concerns:
  • Could this hinder news, documentation of police behavior, or public-space photography if misapplied?
  • Need explicit exceptions (freedom of panorama, incidental background faces, public interest reporting).
• Some argue defamation/slander laws already handle “fake events,” but others say deepfakes require specific tools.

Doppelgangers, Twins, and Collisions

• Repeated worry: if two people look alike, who controls the likeness?
• Suggested answers:
  • Each owns their own image; infringement requires intent to evoke a specific person.
  • In practice, this could still chill lookalike work or be used against people who resemble celebrities.
• Twins and celebrity impersonators are noted as hard edge cases.

Enforceability and Platform Behavior

• Skepticism about practical enforcement, especially for content hosted outside Denmark.
• Counterpoint: EU regulators have shown they can pressure global platforms; the issue is political will, not jurisdiction.
• Fear that, like current copyright, platforms may over-remove content on mere accusation.

Privacy vs Expression, Art, and Satire

• Supporters frame this primarily as privacy and dignity protection, especially against non-consensual sexual deepfakes and political smears.
• Critics see another expansion of IP logic into everyday life and artistic practice:
  • What about caricatures, parody, realistic painting from memory, or AI trained “inspired by” someone?
  • Risk of chilling satire and legitimate impersonation.
• Some argue deepfakes should be directly criminalized instead of shoehorned into copyright.

Cultural and Legal Context

• Discussion contrasts US “fair use” / weak privacy with stronger European and Japanese norms on image rights.
• There’s disagreement over how much privacy vs public safety and documentation should weigh, and concern about empowering both corporations and the state over individuals’ images.