this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2025
1191 points (96.9% liked)
interestingasfuck
8006 readers
15 users here now
interestingasfuck
founded 2 years ago
You are wonderful for bringing attention to this, and citizens of Denmark (all of EU?) should fight back. A difference is that the item you linked above is proposed versus the thread topic being supposedly voted on. I can't quickly find links to Denmark equivalents of US house/senate websites with voting info, probably due to language, so I can't prove the above -- but other reporting supports that Danish citizens own the copyright to their person by default now by law, but encryption backdoors are not law.
I highly, forcefully recommend that anyone who is able to do so push back against this proposal or any similar ones. For any "good-guy" who can break encryption, there will be thousands of bad-guys who can break it too. A back-door fundamentally breaks encryption. Technically, a service provider who does end-to-end encryption without a back-door simply cannot inspect content, as that is the whole fucking point. A law like this will only ensure that such providers cannot exist.
I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but for anyone even remotely swayed by the 'but children' aspect of this. This kind of access to your life is only wanted by people/companies/governments who want to be able to harvest your data for power or profit. They need an excuse to get their foot in the door and will rip it open the second they get a chance and invade your whole life for advertising dollars or to find political dissidents. "Give them an inch and they will take a mile", by imperial units.
Fight this shit.
I just wanted to bring to attention that no government should be put on a pedestal. From the outside it's easy to say "oh they're so enlightened in ", when they often do braindead stuff too.
When did this pass? I see news stories about the law being proposed a month ago, but nothing about its passage.
AI generated image.
Text but no source.
Vague engagement bait headline.
Yeah, it's Reddit Hours on Lemmy, folks.
How many times do you have to learn this lesson people. Never get your news from an unsourced image! Even if it does validate your worldview somehow. I guarantee you if the image in question said "new studies show socialism is bad and socialists are dumb" the top minds of Lemmy would be very quick to fact-check it.
And consider the source. If the source is "_____isgood.com" I'm not going to take you seriously.
Anal is lots of fun. I read that on analisgood.com... ;)
Well im sold
Cool... bend over... lol
AI generated image
I'm not sure if it is, but if so the irony would be wild.
[Note: I'm probably not an AI.]
I see nothing about this law being passed, only that a bill was introduced.
This is America. You will have every single bit of information known about you owned by every single tech company. So they can then sale it to everyone else.
In the U.S. the rights to our face, voice, and body will be available to us for a monthly subscription fee.
What happen with twins? As others say, privacy law approach is better than this...
Parents have to decide which twin is the official release
The other can be seen as a parody or a related work
load more comments
(1 replies)
AI: oh no! anyway
Sooo... is this image copyright infringement?
There are just so many weird cases, based on the wording. Would Youtube need to scan for Danes within all uploads to check for copyright violations? Which is obviously impossible.
IMO, better to get consumer protection laws in place early and refine them over time, than not at all.
The longer these things wait, the more time corpos have to get their influence in and either stop the efforts or water them down to be entirely ineffective.
Edit: Don't forget to read about it. https://www.globallawtoday.com/law/legal-news/2025/06/denmarks-groundbreaking-move-copyright-for-faces-and-voices/
But rushed and incomplete bills can come with bad implementations that make them useless
-this post is known to the state of California to cause cancer
load more comments
(2 replies)
I'd figure the scenario would be that YouTube would need to respect takedown request from people whose likeness had been appropriated, which isn't that absurd
load more comments
(3 replies)
Also, how many times have you seen a photo of someone that looks just like someone else that is entirely unrelated? Old photos in particular.
load more comments
(4 replies)
YOU WOULDN'T DOWNLOAD A FACE
But titties, pussy and dick... Heck yeah!
Wouldn’t matter, because in America all the big IT companies (Apple, Meta, Amazon etc.) would promptly add a line to their EULAs stating that by using their service, you grant them an irrevocable, transferable lifetime licence to your copyright.
Pretty sure that These Lines in eulas would not be valid.
In a nation with a functional judicial system, absolutely - but I wouldn’t put it past the current US Supreme Court to set another precedent.
Good that a denmark is not Part of the US. And that if US Company Wants to operate in another country they have to follow their rules
load more comments
(1 replies)
Them being forced to include these terms is a win in and of itself, but it still protects people who otherwise had no protections even if they didn't use these services.
load more comments
(3 replies)
America would never do this. You don't have any rights here. We have the right to remain silent and thats about it
You have the right, but will you have the ability when the water starts to pour?
load more comments
(5 replies)
You have the right to die and stay poor
load more comments
(1 replies)
I guess the age of influencer is now coming to an end. No where can be considered ‘public’ if copyright faces show up in the background.expectation of privacy is back on the menu.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Sounds like this is not true as written.
A copyright does not attach to a natural thing. It attaches to an original expression of a human author fixed in a tangible medium.
A photo or a painting of a face can have copyright protection, a face cannot.
A recording or mix including a voice can have copyright protection, a voice cannot.
I found something more informative over here:
With the new s. 73 a, a proposal is made to introduce a ban on deepfakes of natural persons' personal, physical characteristics. Personal, physical characteristics are to be understood as the traits and features that define a person and are unique to the individual, such as appearance, voice, movements, etc.
What is special about the proposed provision is that, unlike other provisions of the Copyright Act, it does not require the existence of a copyright-protected "work" or "performance", but the protection rather covers all natural persons. This applies regardless of whether they are artists or creators in the legal sense.
Thus, the protection comprises the unique characteristics of individuals, which are closely linked to one's person. For this reason, it is also proposed that consent to public disclosure must be given individually, and the area cannot be covered by a collective licence agreement.
The ban only applies to the public disclosure of deepfakes, meaning that there is nothing preventing deepfakes from being made available within the private sphere – such as at a private party or in relation to the right of reproduction.
This is a bit weird since normally copyright applies to works that someone has created. Typically they also have to involve creativity. For example, you can't protect a database with copyright, nor can you protect the rules of a game. But, you can protect the text used to explain the rules since that is something creative.
Your voice and body aren't typically seen as creative works. They're just the result of a genetic lottery played by your parents. But, I can vaguely see how you might be able to twist the typical rules to make it count. For example, people decide on hair styles and grooming. They choose their clothing and sometimes make-up. There is a creative process there and their body is the canvas. With that kind of concept of a body being a "creative work", any photograph of that body becomes a derivative work, as would any AI version of that person.
But, this seems like the wrong approach to me. If someone has a copyright on their body, then under typical copyright rules, they can assign their copyright to someone else. Most likely, a model would have to assign the right to her body's copyright to a modelling agency. After she did that, she couldn't even take a selfie because she'd be infringing on the modelling agency's copyright.
Privacy rules make more sense, look at Germany's photographic privacy laws for example.
If the focus is on copyright, then if someone sneaks a camera into a changing room, they can only be charged with copyright violations. If they give the photos away for free, then in many cases the punishment for copyright infringement is minimal. But, if the laws are about protecting privacy, then it doesn't matter if it was a commercial copyright infringement or if it was simply collecting someone's nude photo for personal use. The issue isn't the copyright infringement, it's the privacy violation.
load more comments
(8 replies)
When I was a kid and wanted to see porn of a certain person or celebrity, i found a look a like porn actress like god intended!
load more comments
(2 replies)
Great in theory but seems almost impossible to enforce outside of their own country. Should be interesting to see how it works out though.
This is what crossed my mind. This seems like the kind of thing we all know would be nice but enforcing it is going to be really tricky.
What happens when one identical twin gives deep fake permission? The other implicitly has it created as well despite not giving permission. That is just what I thought of in 20 seconds, I am sure there are plenty of other examples.
It will be interesting to see how the enforcement goes with this. I suspect it will primarily be used in small one-off cases and not something at large.
I'm a twin. Who owns the face? Implicit trust with two sigs required?
load more comments
(3 replies)
You would think that would be a given, but here we are in this timeline
load more comments
(3 replies)
i thought that was already copyright law? isn't that why you can't photograph people without model release forms?
No, that's due to likeness rights and privacy concerns. Copyright protects creative expression and your face and body are not themselves creative expressions-- they just are. This is why you also don't get copyright protection over purely statistical data.
I don't get it. Deep fakes were still ilegal as it's an attempt against honor and fabricated defamation. Training would still fall under "fair use" as any other copyright media. What's changed?
People will still create deepfakes (you know what I mean, lol). Although they'd need to be stupid to share them online.
view more: next ›