Denmark Moves to Give People Copyright Protection | DISABLED ENTREPRENEUR

Written by Editor

Disclaimer: This article is for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws relating to artificial intelligence, copyright, privacy, data protection and digital identity are developing rapidly. Anyone affected by impersonation, deepfakes, identity misuse or unauthorised use of their image or voice should seek appropriate professional legal advice relevant to their jurisdiction.

Denmark’s Groundbreaking Attempt to Protect Human Identity in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence has made it possible to generate remarkably convincing photographs, videos and audio recordings of people who never actually said, did or participated in the things depicted.

Denmark is attempting to address this rapidly developing problem by changing its copyright legislation to give individuals significantly greater control over realistic digital reproductions of their personal characteristics.

The proposals have commonly been described as giving people a legal right to their own body, face and voice.

However, the legal position is slightly more nuanced. Rather than granting conventional copyright ownership of a person’s physical body, Denmark’s proposal would introduce specific legal protection against the unauthorised publication of realistic digitally generated imitations of someone’s personal physical characteristics.

These could include:

Facial appearance and likeness;
Voice;
Physical appearance;
Movements and mannerisms;
Other characteristics capable of identifying an individual.

The Danish Government and a broad group of political parties originally reached an agreement on stronger protection against digital imitations in June 2025. The subsequent draft legislation was notified to the European Commission as an amendment to Denmark’s Copyright Act.

The proposal therefore represents an important attempt to answer one of the defining legal questions of the AI era:

Who should control your digital identity, you, or whoever has the technology to reproduce it?

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/27/deepfakes-denmark-copyright-law-artificial-intelligence

What Is a Deepfake?

A deepfake is digitally generated or manipulated content that realistically imitates a person, event or situation.

Artificial intelligence can now reproduce a person’s face, expressions and voice with increasingly convincing accuracy.

Someone could potentially create a video appearing to show an individual:

Making political statements they never made;
Endorsing a company or product;
Committing inappropriate or criminal acts;
Participating in sexually explicit material;
Giving financial instructions;
Making discriminatory or offensive comments;
Appearing in advertisements without permission;
Speaking words they never said.

Voice-cloning technology introduces another dimension.

A relatively small sample of someone’s speech may potentially allow artificial intelligence to reproduce aspects of their voice and generate entirely new sentences.

This creates obvious implications for fraud, misinformation, harassment, reputational damage and identity theft.

What Is Denmark Proposing?

The draft amendment to the Danish Copyright Act introduces two significant protections.

The first is general protection against the unauthorised publication of realistic digitally generated imitations of an individual’s personal characteristics.

The second provides additional protection for performers and artists against realistic digital reproductions of their performances or artistic presentations without consent.

For ordinary individuals, the principle is particularly significant.

Where a digitally generated imitation creates a realistic risk of somebody being confused with the real individual, making that imitation available to the public could potentially be unlawful unless consent has been obtained.

The legislation is deliberately technologically neutral.

This matters because deepfakes do not necessarily have to be produced using sophisticated generative AI. Digital editing technologies will continue evolving, and legislation written around one particular type of software could quickly become obsolete.

Protection Extending Beyond Death

Another striking aspect of the Danish approach is its proposed duration.

The European Parliamentary Research Service reported that protection under the proposed framework would continue for 50 years following the death of the person concerned.

This could become increasingly important as AI technology develops.

Without appropriate safeguards, deceased actors, musicians, politicians, authors, celebrities and ordinary citizens could potentially be digitally recreated long after their deaths.

The issue raises profound questions about consent, dignity, reputation and who should control someone’s digital likeness after they have died.

It Does Not Mean That Every AI Image Becomes Illegal

The legislation is not intended to prohibit artificial intelligence or prevent legitimate creative expression.

There are proposed exceptions intended to protect freedom of expression.

These include circumstances involving:

Satire;
Parody;
Caricature;
Pastiche;
Criticism of those exercising power;
Social criticism.

However, those protections are not necessarily unlimited.

The proposed rules recognise that expression must be balanced against circumstances in which manipulated content could seriously threaten another person’s rights or essential interests.

That distinction is important.

There is a considerable difference between an obvious satirical image of a politician and an extremely realistic fabricated video deliberately designed to convince voters that the politician said something they never said.

Deepfakes Are About More Than Copyright

The Danish approach is particularly interesting because copyright law has traditionally protected creative works rather than human identity itself.

A person’s face is not normally treated in the same way as a book, photograph, song or film.

Denmark is effectively using copyright legislation to create something resembling a personality right over realistic digital reproductions.

There is nevertheless debate about whether copyright law is the most appropriate mechanism.

Other possibilities include privacy law, data protection, image rights, media regulation, electoral law and specific legislation governing artificial intelligence.

Whatever legal mechanism countries ultimately choose, the underlying problem remains the same:

Technology has developed the ability to reproduce human identity faster than many legal systems have developed mechanisms to protect it.

The EU AI Act and Deepfakes

Denmark’s proposals also operate alongside the European Union’s wider artificial intelligence framework.

The EU AI Act contains transparency requirements concerning certain AI-generated or manipulated content.

Those deploying AI systems to create or manipulate image, audio or video content constituting deepfakes are generally required to disclose that the material has been artificially generated or manipulated, subject to particular exceptions and safeguards.

Most of the relevant EU AI Act provisions became applicable from 2 August 2026.

Denmark’s copyright proposal goes further in an important respect.

Labelling something as artificial does not necessarily answer the question of whether somebody had permission to digitally reproduce another person’s identity in the first place.

Transparency and consent are separate issues.

Why Deepfake Laws Matter for Disabled People

Deepfake technology also presents particular concerns for disabled and vulnerable people.

People with learning disabilities, cognitive impairments or limited digital literacy may find increasingly sophisticated AI-generated material difficult to distinguish from genuine communications.

Voice cloning could potentially be used by criminals pretending to be:

Family members;
Carers;
Doctors;
Social workers;
Government officials;
Banks;
Employers.

Someone hearing what appears to be the genuine voice of a trusted relative asking for urgent financial assistance may reasonably believe that the call is authentic.

Digital inclusion therefore increasingly needs to include AI literacy.

People should be encouraged to independently verify unexpected requests involving money, passwords, banking details or sensitive personal information, even when the person on the telephone appears to sound familiar.

Disability, Speech and Voice-Cloning Technology

There is another important dimension to this debate.

Artificial intelligence voice technology can be enormously beneficial.

People who lose their natural speaking voice because of neurological conditions, motor neurone disease, stroke, cancer or other disabilities may potentially use synthetic or cloned speech technologies to preserve or recreate aspects of their original voice.

AI therefore should not automatically be portrayed as the problem.

The fundamental issue is consent and control.

A person choosing to digitally preserve their own voice for assistive communication is completely different from a third party copying that voice without permission.

Good AI regulation should distinguish between beneficial assistive technology and malicious impersonation.

Could Someone Create a Digital Version of You?

This question will become increasingly relevant.

Imagine discovering a website containing an AI-generated person who:

Looks like you;
Sounds like you;
Uses your name;
Describes similar professional services;
Publishes articles apparently written by you;
Appears in promotional videos;
Communicates with potential clients.

The consequences could extend far beyond embarrassment.

Such impersonation could damage professional reputation, mislead customers and potentially facilitate fraud.

For entrepreneurs, journalists, influencers, politicians, academics and professionals whose identity is closely associated with their work, their face and voice increasingly form part of their economic and professional identity.

Businesses Must Also Think About Digital Identity

Organisations using generative AI should develop clear policies governing synthetic people and digital replicas.

Before generating content reproducing a recognisable individual, organisations should consider:

Whether the individual has given informed consent.
What the generated material will be used for.
Whether viewers could mistake it for genuine footage.
Whether the individual’s voice or likeness is being commercially exploited.
Whether the material is clearly identified as AI-generated where required.
How consent can subsequently be withdrawn.
How synthetic identity data is stored and protected.

Consent should become an important part of responsible AI governance.

What About the United Kingdom?

Denmark’s approach may become highly relevant beyond its borders.

The UK already has various laws capable of addressing particular forms of deepfake abuse, including laws relating to fraud, data protection, harassment, defamation, intellectual property and certain intimate-image offences.

However, these protections do not necessarily amount to a single universal property right allowing every individual to control all digital reproductions of their face, body and voice.

That leaves an important policy question for Parliament:

Should British citizens have an explicit legal right to control realistic AI reproductions of their identity?

As generative AI becomes more sophisticated, relying on legislation designed before realistic voice cloning and video generation existed may become increasingly difficult.

The Danish experiment therefore deserves close attention from UK lawmakers.

AI Companies and Social Media Platforms Have Responsibilities Too

Legislation cannot operate effectively without cooperation from technology companies.

Social-media and content-sharing platforms need efficient mechanisms allowing people to report realistic impersonations.

AI developers should also continue strengthening safeguards against misuse of generative systems.

Possible safeguards include:

Digital watermarking;
Content credentials;
AI-generation metadata;
Voice-cloning consent mechanisms;
Identity verification;
Detection technology;
Rapid impersonation reporting systems.

No safeguard will eliminate abuse completely, but making digital content easier to authenticate could significantly reduce opportunities for deception.

The Difference Between AI Assistance and AI Impersonation

It is important not to confuse legitimate artificial intelligence use with deepfake abuse.

AI can help people write, communicate, research, translate, learn, work and overcome accessibility barriers.

The problem arises when technology is used to deceive others about a person’s identity or actions.

There is a fundamental difference between:

AI helping someone communicate

and

AI pretending to be someone without their permission.

Responsible legislation should preserve the enormous social and economic benefits of artificial intelligence while creating meaningful consequences for those who deliberately weaponise it.

Could Denmark Become a Model for Other Countries?

Denmark’s proposals could influence future European and international legislation.

The European Parliamentary Research Service has already examined whether the Danish approach could become a model for the wider European Union.

Countries now face a difficult reality.

For generations, seeing photographic or video evidence and hearing someone’s voice provided powerful evidence that an event had actually occurred.

Generative AI is eroding that assumption.

The legal system therefore has to evolve from asking simply:

“Who owns this photograph?”

towards asking:

“Who owns the right to digitally reproduce the human being appearing within it?”

That is a much bigger question.

Conclusion

Denmark’s attempt to strengthen protection against AI-generated deepfakes represents an important development in the relationship between technology, copyright and human identity.

Artificial intelligence itself is neither inherently good nor inherently harmful. Its impact depends largely on how it is designed, regulated and used.

AI can empower disabled people, improve accessibility, support businesses and transform communication.

But the ability to replicate someone’s face, movements and voice without permission creates risks that society cannot ignore.

The principle emerging from Denmark is remarkably simple:

Your identity should remain yours, even when technology can reproduce it.

As artificial intelligence becomes capable of creating increasingly convincing digital versions of real human beings, governments may ultimately need to recognise that protecting identity is no longer simply a question of privacy.

It is becoming a fundamental question of consent, autonomy and human rights in the digital age.