because one needs democracy to decide what would their tax money fund
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.
Just a license to the rights.
Sorry, that is unavailable now
Ooh, you can’t acquire the rights to your face in the app, or the website. You need to book an appointment at the secretary of state and bring at least two people who witnessed your birth.
Slapping that AGPL-3.0 on my body.
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
I can imagine situations where this is a bad idea, such as making almost all journalism illegal because you don’t have to legal right to cover news about an individual.
Hopefully they plan for that.
There are long established exceptions for use of copyrighted materials, and journalism is one of them.
Good for Denmark.
IMO, better to get laws in place early and refine them over time, than not at all.
So… Move fast and break things?
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
That’s likely, but that would only help with the most viral cases. Otherwise, what’s even the chance to come across AI generated content violating your copyright in an exponentially growing ocean of slop?
On the flipside, individuals could probably maliciously claim ad revenue. That’s already a thing with music.
Does have me wondering how YouTube would verify likeness, though. I could just find a video I don’t like and claim to be a person in it. If all they need is a photo, I feel like that’d be easy to mock up. If they require government ID, that’s getting into uncomfortable UK-esque ID verification territory.
Requiring proof of identification when you are taking legal action is significantly different from requiring proof of ID at all times.
Considering how lazy YouTube is about such things they’d probably just take your word for it and force the video creator to prove it isn’t you in order to get their ad revenue back.
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.
I’m sure Youtube could figure it out, they do with music.
Danish music?
Its mostly heavy metal
It can’t be copyright. They just used the wrong term.
Automated anything on such a grand scale is always a Bad Idea ™. It’s better to just let copyright holders flag videos manually. Less likely to get weaponized that way. Of course, that’s anecdotal and purely my opinion.
Automatic protection for people without them having to chase it in the courts is, somehow, a bad thing?
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?
You mean the water we polluted with industrial waste.?? That water? Or the metaphorical water that they will use to waterboard us with to force fake confessions??
No they mean my sweet golden nectar. Open up for the pee pee train.
Ain’t no way this was written whilst sober
Jokes on them, I sweat so much I basically waterboard myself every time I do yardwork with a mask on.
You have the right to die and stay poor
Land Of The Free™
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 <insert country here>”, when they often do braindead stuff too.
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
My original comment was mostly in reference to OP’s “why aren’t we funding this”, with the assumption that they were from the US.
I am fully aware that Denmark is not part of the US; in fact - their Queen Consort is actually one of us (Aussies, that is).
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.
I fear it would be a pyrrhic victory at best; all it takes is one instance of acceptance (via smartphone update, or an infinite number of other avenues) for it to propagate to every other entity.
That’s actually before encountering ownership issues of photos, as it usually is the photographer who owns the copyright to an image - and if they upload that photo to a service and agree for it to be trained upon; what happens next?
I think you might be overestimating cooperation between these companies, but it’s definitely a valid concern.
Probably, yes - but in a race for as much data as possible to try and feed their LLM models, I wouldn’t put it past them.
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.]
If it is, it would be okay because it’s not a deep fake, just a “new” face created.
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
Is only complicated if one twin consents and the other doesn’t. But in general I think the onus is with the publisher to prove consent.
You would think that would be a given, but here we are in this timeline
At least in Germany it has been a thing for decades. It’s called “Recht am eigenen Bild” - “right to your own image”. Meaning nobody can just take a photo or recording of you and post it online or use it in advertising or so without your approval.
This is the law in all EU member states. What the article is discussing is different. Technically, a deepfake of you is not a photograph of you, unless you can reliably prove that a photograph of you was used to create it. Of course, it had to be, but a court will never accept “that’s how deepfakes work” as evidence.
The new Danish law is forbidding anyone from making anything that closely resembles you, meaning nobody can make a deepfake of you, regardless of whether or not it’s proven that a real picture of you was used. Just like you cannot create anything that closely resembles any other copyright-protected content, regardless of whether or not you use any of the original creator’s material in the process.
The German one is supposed to also cover recreations like paintings or photoshops, so it should cover AI stuff as well.
I’m a twin. Who owns the face? Implicit trust with two sigs required?
Technically the rights to your face are as official as any other individual documentation or rights you each had. Does your ID really belong to you? Whats stopping your twin from claiming ownership of it? How does law enforcement go about processing you? These issues have come up before and will again.
Ursula Buffay?
I think there are no twins in Denmark
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.
You don’t have to assign the copyright to someone else for them to use it. You can license them to use it.
Sure, but that’s not how it tends to work. That’s why there are all these stories about singers being mistreated by their record labels. The record labels could just license the works from the artist. But, that gives the artist some control. Record labels much prefer a situation where they’re fully in control, and own everything the artist produces. It’s typically only the top 0.1% of music acts that are so powerful that they’re able to take control over their own output and license it instead of simply assigning the copyright.
I’m sure it would be the same for modelling if there was a copyright to someone’s body. The modelling agency wouldn’t want to risk that the model could go to a rival agency. A standard modelling contract would then involve assigning the rights to the model’s body copyright to the modelling agency, and only the most powerful and in-demand models could possibly resist that and keep their rights and only license their images.
I can only assume that this has to do with international law. Copyright is pretty well protected and has a huge lobby behind it. Whereas nobody actually seems to care about privacy.
More like they want to push copyright enforcement/expansion by using something people care about. Similar to “think of the children”.
They did try to push copyright as a solution to revenge porn, in effect pushing a private alternative justice system based on DMCAs and payment processor blackmail.
We should get bespoke laws to deal with deepfake problems.
Copyright is pretty well protected
Meanwhile Facebook downloaded Anna’s Archive without any problem.
You might think that, but try using Google’s Street View in Germany. Almost the entire country is unavailable due to their privacy laws.
that was the case a couple years back. Germany is now pretty well-covered by Street View
Ok, I haven’t really looked in years. Did they change the privacy laws, or did Google just change how it was collecting pictures?
YOU WOULDN’T DOWNLOAD A FACE
But titties, pussy and dick… Heck yeah!
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!
i mean, we probably do it unconsciously when watching porn anyway.
deleted by creator
I see nothing about this law being passed, only that a bill was introduced.
