Denmark is proposing a measure to shield its citizens from the rising tide of deepfake technology. This pioneering effort aims to expand copyright law, granting individuals greater command over their digital likenesses and empowering them to demand the removal of digital forgeries from social media platforms.
The advance of AI tools has made deepfake images, videos, and audio startlingly realistic. Distinguishing fact from fiction has never been harder. Around the world, authorities are racing to establish new regulations, struggling to keep pace with a technology that, despite its legitimate uses, is frequently exploited for non-consensual pornography, scams, and disinformation.
Existing laws often tackle the harm caused by deepfakes through criminal codes. Denmark’s proposed bill takes a different path, say experts. It amends copyright law, making it illegal to share most deepfake images of another person without consent.
“Technology has outpaced our current legislation,” stated Jakob Engel-Schmidt, the Danish culture minister. He views the bill as an attempt to “secure fundamental rights” as the digital age challenges personal privacy.
Supporters of the bill hope it could serve as a model for the entire European Union, particularly as Denmark recently assumed the EU presidency. The bill entered a public comment period this week and enjoys broad political support in Denmark. It is widely expected to become law after parliamentary consideration around the turn of the year.
Mr. Engel-Schmidt emphasised that the proposed law would give people “the right to your own voice, your own facial features, and no one can copy that without your consent.”
The Danish government argues that the prevailing legal approach to deepfake technology, focusing on regulating specific malicious uses like pornography or misinformation, forces governments into a defensive stance. As the technology evolves, new harms could quickly emerge. Denmark aims to be proactive. This new law would define the very existence of many deepfakes as a violation of a person’s right to protect their own likeness from any form of manipulation. To protect free speech, the bill includes exceptions for satire and social criticism.
Henry Ajder, an expert on AI and deepfakes, described the legislation as “sort of harm-agnostic” because the potential use of the forgeries becomes irrelevant. “It’s not saying, ‘We’re targeting this specific harm,’” he noted. “It’s saying, ‘This is how we think about identity in the synthetic age.’”
Ajder was among several experts who called the bill a novel approach, even as they questioned its enforceability.
Francesco Cavalli, chief operating officer of Sensity AI, a company specialising in deepfake detection tools, commented via email, “This is definitely a new approach that no one else has experimented with yet.”
Yet, Cavalli pointed to potential limitations. He drew a parallel to the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), a landmark 2018 digital privacy law that struggled to meet its ambitious goals. “Denmark may be granting a new right, but if the mechanisms to enforce it are slow, burdensome or inconsistent, the real-world impact could be minimal,” Cavalli explained. “Regulation without enforcement is a signal, not a shield.”
The bill assigns social media companies responsibility for removing offensive deepfakes, but it does not penalise the users who post them. If platforms fail to remove a deepfake, they could face fines, according to the Danish Culture Ministry. TikTok and Meta, Facebook and Instagram’s parent company, did not respond to requests for comment on the legislation.
Some experts found the Danish bill vague, particularly given the lack of official consensus on what constitutes a deepfake. While the bill includes protections for satire, the Culture Ministry acknowledged there’s no objective test for humour, meaning users might need to rely on courts to resolve disputes.
Finally, the law would apply only within Danish territory, limiting its reach. As Cavalli noted, “Malicious actors operate globally, making it extremely difficult to investigate and prosecute them at the local level.”