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'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.
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.
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 have the right to die and stay poor
Land Of The Free(TM)
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Goddamn stop stretching copyrights to handle things they were never meant to do. Just make new laws if needed.
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.
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.
Having the RIGHTS to our Own Bodies? That sounds like SOCIALISM!
-People who SUPPORT the Government buying a Stake in Intel!
AI: oh no! anyway
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.
Now if only Denmark didn’t steal indigenous people’s babies because they were victims of a crime and/or couldn’t cite the capital of Sudan. If you don’t know what I’m talking about don’t search it unless you are prepared for some new awful things to feel horrible about.
Copyright only applies to created works. Wouldn't the owner of the copyright to you be...your parents?
Nah because I'm a transformitive work. My parents didn't make these gainz. 💪
I for one would like much less copyright law; it really hasn't been good to me.
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.
I admittedly don't understand how it has some how become easy for people, especially young people, to utilize this stuff. You can do image generation with a sufficiently strong GPU. But training requires power and VRAM.
As far as I can tell it's also limited to nVidia (except it appears all the image stuff for AMD works on Linux?) so it's expensive, you have to do so many things to set up simple image generation, and I imagine training for particular people (or anything) has to be harder to set up.
Otherwise deepfakes are just doing what Photoshop always did? Arguably Photoshop was a cheaper and easier method of creating them.
I have this feeling that generative AI is being used to normalize the idea of weaponizing it. "It took people's jobs! It made people naked and created libelous things!" Or as a means to crack down on hardware used for... Video games?
I could just be insane, but it always seems like when something seems bad, something worse is behind it.
interestingasfuck
