why aren't we funding this....

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
- 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.
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.
Automated anything on such a grand scale is always a Bad Idea (tm). 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.
It can't be copyright. They just used the wrong term.

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??
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.

Also Denmark: let's break encryption and let the government read all your private messages

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.

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.

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.
- 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.]

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.

- 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.

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.

AI: oh no! anyway

Having the RIGHTS to our Own Bodies? That sounds like SOCIALISM!

-People who SUPPORT the Government buying a Stake in Intel!

Nice, though DACH has this since long ago. And denmark is already added, they're quick.

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.

No this says you can't create an AI version of you in one county not that you have any right to whatever happens in public in any of them which is already a patcgwork of laws but which is generally fairly unregulated.
I would imagine they differentiate between incidental background usage and deliberate exploitation of your likeness.

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.

Are you talking about the "Little danes experiment"? That was in the 50s and Denmark officially apologized to Greenland en 2020 (following pressure from the Greenlandic officials).
Horrific thing that happened. Idk where being a victim of a crime or knowing the capital of sudan fits in that story tho.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For%C3%A6ldrekompetenceunders%C3%B8gelse
  Women who were previously victims of sexual assault or who do not have arbitrary trivia knowledge of certain facts have been, and continue to be, routinely judged "unfit parents" and have their children taken from them. This is most often used against indigenous peoples, including just a couple weeks ago, months after the practice was ostensibly ended.

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.

Wonderful. This is a law we need EU wide. Maybe we should add other private data to the list, too?

Scarlet Witch is so hot

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.

Pretty sure we don't even own our DNA.

because one needs democracy to decide what would their tax money fund

Until techs put waivers in the EULAs...

Well, lawyers, but yes this would need more teeth to be effective. They need to introduce some friction to slow business down on that front.

Didn't that already exist as the right to one's own image?

At least here in Spain such righ is mentioned in section 18.1 of the the Constitution from 1978 and was developed by a law in 1982 banning the capture, reproduction, use or publication by photograph, film, or any other means of a person's voice or image.

I would expect similar laws to exist in other countries. Having control of your own image and not allowing anyome to take your voice and image and make their own public use of them seems like a pretty basic right to not be regulated already before GenAI appeared.

Actually, targeting it just to GenAI and framing it as intellectual property or copyright sounds quite limited. Do you mean that as long as I don't use it for GenAI or use it for purposes not covered by copyright I can still publicly use your image in Denmark? I wouldn't expect so. The right one's own image is rooted in human dignity, privacy, and autonomy, which go beyond what a copyright law can protect.

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?