I’m a twin.
Do we share? Do we need to both sign off on this before our likeness can legally be used?
This was like the discussion I had with my twin over those dna services. We both agreed that it is not fair or right to force the other twin to have their dna used basically so neither of us would ever use the service.
Guess I gotta chat again over this though we look different. Ah birth trauma. I’m going to guess we’ll just agree no one uses our likeness ever. Anywhere. Somehow!
Unfortunately, the article doesn’t really say why it’s necessary with personality rights already in place, or how copyright would apply differently.
“In the bill we agree and are sending an unequivocal message that everybody has the right to their own body, their own voice and their own facial features, which is apparently not how the current law is protecting people against generative AI,” Danish culture minister [said].
I watched this video report/interview earlier. She found out her voice was being used in British railways as the announcer without her knowledge or consent.
You would think this was already a thing, it seems incredibly obvious and intuitive
It is a thing. Personality Rights. They exist in Danish law already. Maybe this new proposal is something else, something more specific or closes some loophole.
I guess this would work, but why not make a specific law? Copyright is meant for creative acts. Humans are created, in an act, but, never mind.
The answer seems obvious. This is simply a gift to famous people, who will be able to demand licensing fees without having to do any additional work. Just neo-feudalism.
The pitch makes as much sense as trying to sell ordinary copyright as a way to stop people forging documents.
So is there a fair use exemption for satire?
It also would still allow parodies and satire, so some of the standard doctrine of fair use would still apply.
Thanks.
It’s an interesting approach, and avoids a lot of the funny philosophical questions that comes out of banning just a certain technology.
Read the article…
You definitely don’t read every article that crosses your feed either.
I just wanted to know this one thing.
Nor should you, no one does. And you’re not alone with this question, seeing the upvotes. So it presumably helped others.
Denmark is literally the best country
*disclaimer; the specifics of your socioeconomic circumstance may differ wildly from my super privileged nordic “ive only ever lived in 3 of what is considered the top 5 countries of the world” background; https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FEKEjpTzB0Q&pp=ygUYd2VsY29tZSB0byB0aGUgZ29vZCBsaWZl
I like Denmark but they’re the sole reason Russia gets to circumvent the sanctions since 2022. Don’t forget that.
That view doesn’t hold up against the facts. Denmark is legally blocked from acting alone but is actively working to dismantle the very system it’s accused of ignoring.
Under international law, the Danish Straits are a global highway. Denmark cannot legally stop ships in “transit passage” without a clear safety or environmental threat. This isn’t a Danish policy; it’s a binding maritime rule that Russia’s “shadow fleet” exploits.
Far from being a passive observer, Denmark is taking concrete action. Just this month, Denmark helped lead a coalition of 14 nations to coordinate new measures against the shadow fleet in the Baltic and North Seas. At home, it has cracked down hard, introducing legislation to raise prison sentences for sanctions violations to as high as eight years—one of the toughest stances in the EU.
The problem isn’t Danish inaction. It’s the sophisticated, global evasion network Russia has built, which no single nation can defeat on its own.
Just wait until you find out how they treat refugees…
Touché, but in my defense, all countries suck, and mostly just serve the 1%, so the bar wasn’t high to begin with
Just wait until you find out how refugees treat the very people who pay to put food on their tables and a roof over their heads.
aka “I have no empathy for other people” and “I only read right-wing media”.
Refugees are a group of people that’s very heterogenous. They don’t have one common way of treating Denmark. Except for the ‘asking Denmark for asylum’ of course.
Denmark does treat refugees a certain way, if by Denmark we mean their government, and not Danes in general. The government has certain policies which define their treatment. Basically they’re trying to win the race to the bottom: ‘treating them worse than other countries do’, hoping refugees will go to other countries instead. It’s a shortsighted tactic because now we here in the Netherlands as well as in other countries, are joining the race to the bottom. Which means collectively we are losing our humanity, while still largely getting equal amounts of refugees at our borders. Unless of course you’re willing treat people so poorly, that even a warzone is more acceptable. But what in the world are we defending if we are willing to lose all human decency over it?
Wrong again.
Sure, daddy “all refugees are ungrateful criminals” cool
Oh, so you can generalize, but I can’t? Sure, atro “we treat all refugees as shit” city.
Maybe there’s a correlation
Doppelgänger’s are derivative works.
there can be only one
Don’t worry, if your likeness lands in a torrent, it will be legal for Meta/Facebook to use it :)
Just come on down to the government run face scanner and have your features verified so we can be sure no one ever makes a copy
Do you also think all of your creative works are in a government database somewhere?
deleted by creator
Is Google your government?
The point is, to enforce such a copyright, there needs to be a database of likenesses and their owners.
In practice, this is only going to be relevant for very few people, mainly famous personalities, their heirs, or whoever owns their likeness. However, if you wanted to enforce this for the entire population, the database would have to be under very close watch by the government, at least similar to a commercial bank if not outright a government entity. That’s necessitated by data protection rights in Europe.
No it doesn’t. It would work like Copyright currently works.
I don’t need my works to be in any database for them to be protected by copyright. I simply have to declare their license or have the license be assumed by not declaring it. That’s how it already works. You, the owner of the copyrighted works, has to sue the infringer. It’s not an automated process. Your ‘likeness’ doesn’t need to be in any database if you can prove they used your likeness. Content ID was an attempt by Google to automate the removal process on their platforms so they could wash their hands of the problem.
It would work like Copyright currently works.
Yes, exactly. Content ID is a major part of how copyright currently works. The content industry convinced US courts that merely reacting to take-down notices was not enough. Companies hosting user generated content need to proactively search for infringing content.
In the EU, written law goes somewhat further. In both the US and EU, this explicitly does not require a lawsuit. It is an automated process for most practical purposes.
I can’t predict how Danish courts will see this. There are currently cases ongoing at the EU level that will make things clearer in that respect.
Content ID is a major part of how copyright currently works.
It’s literally not a part of how Copyright currently works. It’s how Google automated copyright claims on their platforms.
None of my creative works are in Content ID. People are not being sued through Content ID. Content ID flags stuff and at worst removes it. It is up to the copyright holder to decide what they want to do.
I mean, depends on where you live, they seem to own a few governments
