Owning Your Face: Denmark’s Deepfake Proposal and How it Compares to U.S.

[1]

The Dangers of Deepfakes in the Media

As artificial intelligence (“AI”) becomes more immersive in both technological development and everyday use, the impending threat of deepfake identities continues to grow. Deepfakes are synthetic media that use AI to generate realistic images and videos of events that never occurred.^[2] Although they have primarily been propagated online via social media platforms like TikTok for entertainment purposes, there are severe risks involved with the technology, as it can be used as an impersonation tool for fraud, spread false political information that influences public opinion, create non-consensual inappropriate imagery, and damage trust in digital media.[3]

If you are active on any social media platform, there is a strong probability that you have encountered an AI deepfake already.[4]  Recognizing this danger and its threat to democracy, governments are beginning to act through legislation.[5] Denmark, in particular, has taken its first step toward regulation.[6] It is the first of any European country to pass important, comprehensive legislation regarding deepfakes and protecting one’s own image.[7]

Denmark’s Amendment: Strengthening their Copyright Laws

In June, the Danish government announced its plans to strengthen its digital copyright laws to give individuals greater control over their identities, appearances, and voice.^[8] The amendment, with cross-party support, is expected to be submitted for review this fall.[9] If passed, victims of deepfake content can request its removal from the internet.[10] Artists specifically can demand compensation for unauthorized use of images that would extend for 50 years beyond the artist’s death, to the benefit of their descendants. ^[11] 

This new amendment would set the legal framework for seeking damages and injunctions against deepfake users under Danish law.^[12] While other European countries have made efforts to minimize online risk, Denmark’s proposal is uniquely expansive.[13] For example, the United Kingdom’s “Online Safety Act” (2023) applies to any online search services and services that allow users to post and interact with one another online that have a link to the UK regardless of whether the company who runs the service is in the UK.[14]  In short, the act aims to reduce the possibility online service providers will be used for “illegal offending,” such as intimate image use or cyberflashing, and implement systems to remove illegal content when it does appear.[15] Notably, the UK’s act gives more discretion to the companies to remove illicit content and does not provide individuals the intellectual property rights to protect themselves as robustly as the Danish law.[16]

What sets the Danish proposal apart is its use of copyright law to grant individuals quasi-property rights over their likeness, which blurs the lines between moral rights, publicity rights, and traditional Intellectual Property protections.[17] The Danish culture minister, Jacob Engel-Schmidt, told the Guardian that he hopes the bill will send an “unequivocal message that everybody has the right to their own body, their own voice, and their own facial features.” ^[18] Schmidt plans to use Denmark’s EU presidency to collaborate with European counterparts and set forth a new precedent on protecting citizens from AI deepfakes. [19] 

How the U.S. Approach Differs

The United States also took recent steps against deepfakes after years of piecemeal protections provided by different state laws.[20] Under the U.S. Copyright Act, copyright protection extends to “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.”[21] Additionally, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years and must be registered to be enforced.[22] Therefore, apart from extending the copyright protection for a certain period of time, U.S. copyright protections differ from Denmark’s copyright legislation. [23] Rather, “the right to [one’s] own body, their own voice, and their own facial features,” bears more similitude to the United States’ right to publicity. [24]

The purpose of U.S. Copyright law is "[t]o Promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts," which prioritizes encouraging creation and dissemination of content.[25] Deepfake regulation, however, often seeks to prevent harmful or deceptive publication altogether, which places it at odds with the copyright’s core incentive structure.[26] The right to publicity is codified in some states and awards damages to “an individual when their name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, . . . for purposes of advertising or selling” something. [27] Additionally, federal claims for use of an individual’s identity for advertising may be brought under the Lanham Act.[28]

However, instead of using copyright or trademark law to control the dissemination of deepfakes and their effects, the United States has increasingly relied on criminal law, specifically the “Take It Down Act.”[29] Under the Take It Down Act, the Senate prohibits the “nonconsensual online publication of intimate visual depictions of individuals, both authentic and computer-generated.” [30] Looking more closely at the computer-generated aspect of the act, the Senate defines “digital forgery” as “any intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual created through the use of software, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or any other computer-generated or technological means... that, when viewed as a whole by a reasonable person, is indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual.”[31] While the statute targets deepfakes, the Take It Down Act is limited to removing AI-generated sexual or abusive content, whereas Denmark’s copyright proposal covers any unauthorized deepfake, thus treating all misuse of appearance or likeliness as a civil threat.[32] This highlights a key difference because Denmark treats identity misuse as a matter of property and personal rights, while the U.S. approach focuses on criminalizing the most egregious harms.[33]

Deepfakes Today and the Future

Denmark’s proposed legislation, unlike past legislative efforts, looks beyond criminal penalties for deepfake creators and supports the individual themselves.[34] Denmark is showing its commitment to safeguarding citizens’ individual liberties, emphasizing it is as crucial as the intellectual property and other laws protecting creators.[35] From an intellectual property perspective, Denmark’s model challenges traditional notions of authorship and ownership.[36] By vesting rights in one’s image, voice, and likeliness, it suggests a fusion of copyright principles with the evolving doctrine of personality rights.[37]

Globally, countries are beginning to follow in Denmark’s footsteps. The EU AI Act (2024) includes obligations to label synthetic content, while China’s deep synthesis rules target deceptive use of AI-generated media.[38] Together, these incentives reflect a growing international consensus: the right to one’s digital identity is emerging as a core legal concern in the age of generative AI.

References

[1] Photo by Mariia Yesionova on Unsplash, https://unsplash.com/photos/a-group-of-people-walking-around-a-large-building-KO0aDfxZdC0.

^[2] See U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Increasing Threat of DeepFake Identities, Homeland Security (2023) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/increasing_threats_of_deepfake_identities_0.pdf.

[3] See id; see also Andrea Willige, Deepfake Legislation: Denmark Moves to Protect Digital Identity, World Economic Forum (July 30, 2025), https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/07/deepfake-legislation-denmark-digital-id/ 

[4] See Willigie, supra note 3.

[5] See id.

[6] See id.

[7] See id.

^[8] See id.

[9] See id.

[10] See id.

^[11] See id.

^[12] See id.

[13] See id.

[14] See Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, Online Safety Act: Explainer, (Apr. 24, 2025), https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer.

[15] See id.

[16] See Willigie, supra note 3.

[17] See Julianna L. Hunt, Harnessing Copyright Law to Tackle Growing Threat of Deepfakes, Panitch Schwarze Intellectual Property Law (July 17, 2025), https://www.panitchlaw.com/harnessing-copyright-law-to-tackle-the-growing-threat-of-deepfakes/.

^[18] See Miranda Bryant, Denmark to Tackle Deepfakes by Giving People Copyright to Their Own Features, The Guardian (June 27, 2025, 12:00 AM), https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/27/deepfakes-denmark-copyright-law-artificial-intelligence.

[19] See id.

[20] See Willigie, supra note 3.

[21] See 17 U.S.C. § 102 (a).

[22] See 17 U.S.C. § 411; see also 17 U.S.C. § 302 (a).

[23] See Willigie, supra note 3.

[24] See Bryant, supra note 18.

[25] See U.S. Const. art. I, §8, cl. 8. 

[26] See Hunt, supra note 17.

[27] See White v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 971 F.2d 1395, 1397 (9th Cir. 1992).

[28] See 15 U.S.C. §1125 (a)(1).

[29] See Willigie, supra note 3.

[30] See Take It Down Act, Pub. L. No. 119-12, § 2(b), 139 Stat. 55 (2025).

[31] See id.

[32] See Willigie, supra note 3.

[33] See id.

[34] See id.

[35] See Bryant, supra note 18.

[36] See id. 

[37] See id.

[38] See Tim Hickman, Sylvia Lorenz, Constantin Teetzmann, & Aishwaryua Jha, Long Awaited EU AI Act Becomes Law After Publication in EU’s Official Journal, White & Case (July 16, 2024), https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/long-awaited-eu-ai-act-becomes-law-after-publication-eus-official-journal; see also Carolyn Bigg, Amanda Ge, Lauren Hurcombe, China Released New Measures for Labelling AI-Generated and Synthetic Content, JD Supra (Mar. 24, 2025), https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/china-released-new-measures-for-2041841/.