229
Denmark to tackle deepfakes by giving people copyright to their own features
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2025
229 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
71989 readers
3444 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Crazy that this wasn't already the standard years ago.
It's not the standard because it will likely have a LOT of unintended consequences.
How do you share evidence of police brutality if they can use copyright to take down the video? How do newspapers print pictures of people if they have to get the rightsholders permission first? How do we share photos of Elon Musk doing a Nazi salute if he can just sue every site that posts it for unauthorized use of his likeness?
Unless this has some extremely stringent and well written limitations, it has the potential to be a very bad idea.
I would assume those would fall under fair use of some kind, but you're right that those fair use laws would need some scrutiny before implementing this. I'm still cautiously optimistic about it, but yeah if I was a lawmaker I'd be thinking hard about the potential misuses of it for sure.
What we've seen very clearly with fair use is that you end up being forced to defend it, as opposed to it being presumed. That means it's very easy for a rightsholder with money to go after every use, fair or not, and force the user to spend time and money defending themselves (and also probably face a preliminary injunction that takes the image down until the case is over, which will often be after its newsworthy).
The big thing about Fair Use/Fair Dealing is it's not automatic protection from any sort of consequence, lawsuit, or prosecution. It's only a possible defense you can try using once you're in court about it, and there are no guarantees it'll work out for you.
Fair Use/Fair Dealing has never been the magic "you can't do anything to me" protection many people seem to think it is. A judge has every ability to decide what you did wasn't a fair use and judge against you.
This is not an argument against fair use, but against abuses of the fair use system. Everyone should be for reforming the system in such a way that it is not abused in this way, but that does not mean that we cannot implement a similar system for AI abuses.