I'm a twin.
Do we share? Do we need to both sign off on this before our likeness can legally be used?
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)
Europe
6585 readers
97 users here now
News and information from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in [email protected]. (They're cool, you should subscribe there too!)
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media. Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the primary mod account @[email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Unfortunately, the article doesn't really say why it's necessary with personality rights already in place, or how copyright would apply differently.
βIn 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,β 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.
DoppelgΓ€ngerβs 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 :)
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.
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
I like Denmark but they're the sole reason Russia gets to circumvent the sanctions since 2022. Don't forget that.
Just wait until you find out how they treat refugees...
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
Maybe there's a correlation
TouchΓ©, but in my defense, all countries suck, and mostly just serve the 1%, so the bar wasnβt high to begin with
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.
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?
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.
YouTube and similar platforms are major content distributors. Content owners would not be able to enforce their rights without automated surveillance, whether through Content ID or another system. Meanwhile, it is generally not economical for small creators, influencers, to litigate erroneous detections. So in many cases, Content ID is the ultimate arbiter of copyright.
When the likes of Taylor Swift or Donald Trump want to collect their licensing fees, they will use an automated system. And if some hapless citizen feels harassed by fakes and wants to make them harder to find, that will what be their only choice.
I mean, depends on where you live, they seem to own a few governments