Denmark Takes the Lead! Granting Copyright to Faces and Voices as a Countermeasure Against AI Deepfakes

1. Introduction—Decision-Making in the Age of "Deepfake" Proliferation

In the summer of 2025, a move by the small European country of Denmark has sent ripples through the waters of creators and platforms worldwide. According to a government announcement, Denmark plans to submit an amendment to parliament this fall that explicitly includes "physical characteristics, including face and voice" as subjects of copyright protection, with the aim to implement it by the end of the year. This move is driven by a sense of crisis as the realism of generative AI approaches a critical threshold.musicbusinessworldwide.com

2. Outline of the Amendment—"Self-Portrait and Self-Voice" Rights

The amendment includes the following:

• Rights Holders: All natural persons residing in Denmark.

• Protected Subjects: Any media reproducing the appearance, voice, or actions of the individual, including still images, videos, and audio.

• Rights of Exercise: Claims for deletion, injunctions against dissemination, and claims for damages.

• Exceptions: Legitimate quotations for parody, satire, and reporting.

• Enforcement Measures: Heavy fines for platforms ignoring requests, and orders to cease services within the EU. Minister of Culture Jakob Engel-Schmidt strongly stated, "The exploitation of digital personas through deepfakes will not be tolerated."
  theguardian.com

3. Reasons for Support from the Music Industry

The music industry, which has long profited from the intangible asset of "voice," is facing an explosive increase in "AI covers" and "clone voices" due to generative AI. Warner CEO Robert Kyncl testified at a U.S. Senate hearing in 2024, stating, "AI can instantly steal an artist's identity," calling for international legislation. Denmark's proposal is a pioneering step in institutionalizing this in Europe.musicbusinessworldwide.com

4. The Debate on Social Media

• Supporters

  • "Relief from the nightmare of having my face used in scam ads without permission" (Japanese X user @water_gun_xi988)twitter.com

  • "A courageous decision to prioritize human rights over technology" (Scottish legal account @ScottishLegal)x.com

• Concerns

  • "Won't meme culture and derivative works become a gray area?" (Creator @kuro_ye)twitter.com

  • "Regulation costs will increase, causing startups to move abroad" (anonymous post by a tech investor).

The debate has crossed borders, trending daily with hashtags like "#MyFaceMyRight" and "#DeepfakeLawDK." On the bookmarking service "Hatena," it received over 1,700 bookmarks in two days, turning into a "festival" of opinions both for and against.b.hatena.ne.jp

5. International Comparison—Differences with the U.S. NO FAKES Act and Tennessee's "Elvis Act"

The NO FAKES Act reintroduced in the U.S. Congress grants individuals "45 years of publicity rights," but conflicts with fair use limitations remain unresolved. Meanwhile, Tennessee state law focuses on protecting "singing voices" at the state level. Denmark's proposal is advanced in that it comprehensively covers **"face + voice"** and considers extraterritorial application within the EU. As Denmark prepares to assume the EU presidency, it has declared its intention to expand to "European unified rules," likely impacting the entire internal market.musicbusinessworldwide.comtheguardian.com

6. Reactions from Technologists and Platforms

YouTube and OpenAI are already accelerating the implementation of "deepfake detection tools" and "clone voice filters." However, engineers point out that "as the quality of forgery improves exponentially, laws alone cannot keep up." AI ethics researcher Dr. Deborah Dean warns, "The handling of the vast amounts of voice data needed for model training remains opaque."twitter.com

7. Will the Right to "Portrait and Voice" Restrict Expression?

The bill explicitly protects parody, but subtle lines remain in practice. For example, is a video where an AI-generated voice that closely resembles the original artist sings a cover song considered a parody in performance, or is it an infringement that steals revenue from the original song? The judgment on the ground is ambiguous. Experts say it is unclear whether a "tacit acceptance" like Japan's derivative work culture can be established. The boundary between freedom of expression and personal rights will be left to the formation of precedents after implementation.

8. What Will Happen to Citizens—Specific Use Cases

1. Claims for Deletion of Fraudulent Ads
   Unauthorized use of one's face in phishing ads → Order for deletion within 24 hours + damages.

2. Deepfake Pornography
   Victims, who previously could only respond after the fact, can now claim against both the uploader and the platform.

3. Clone Voice Fraud
   Victims of "fake voice" used for bank account verification are also eligible for compensation.

4. Reuse of Archived Footage
   When using AI to interpolate footage of deceased individuals in historical documentaries, consent from family or heirs is required.

9. Impact on Corporate Strategy

In the advertising and gaming industries, addressing the risk of "generated characters' faces coincidentally matching real individuals" becomes urgent. Insurance companies are commercializing "deepfake liability insurance." Conversely, startups in the country see increased demand for "identity verification APIs" and "voiceprint watermarks" as an opportunity.

10. Implications for Japan

The government's AI strategy meeting is currently discussing "rights protection in the era of generative AI," but the focus is mainly on portrait rights, leaving "voice" unaddressed. On X, there are calls for the "Kishida administration to follow suit," while concerns that "doujin culture will die" remain strong. Experts say that a multi-layered defense combining copyright law + unfair competition prevention law + specific platform regulation will be key in the future.

11. Conclusion—The New Norm of "Digital Self-Ownership"

In an era where faces and voices circulate as "data," the right to "own" oneself can be considered a new human right. Denmark's attempt is agile due to its small size, but its impact is significant. Whether the law can curb the runaway of AI or become a hindrance to technological innovation—the answer is still unclear. The one certainty is that we have entered a phase where each of us is asked what we want to protect with our own voice and face.