interestingasfuck

You are wonderful for bringing attention to this, and citizens of Denmark (all of EU?) should fight back. A difference is that the item you linked above is proposed versus the thread topic being supposedly voted on. I can't quickly find links to Denmark equivalents of US house/senate websites with voting info, probably due to language, so I can't prove the above -- but other reporting supports that Danish citizens own the copyright to their person by default now by law, but encryption backdoors are not law.

I highly, forcefully recommend that anyone who is able to do so push back against this proposal or any similar ones. For any "good-guy" who can break encryption, there will be thousands of bad-guys who can break it too. A back-door fundamentally breaks encryption. Technically, a service provider who does end-to-end encryption without a back-door simply cannot inspect content, as that is the whole fucking point. A law like this will only ensure that such providers cannot exist.

I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but for anyone even remotely swayed by the 'but children' aspect of this. This kind of access to your life is only wanted by people/companies/governments who want to be able to harvest your data for power or profit. They need an excuse to get their foot in the door and will rip it open the second they get a chance and invade your whole life for advertising dollars or to find political dissidents. "Give them an inch and they will take a mile", by imperial units.

Fight this shit.

AI generated image.

Text but no source.

Vague engagement bait headline.

Yeah, it's Reddit Hours on Lemmy, folks.

Just a license to the rights.

Parents have to decide which twin is the official release

IMO, better to get consumer protection laws in place early and refine them over time, than not at all.

The longer these things wait, the more time corpos have to get their influence in and either stop the efforts or water them down to be entirely ineffective.

Edit: Don't forget to read about it. https://www.globallawtoday.com/law/legal-news/2025/06/denmarks-groundbreaking-move-copyright-for-faces-and-voices/

I'd figure the scenario would be that YouTube would need to respect takedown request from people whose likeness had been appropriated, which isn't that absurd

Also, how many times have you seen a photo of someone that looks just like someone else that is entirely unrelated? Old photos in particular.

You have the right, but will you have the ability when the water starts to pour?

You have the right to die and stay poor

But titties, pussy and dick... Heck yeah!

Pretty sure that These Lines in eulas would not be valid.

Them being forced to include these terms is a win in and of itself, but it still protects people who otherwise had no protections even if they didn't use these services.

You don't have to assign the copyright to someone else for them to use it. You can license them to use it.

I found something more informative over here:

With the new s. 73 a, a proposal is made to introduce a ban on deepfakes of natural persons' personal, physical characteristics. Personal, physical characteristics are to be understood as the traits and features that define a person and are unique to the individual, such as appearance, voice, movements, etc.

What is special about the proposed provision is that, unlike other provisions of the Copyright Act, it does not require the existence of a copyright-protected "work" or "performance", but the protection rather covers all natural persons. This applies regardless of whether they are artists or creators in the legal sense.

Thus, the protection comprises the unique characteristics of individuals, which are closely linked to one's person. For this reason, it is also proposed that consent to public disclosure must be given individually, and the area cannot be covered by a collective licence agreement.

The ban only applies to the public disclosure of deepfakes, meaning that there is nothing preventing deepfakes from being made available within the private sphere – such as at a private party or in relation to the right of reproduction.

This is what crossed my mind. This seems like the kind of thing we all know would be nice but enforcing it is going to be really tricky.

What happens when one identical twin gives deep fake permission? The other implicitly has it created as well despite not giving permission. That is just what I thought of in 20 seconds, I am sure there are plenty of other examples.

It will be interesting to see how the enforcement goes with this. I suspect it will primarily be used in small one-off cases and not something at large.

At least in Germany it has been a thing for decades. It's called "Recht am eigenen Bild" - "right to your own image". Meaning nobody can just take a photo or recording of you and post it online or use it in advertising or so without your approval.

No, that's due to likeness rights and privacy concerns. Copyright protects creative expression and your face and body are not themselves creative expressions-- they just are. This is why you also don't get copyright protection over purely statistical data.