When Your Face Is Intellectual Property Too: AI, Deepfakes and the New Legal Debate on Digital Identity

Generative artificial intelligence is forcing us to redefine image rights. We look at how deepfakes are changing copyright and why countries such as Denmark are pursuing new laws.

Copyright was created to protect works, not identities

The modern copyright system has its origins in the Statute of Anne, passed in England in 1710. It is considered the first modern copyright law because it recognised that the rights to a work belonged to its author, not its printer.

For more than three centuries this model has protected the main expressions of human creativity: books, paintings, musical scores, architectural plans and industrial designs. It also introduced an idea that is fundamental to modern culture: the public domain, which allows works to be used freely after a set period.

This balance has worked reasonably well in the analogue world. However, generative artificial intelligence has begun to stretch the limits of that legal system.

Artificial intelligence can imitate anyone

Today it is possible to generate hyper-realistic videos and images of real people doing things that never happened.

On social media it is increasingly common to see fictional scenes of Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi in a supposed Jurassic Park sequel, or Donald Trump performing Michael Jackson's famous moonwalk.

There are also fictional recreations of cultural figures such as the Spanish comedian Chiquito de la Calzada, or edits in which actors like Russell Crowe, Brad Pitt or Mel Gibson reappear in scenes inspired by Gladiator, Troy or Braveheart.

This kind of content, known as deepfakes, is produced with artificial intelligence models that can replicate faces, voices and gestures with ever greater precision.

Although many of these videos are made as jokes or parody, the technology raises a much deeper dilemma: the ability to digitally reproduce a person's identity without their consent.

The legal problem: identity isn't protected like a work

Copyright protects creative works, but not necessarily a person's image or identity in artificially generated content.

This creates a legal gap. A digital recreation of a face may not fit clearly into the traditional categories of plagiarism or intellectual property.

In practice, this means many people struggle to get fake content removed from the internet. Platforms such as Instagram and TikTok receive removal requests constantly, but the process is often slow or unclear when it comes to AI-generated imitations.

Denmark's proposal: turning identity into property

In response, Denmark is pushing a reform of its copyright law, known as the Ophavsretsloven.

The proposal introduces a new idea: treating a person's image and digital identity as something that can be legally protected.

In practical terms, this would allow citizens to:

• Demand the removal of AI-generated content that uses their image
• Take legal action against digital impersonation
• Require tech platforms to act faster on these claims

This shift means moving from an approach centred on privacy to one that recognises digital identity as a form of legal property.

The necessary limit: parody and freedom of expression

The proposed law also includes an important exception. Reproductions that amount to caricature, satire, parody or social criticism would remain legal.

The aim is not to limit creativity or freedom of expression, but to stop artificial intelligence being used to spread disinformation or seriously harm others.

Getting this balance right will be one of the major regulatory challenges of the coming years.

A new frontier for digital law

The debate over deepfakes reflects a deeper change in our relationship with technology.

For centuries, laws protected what people created. Today, artificial intelligence can reproduce not only what we do, but who we are.

If an algorithm can imitate our face, our voice or our gestures with near-perfect accuracy, the legal question is no longer only who owns a work, but who owns an identity.

The answer is still being built, but one thing seems clear: the legal framework inherited from the age of the printing press is facing one of its greatest challenges since it was created.