Generative artificial intelligence is forcing a redefinition of image rights. We analyze how deepfakes are changing copyright and why countries like Denmark are seeking new laws.

Copyright was created to protect works, not identities.

The modern copyright system has its origins in the Statute of Anne , enacted in England in 1710. This legislation is considered the first modern legal framework for copyright because it recognized that the rights to a work belonged to the author and not the printer.

For over three centuries, this model has protected the principal expressions of human creativity: books, paintings, musical scores, architectural plans, and industrial designs. Furthermore, it introduced a fundamental concept for contemporary culture: the public domain , which allows works to be used freely after a specified period.

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

Artificial intelligence can imitate anyone

Today it is possible to generate hyperrealistic videos and images in which real people appear performing actions that have never happened.

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

There are also fictional recreations of cultural figures like Chiquito de la Calzada , or montages where actors like Russell Crowe , Brad Pitt or Mel Gibson reappear in cinematic contexts inspired by Gladiator , Troy or Braveheart .

This type of content, known as deepfakes , is produced using artificial intelligence models capable of replicating faces, voices, and gestures with increasing accuracy.

Although many of these videos are created for humorous or parodic purposes, the technology poses a much deeper dilemma: the ability to digitally reproduce a person's identity without their consent.

The legal problem: identity is not protected as a work

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

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

In practice, this means that many citizens face difficulties in demanding the removal of counterfeit content online. Platforms like Instagram and TikTok constantly receive content removal requests, but the processes are often slow or ambiguous when it comes to AI-generated imitations.

Denmark's proposal: to turn identity into property

In response to this situation, Denmark is promoting a reform of its copyright legislation known as Ophavsretsloven .

The proposal introduces a novel idea: treating a person's image and digital identity as an asset susceptible to legal protection.

In practical terms, this would allow citizens to:

Demand the removal of AI-generated content that uses your image

Take legal action against digital impersonation

To compel technology platforms to act more quickly in response to these claims

This change involves moving from a privacy-focused approach to one that recognizes digital identity as a form of legal property.

The necessary limit: parody and freedom of expression

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

The goal is not to limit creativity or freedom of expression, but to prevent artificial intelligence technologies from being used to spread disinformation or seriously harm third parties.

This balance will be one of the major regulatory challenges of the coming years.

A new frontier for digital law

The debate about deepfakes reflects a deeper transformation in our relationship with technology.

For centuries, laws protected what people created. Today, artificial intelligence allows us to reproduce not only what we do, but also 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 just who owns a work, but who owns an identity.

The answer is still under construction, but what seems clear is that the legal framework inherited from the era of printing is facing one of its biggest challenges since its creation.