Generative AI is forcing a redefinition of image rights. We analyze how deepfakes are changing copyright and why countries like Denmark are looking for 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 to the printer.

For more than three centuries, this model has protected the main manifestations of human creativity: books, paintings, musical scores, architectural plans, and industrial designs. In addition, it introduced a fundamental idea for contemporary culture: the public domain, which allows works to be freely used after a certain 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 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.

Fictional recreations of cultural figures such as Chiquito de la Calzada also appear, or montages where actors such as Russell Crowe, Brad Pitt or Mel Gibson reappear in cinematographic contexts inspired by Gladiator, Troy or Braveheart.

These types of content, known as deepfakes, are 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 vacuum. 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 have difficulty demanding the removal of fake content on the internet. Platforms like Instagram or TikTok receive requests for content removal constantly, but the processes are often slow or ambiguous when it comes to AI-generated imitations.

Denmark's proposal: turning identity into property

Given this situation, Denmark is pushing for 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 their image

Take legal action against digital impersonations

Force technology platforms to act more quickly on these claims

This shift involves moving from a privacy-centric 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 still be legal.

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

This balance will be one of the great regulatory challenges in 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 almost perfect precision, 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 printing era faces one of its greatest challenges since its creation.