Copyright © Media Law International 2026. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy Contact Us Unsubscribe
Guide to the Global Leaders in Media Law Practice
DENMARK
Addressing Deepfakes Through Copyright Law:
A closer look at upcoming Danish legislation aiming to regulate certain uses of generative AI
Written by Martin Dahl Pedersen & Anne-Sophie Kofoed Rasmus
Kromann Reumert
REGIONS WE COVER
Middle East and North Africa
North America
Asia-Pacific
Western Europe
Central and Eastern Europe
What is a deepfake? And why the need for regulation?
The rapid development of generative AI has enabled the creation of deepfakes: digitally generated audio-visual material that convincingly imitates real people’s physical appearance, voice, or gestures. As visual and auditory impressions are quickly embedded in people’s perception, deepfakes may create doubt, and even false perceptions, about what constitutes reality.
The potential consequences are significant. Deepfakes can be used to disseminate disinformation, cause reputational and personal harm, and even undermine democratic processes. The world witnessed a prominent example of this in January 2024 when thousands of voters in New Hampshire received a call from a voice that sounded like President Joe Biden, urging them not to vote in the upcoming primary election where Biden was not running and instead save their vote for the presidential election in November. In a Danish context, deepfakes of well-known journalists have been used to lure consumers into bitcoin schemes. The Danish Ministry of Culture has therefore in July 2025 presented a legislative proposal to regulate deepfakes within the Danish Copyright Act. The Danish proposal is the first of its kind to regulate deepfakes within the framework of copyright law.
Digitally generated imitations do not fall within the existing scope of copyright law. Nevertheless, there are common features between the two areas, as the established copyright rules also provide protection of personal performances, and The Danish Copyright Act therefore seems like the most obvious choice to encompass this regulation. Other areas of Danish law also already provide some protection against misuse of personal characteristics, but the rules are fragmented and not specifically aimed at deepfakes.
Chapter 5 of the Danish Copyright Act protects the material used to create deepfakes, including photographs and video recordings. The Danish Criminal Code prohibits unwarranted disclosure of private images and identity misuse through manipulation of a person's appearance. Other relevant legislation includes the Danish Marketing Practices Act, which restricts the commercial use of personal images without consent, and personal data law, which also applies to the processing of biometric data.
In addition, Regulation 2024/1689 (the AI Act) imposes transparency requirements on deployers of AI systems generating deepfakes. Finally, a right of publicity protecting public figures against unauthorised commercial exploitation of their image and granting them a right to compensation for unlawful publication, can be derived from non-statutory principles established through case law.
Collectively, these rules provide partial remedies, but they often fall short when applied to the results of technological advances and the rapid dissemination of infringing content that takes place online.
How will the proposal close the legislative gap?
The Danish proposal aims to safeguard personal integrity and artistic performances against AI-generated imitations in the form of deepfakes without compromising the fundamental right to freedom of expression. It involves both a protection for performing artists against imitation of their performances in a proposed Section 65a and a general protection against deepfakes in a proposed Section 73a.
Together the new provisions aim to establish a clear legal basis for individuals and performers to act against the dissemination of deepfakes without consent. Both provisions grant protection for 50 years after the death of the individual concerned.
The proposed deepfake protection of performing artists prevents the dissemination of realistic, digitally generated imitations of their artistic performances without consent. The recent developments of generative AI have shown that this group is particularly vulnerable to digitally generated imitations and violations of personal characteristics.
Under the Danish Copyright Act, a performing artist is defined as someone performing an artistic or literary work, which in itself is protected by copyright. The new provision extends the current framework to also apply to artistic performances of material that does not enjoy copyright protection. As such, the protection is shifted from the material being performed to the individual performing it.
The protection presupposes an intentional artistic or aesthetic character of the performance, meaning that performances that are random in nature, including sporting performances that are solely an expression of technically based choices in the performance situation fall outside the scope of protection. Other than this the current proposal does not provide much guidance in relation to the conditions for protection, and the specific conditions will therefore have to be specified in the final amendments to the proposal or developed through case law.
The proposed general deepfake protection prohibits the dissemination of realistic, digitally generated imitations of personal characteristics such as appearance, voice, or gestures without the consent of the individual concerned. It supplements the existing protection of personal characteristics but establishes a direct and explicit statutory basis for the enforcement of the rights it entails.
The proposal has been met with overall positive feedback through consultation of stakeholders. While minor amendments and specifications have been proposed, the stakeholders generally support the initiative to regulate the area through the Danish Copyright Act and acknowledge the need for regulation.
Potential impediment to freedom of expression and limits to enforcement
The introduction of protections in the Danish Copyright Act that go beyond that afforded to artistic and literary works and related rights, raises questions of how to mitigate the risk that the protection of individuals will come at the price of freedom of expression, which has historically had a wide scope in Denmark. To address such concerns, the scope of the new provisions is limited in several ways.
First, they apply only to realistic imitations, meaning that stylised depictions, distortions, or fictionalised representations are excluded. Courts will therefore need to determine when an imitation is sufficiently convincing to risk confusion with reality. If a deepfake is clearly labelled as being digitally generated or manipulated, there is no risk of confusion, and such deepfakes, however realistic, therefore fall outside the scope of the legislation.
Second, both deepfake protections incorporate important exemptions when deepfakes are used as expressions enjoying a particularly strong protection under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
As regards the deepfake protection for performing artists, exemptions apply to expressions of parody, caricature, and pastiche, which are already subject to exemption from copyright protection under Section 24b of the Danish Copyright Act.
The general deepfake protection also exempts caricature, parody, satire, and pastiche as well as political commentary and social criticism. However, the exemptions under this provision do not apply if a deepfake amounts to misinformation that could cause serious harm to the fundamental rights or interests of others. This limitation has been met with criticism from certain stakeholders who fear that it may be abused to silence legitimate criticism due to its discretionary element. It is, however, presupposed in the legislative comments to the proposal that the limitation is to be applied only in exceptional circumstances, thereby implying a restrictive interpretation.
In addition to issues regarding freedom of expression, the proposal may also entail issues related to enforcement of the new provisions. First of all, enforcement action depends on the willingness of platforms to comply with take-down notices based on the new provisions. Second, the jurisdictional limitation to Denmark means that content removed in Denmark may still be accessible abroad.
However, if the bill is adopted, it may serve as a reference point for future European and international legislation. International regulation would significantly expand individuals' possibility to enforce their rights.
Correlation with EU-regulation and status on adoption
Since the proposal may impose regulation on digital services, it has been notified to the EU Commission in accordance with the notification procedure laid down in Directive 2015/1535. Specifically, the proposal is related to Section 52c of the current Danish Copyright Act, which implements the liability regime concerned in Article 17 of Directive 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (DSM Directive). The provision imposes direct liability on online content-sharing service providers for content protected under the Danish Copyright Act uploaded by its users.
Furthermore, the proposal is closely linked to Regulation 2022/2065 on a Single Market for Digital Services (DSA). By explicitly prohibiting the dissemination of realistic digital imitations, the new provisions enable individuals to notify platforms that content is unlawful, triggering obligations to remove or disable access.
The notification was received in October 2025, and because the notification procedure prescribes a three-month standstill period for the EU Member State, the proposal is expected to be presented to the Danish Parliament in March 2026.
How would you react if you suddenly received a personal message from the prime minister? Technological developments have made it easier than ever to manipulate images, sound and video using artificial intelligence, and so-called deepfakes are increasingly becoming a legislative headache. In a move to address the issue, the Danish Ministry of Culture has recently presented a legislative proposal to introduce protection against certain deepfakes in the Danish Copyright Act.
Martin Dahl Pedersen
Anne-Sophie Kofoed Rasmus
FEATURED ARTICLE
Martin Dahl Pedersen works within the IP, Media and Entertainment Group of Kromann Reumert, a leading law firm in Denmark. Mr Pedersen became a partner there in 2002. He has many years' experience advising clients in the broad media and entertainment field, partic edia conglomerate Aller Media in a controversial principle matter on the protection of journalistic sources in a case where Aller Media is facing criminal charges for abuse of information on celebrities' credit card transactions.
Anne-Sophie Kofoed Rasmussen advises Danish and foreign clients in the media and entertainment industries on copyright, publicity and media law. She is experienced in preparing and conducting litigation, including cases over IP and media law issues, defamation and other issues. In addition, Anne-Sophie offers a wide variety of services in the field of trademark, design and marketing law. With a background as an art historian, Anne-Sophie has previously worked in the museum business.
Biographies
GLOBAL
RECOGNITION