because one needs democracy to decide what would their tax money fund
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.
I just wanted to bring to attention that no government should be put on a pedestal. From the outside it’s easy to say “oh they’re so enlightened in <insert country here>”, when they often do braindead stuff too.
When did this pass? I see news stories about the law being proposed a month ago, but nothing about its passage.
AI generated image.
Text but no source.
Vague engagement bait headline.
Yeah, it’s Reddit Hours on Lemmy, folks.
How many times do you have to learn this lesson people. Never get your news from an unsourced image! Even if it does validate your worldview somehow. I guarantee you if the image in question said “new studies show socialism is bad and socialists are dumb” the top minds of Lemmy would be very quick to fact-check it.
And consider the source. If the source is “_____isgood.com” I’m not going to take you seriously.
Anal is lots of fun. I read that on analisgood.com… ;)
Well im sold
Cool… bend over… lol
AI generated image
I’m not sure if it is, but if so the irony would be wild.
[Note: I’m probably not an AI.]
If it is, it would be okay because it’s not a deep fake, just a “new” face created.
What happen with twins? As others say, privacy law approach is better than this…
Parents have to decide which twin is the official release
The other can be seen as a parody or a related work
Is only complicated if one twin consents and the other doesn’t. But in general I think the onus is with the publisher to prove consent.
I see nothing about this law being passed, only that a bill was introduced.
YOU WOULDN’T DOWNLOAD A FACE
But titties, pussy and dick… Heck yeah!
AI: oh no! anyway
When I was a kid and wanted to see porn of a certain person or celebrity, i found a look a like porn actress like god intended!
i mean, we probably do it unconsciously when watching porn anyway.
deleted by creator
Sounds like this is not true as written.
A copyright does not attach to a natural thing. It attaches to an original expression of a human author fixed in a tangible medium.
A photo or a painting of a face can have copyright protection, a face cannot.
A recording or mix including a voice can have copyright protection, a voice cannot.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.
Great in theory but seems almost impossible to enforce outside of their own country. Should be interesting to see how it works out though.
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.
Nice, though DACH has this since long ago. And denmark is already added, they’re quick.
I guess the age of influencer is now coming to an end. No where can be considered ‘public’ if copyright faces show up in the background.expectation of privacy is back on the menu.
The fact that even barely audible music in the background is considered a copyright violation on youtube and people have to cut the sound or overwrite it is abuse of the laws IMHO.
I would imagine they differentiate between incidental background usage and deliberate exploitation of your likeness.
The bill is specifically aimed at AI alterations, not general usage.
No this says you can’t create an AI version of you in one county not that you have any right to whatever happens in public in any of them which is already a patcgwork of laws but which is generally fairly unregulated.
This is America. You will have every single bit of information known about you owned by every single tech company. So they can then sale it to everyone else.
People will still create deepfakes (you know what I mean, lol). Although they’d need to be stupid to share them online.
i thought that was already copyright law? isn’t that why you can’t photograph people without model release forms?
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.
