There are just so many weird cases, based on the wording. Would Youtube need to scan for Danes within all uploads to check for copyright violations? Which is obviously impossible.
IMO, better to get consumer protection laws in place early and refine them over time, than not at all.
The longer these things wait, the more time corpos have to get their influence in and either stop the efforts or water them down to be entirely ineffective.
I can imagine situations where this is a bad idea, such as making almost all journalism illegal because you don’t have to legal right to cover news about an individual.
I’d figure the scenario would be that YouTube would need to respect takedown request from people whose likeness had been appropriated, which isn’t that absurd
That’s likely, but that would only help with the most viral cases. Otherwise, what’s even the chance to come across AI generated content violating your copyright in an exponentially growing ocean of slop?
On the flipside, individuals could probably maliciously claim ad revenue. That’s already a thing with music.
Requiring proof of identification when you are taking legal action is significantly different from requiring proof of ID at all times.
Considering how lazy YouTube is about such things they’d probably just take your word for it and force the video creator to prove it isn’t you in order to get their ad revenue back.
Automated anything on such a grand scale is always a Bad Idea ™. It’s better to just let copyright holders flag videos manually. Less likely to get weaponized that way. Of course, that’s anecdotal and purely my opinion.
Sooo… is this image copyright infringement?
There are just so many weird cases, based on the wording. Would Youtube need to scan for Danes within all uploads to check for copyright violations? Which is obviously impossible.
IMO, better to get consumer protection laws in place early and refine them over time, than not at all.
The longer these things wait, the more time corpos have to get their influence in and either stop the efforts or water them down to be entirely ineffective.
Edit: Don’t forget to read about it. https://www.globallawtoday.com/law/legal-news/2025/06/denmarks-groundbreaking-move-copyright-for-faces-and-voices/
But rushed and incomplete bills can come with bad implementations that make them useless
-this post is known to the state of California to cause cancer
I can imagine situations where this is a bad idea, such as making almost all journalism illegal because you don’t have to legal right to cover news about an individual.
Hopefully they plan for that.
There are long established exceptions for use of copyrighted materials, and journalism is one of them.
Good for Denmark.
So… Move fast and break things?
I’d figure the scenario would be that YouTube would need to respect takedown request from people whose likeness had been appropriated, which isn’t that absurd
That’s likely, but that would only help with the most viral cases. Otherwise, what’s even the chance to come across AI generated content violating your copyright in an exponentially growing ocean of slop?
On the flipside, individuals could probably maliciously claim ad revenue. That’s already a thing with music.
deleted by creator
Requiring proof of identification when you are taking legal action is significantly different from requiring proof of ID at all times.
Considering how lazy YouTube is about such things they’d probably just take your word for it and force the video creator to prove it isn’t you in order to get their ad revenue back.
Also, how many times have you seen a photo of someone that looks just like someone else that is entirely unrelated? Old photos in particular.
I’m sure Youtube could figure it out, they do with music.
Danish music?
Its mostly heavy metal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrOEYYC0p8E
Automated anything on such a grand scale is always a Bad Idea ™. It’s better to just let copyright holders flag videos manually. Less likely to get weaponized that way. Of course, that’s anecdotal and purely my opinion.
Automatic protection for people without them having to chase it in the courts is, somehow, a bad thing?
It can’t be copyright. They just used the wrong term.