Denmark agrees to legislate against digital likeness copies

The persona

No single persona anchors this entry. The subject is a Danish political agreement: on 26 June 2025, the government and six other parties agreed to amend Denmark's copyright act, ophavsretsloven, to address realistic digital imitations of people's appearance and voice.

What the documents establish

The Ministry of Culture's own agreement text, dated 26 June 2025, sets out two planned protections: a general right for anyone to object to realistic, digitally generated imitations of their personal characteristics shared without consent, and a separate protection for performing artists against realistic AI-generated imitations of their performances shared without consent. The document states the rules are meant chiefly to give people a legal basis for invoking the EU's Digital Services Act against hosting platforms, which already must act on notices of illegal content; it rules out criminal fines or imprisonment for individuals who share such content, though ordinary damages rules could apply, and notes the scheme must be notified to the European Commission before a bill is introduced. The ministry's own list of political agreements confirms the date and files the agreement under its copyright portfolio, targeting a bill introduced in the winter of 2025 and 2026.

Character versus company

The agreement describes a legal mechanism, not a verdict on any specific persona or platform: it protects a real person's appearance and voice against unauthorised digital imitation, and, for performers, protects the performance itself, independent of who administers the reproducing account or service. It does not touch what a synthetic persona says or how it is marketed; the operative act is sharing a realistic imitation without the depicted person's consent, which places the obligation on whoever creates or distributes that imitation rather than on any fictional character. The agreement also preserves satire and existing free-expression protections under the European Convention on Human Rights.

What to watch

As of its own date, this was a political agreement setting a legislative direction, not an enacted statute; the sources reviewed here do not include a later bill text or passage record, so whether the winter 2025-26 timetable held remains to be confirmed against a subsequent primary source. This is an editorial read: because enforcement runs through Digital Services Act takedown notices rather than direct penalties on individuals, the practical effect depends on how quickly platforms act once Danish law, if passed, gives people a basis to file a notice.

• Did the Folketing pass the amendment to ophavsretsloven described in the June 2025 agreement, and in what form?
• Has the European Commission received and responded to the required notification of the proposed scheme?
• Has any performer or member of the public invoked the planned protections against a specific digital imitation once the law, if passed, took effect?

As of its own June 2025 date, this is a cross-party political agreement setting a legislative direction for Danish copyright law, not a passed statute, and the sources reviewed here stop at that point in the process. Whether the Folketing enacted the described protections, and in what final form, is a fact a later primary source would need to confirm.