On 8 October 2026, a bill amending the Copyright Act was submitted to the Danish Parliament, introducing specific rules on digital imitations of a person’s likeness, voice, movements and artistic performances. The bill has not yet been adopted and is intended to enter into force on 1 January 2027.
 
The bill establishes two related but distinct levels of protection:
 

The distinction lies in what is protected. The first protects an individual’s identity, while the second protects the distinctive qualities of the artistic performance itself, including the manner of speaking, singing, gesturing and interpretation.

What Is Not Prohibited

 
The bill does not introduce a general ban on the technology. The prohibition centres on making a realistic digital imitation available to the public without consent.
 
Private generation, without making the content publicly available, generally falls outside its scope. Clearly fantastical or stylised depictions will generally not meet the realism requirement.
 
Exceptions are also provided for caricature, parody, satire and criticism. However, labelling something a “parody” does not provide an unrestricted defence: if a convincing recording leads many people to believe that a statement was actually made, or seriously harms someone’s reputation or significant interests, the exception may not apply. The creator’s intention, the way the content is presented and the audience’s likely understanding are decisive.
 
Contractual Arrangements
 
The most tangible consequences will be felt at the negotiating table. Permission to show a recorded performance does not necessarily include permission to create a digital model capable of producing an unlimited number of new scenes, statements or songs. Digital replicas are therefore becoming a separate subject of contractual negotiation. This model would necessarily require contracts to address:
 

The bill contains a transitional provision under which the new rights would not apply to contracts concluded before the law enters into force.
 
An “AI Generated” Label Is Not Permission
 
Article 50 of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) imposes obligations to disclose that content has been artificially generated or manipulated. Such a label does not, however, confer the right to use another person’s likeness, voice or performance. The reverse also holds true: having permission does not remove transparency obligations where they apply.
 
We discussed the rules on labelling AI content in “Transparency of AI Content in Focus of New European Regulations”.
 

The Direction of Regulation

 
The Danish proposal may not become the definitive European model, and it also raises the question of whether copyright law is the most appropriate framework for protecting digital identity at all.
 
Nevertheless, it clearly shows that the debate is shifting from the authenticity of recordings to control over digital identity.
 
The real question, therefore, is not whether someone “owns” their face and voice, but who may use their personal attributes to create a new digital version of them, on what terms and for how long.