this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2025
359 points (99.2% liked)

World News

47948 readers
2339 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 63 points 2 days ago (4 children)

I wonder how this works for twins or dopplegangers

[–] Iheartcheese@lemmy.world 49 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Technically isn't Highlander?

[–] doingthestuff@lemy.lol 19 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I wonder how it works for public photography. If I take a picture of a crowd, is every single person a copyright strike?

[–] brad_troika@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

Is it a copyright strike if your photograph contains a copyrighted logo?

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

The lawsuits are opened at birth

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 3 points 2 days ago

Twins' phenotypes diverge with age.

[–] IsaamoonKHGDT_6143@lemmy.zip 21 points 2 days ago (2 children)

And how will the EU act if deepfakes are found if their servers are in China, Russia, Vietnam, Malaysia or another country?

[–] olafurp@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

It most likely depends on whether or not the business operates in Denmark or not. Not sure how individual data laws will play with EU law but for sure you can still use the deepfakes on WeChat in China

[–] non_burglar@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This is going to lead to folks licensing their features for money.

[–] crystalmerchant@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago (2 children)
[–] non_burglar@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

It shouldn't be.

This kind of reframing of the words (by Denmark, not you) has led in the past to the abuse of what something is called to reshape slavery in modern times.

On the surface, this seems like a great idea: give the people autonomy on their likeness and its use.

What if you're in debt? Sell your likeness? Should companies be allowed to lure ppl with commercials about making money by selling their likeness? Should we create laws about extortion and coercion that include forcibly making someone give up their likeness? Short-term likeness "rental farms"? What if the terms of the likeness are a different financial mechanism like a reverse mortgage or a lease? International laws agree on all these terms?

We also collectively determined that slavery is illegal, but it still happens by exactly manipulating the mechanisms to get at the resource: come work in the Arab Emirates. Come to Canada, send money back to your family. If you pay me $5k, I will get you out of this hellhole to a country where you can have a job, money, freedom... But you have to spend 6 weeks in a shipping container and give us 6 months of work when you get there.

The only way to make a person's likeness an inviolable right is to make it an inviolable right... With no monetary value.

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That's a bit too much capitalist kool-aid right there.

Just because you get more rights about your likeness doesn't mean you can sell your soul. The proposed law would just better protect you where other people could already abuse your likeness.

[–] non_burglar@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Copyright protects attribution for the purposes of gain from reproduction, sale, adaptation and presentation. All of the cases of licensing likeness currently upheld are in place to protect gain (or prevent use for gain) from that likeness.

I don't think it's much of a stretch to imagine people will find creative ways to make money on such a huge and presently mostly untapped resource. Especially from vulnerable people.

[–] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago

99% chance it'll wind up in the T&C of just about every "free" service sporting "AI" features. People will sell their likeness without even blinking

[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Then everything will become ai-generated.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago

This does not help when the deepfaker can't be found.

[–] wowwoweowza@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

Best news ever!

[–] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

Puffy pope. Lol.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 2 days ago

[off topic]

Reminds me of a science fiction story. A regular type guy happens to look like a big star. The star sues the regular guy for copywrite infringement

[–] lnxtx@feddit.nl 0 points 2 days ago

gonna copyright my underwear features