[Answered] Denmark’s plan to use copyright law against deepfakes highlights digital identity protection. Examine the efficacy and challenges of legal frameworks in combating technological misuse, balancing innovation with individual digital security.

Introduction

As deepfake technology advances, safeguarding digital identity becomes essential. Denmark’s proposal to use copyright law for deepfake regulation signals a novel legal response to preserve individual rights in a digital era.

Deepfakes: An Emerging Threat to Digital Identity

1. Definition: Deepfakes are AI-generated synthetic media that replicate an individual’s voice, appearance, or expressions to depict events that never occurred.
2. Rise in misuse: According to Sensity AI, deepfake videos online have doubled every six months since 2019, with over 90% being non-consensual pornography.
3. Consequences: Deepfakes have been used for cyberbullying, political misinformation (e.g., Ukraine conflict), financial fraud, and identity theft, undermining trust and democracy.
4. India’s experience: Cases involving fake videos of celebrities like Rashmika Mandanna and public figures have stirred demand for urgent legal remedies.

Denmark’s Legal Innovation: Copyright-Based Deepfake Regulation

1. Imitation Protection: Prohibits sharing deepfakes using someone’s voice or face without consent.
2. Performance Protection: Covers acts not traditionally protected by copyright (e.g., spontaneous artistic performances).
3. 50-Year Protection: Prohibits publication of deepfakes for up to five decades post an individual’s death.
4. Consent-centric approach: The onus lies on the content creator to prove prior consent from the impersonated individual.
5. Platform accountability: Mandates removal of deepfakes and imposes penalties on non-compliant digital platforms.

Efficacy of Legal Frameworks in Combating Deepfakes

1. Expanding rights: Unlike India and most nations, Denmark’s law extends protections to all individuals, not just public figures.
2. Civil remedy: Enables take-downs and compensation, shifting enforcement to courts rather than vague penal provisions.
3. Preventive power: Harm-agnostic design deters creation and dissemination by outlawing realism-based impersonation, regardless of intent.

Global and Indian Legal Landscape

1. India: No standalone deepfake law. Courts rely on:
   • Privacy rights (Puttaswamy judgment, 2017).
   • Publicity rights (e.g., Amitabh Bachchan, Anil Kapoor cases).
   • Defamation and IT Act (Section 66E, 67).
2. EU’s AI Act: Imposes transparency obligations for deepfake content.
3. USA: Some states (e.g., California, Texas) ban deepfakes in election/pornographic contexts. No federal law yet.
4. China: 2023 regulations require explicit consent before publishing synthetic content.

Implementation and Enforcement Challenges

1. Jurisdictional limits: Denmark’s law applies only within national boundaries — enforcement against foreign violators is difficult.
2. Enforcement burden: Courts may be overburdened; proving consent or realism might be technically complex.
3. Satire and fair use: Ambiguity over what qualifies as parody or fair expression could lead to litigation.
4. Tech evolution: Deepfake detection often lags behind creation capabilities, requiring constant upskilling of enforcement agencies.

Balancing Innovation with Rights

1. Laws must protect digital rights without stifling innovation in generative AI.
2. Promoting AI ethics frameworks, encouraging watermarking standards, and public awareness campaigns are key complements to legal tools.
3. India’s opportunity: With the upcoming Digital India Act, India can integrate consent-driven deepfake regulation inspired by Denmark.

Conclusion

Denmark’s copyright-based model offers a progressive path for digital identity protection. Yet, global collaboration, technical safeguards, and agile enforcement remain essential to curb deepfake misuse without curbing innovation.