Denmark's Copyright Law & AI
To all the previous classmates reading this; please don't look elsewhere on this blog, it's a work in progress and a bit personal, but I wanted to share these thoughts even before I finished setting things up around here. Context added about a day after posting.
Context start
I sent a video discussing this bill to a group of old classmates. To summarize, this bill would give Danish citizens copyright over their face and voice. Summary of points that were brought up: the article linked also does a decent job at outlining potential pros and cons.
- Potential of exploitation and overreach.
- Protection for those involved in deep-fake porn without their consent.
- The law being stretched beyond its intended meaning, especially as far as police investigations and courts go (which of course will happen). Also, nullifying the intended affect of this law with loopholes and technicalities being exploited making it difficult for victims to legally fight back.
- Who "deserves" copyright access to people's likeness? The person prompting the computer? The developers of the computer? The computer itself?
- Does this assign "personhood" to AI via targeting protection for people against AI, rather than targeting restrictions against use of AI itself?
- Ability to exploit law isn't necesserily a reason to not have law.
This is what I wrote to hopefully consolidate the discussion and respond to some of the points made. Also, this was done over text in an Instagram chat and I get very tired of texting very quickly.
For the sake of this discussion, I'm just going to focus on AI that uses people's likeness. I have seperate thoughts about generative AI art; be it drawings, animation, songwriting. Anything that enters the world of being difficult to tell if it's real, as in recorded or pictured of something in the real world, leaves this catagory. This is to keep the discussion consistent with the subject of Denmark’s Copyright law.
So with that focus in mind, let's get into it. Absolutely no way does some 15 yr old 'deserve' the likeness of anyone, especially in cases of abuse. No way does the developer "deserve" anyone's likeness, as you worded it, but I guess the problem is that it's not about "deserve." It may not even be about ownership because DO we own our own space when we are out in public? Do we own our own face when TSA scans us at the airport or when cameras watch us at red lights? Do we own our own selves? I think it could be argued that videos and pictures being posted online are free material. It may still be a shitty thing to do to take photos or recordings of other people in public but it’s not illegal. And don't we do that all the time anyway when we're out in the world on vacation and there are people in the background and we post those pictures online? Should all of those be taken down due to “copyright infringment?”
Sorry for adding so many more questions on top of your questions already. I'm going to parallel all of this to something that already exists in the real world. I learned recently that parents DON’T own their children. As soon as a child has a SS number or a birth certificate, the government owns them, and this is the legal precedence that CPS uses to take kids away from abusive homes. So, with that in mind, let me ask you this in response to this; “I don’t think people having the ability to break the law is a great justification to NOT have the law.” Sure, I agree; the problem I want to point out is if the government has wormed its way into owning our children, what is stopping the government from eventually worming its way to owning the copyright of everyone in the nation? Copyright can be bought; if this precedence is set up, would federal workers eventually have to give up their copyright to the government?
In my opinion, questions about assigning “personhood” to AI are inane and irrelevant. That’s not what this is about. Any single way we restrict AI, we are restricting OURSELVES, and that can extend beyond AI. This is because AI is a tool that humans use to generate creation; we can also abuse our ability to photoshop or make art. You could superimpose an image of someone onto an unsavoury picture. You could draw innpropriate art in her likeness. It's not about what AI "deserves" - it's about what is and isn't out there and the fact that we mindlessly post without thinking about the consequences and simply assuming ownership when in the digital age, that is not exactly true. You are spreading something for free. You are using instagram for free. How do you think instagram makes money? You are selling your photos and your time scrolling for the usage of the app. When you use Google for “free” you are selling yourself as the product. Assigning copyright to human beings only solidifies how governments and companies already view us and would only continue to perpetuate our status as “product” instead of breaking us out of it.
So, how do we fix this? Obviously I DO want some protections somehow. Making AI porn of someone who did not consent, for example, is supremely debased, but copyright is not the answer. I have more thoughts in my blog back-log but I’ll end this here for now. As seems to happen with all of my blog topics, this is becoming a series. Have a lovely day, I’ll try to write up the next one quickly.
This article was last edited 3 months, 1 week ago