Teh Wrong Approach to deepfake Regulation: Why copyright Isn’t the Answer
Artificial intelligence is rapidly advancing, and wiht it, the ability to create incredibly realistic deepfakes. These AI-generated manipulations pose genuine harms, demanding a thoughtful legal response. However, a growing trend – particularly evident in proposals like Denmark’s – to address deepfakes through copyright law is misguided and potentially damaging to the foundations of intellectual property itself.
This article will explain why relying on copyright to combat deepfakes is a flawed strategy, drawing on expert analysis from organizations like Communia and highlighting the existing legal tools already available.
The Core Problem: Copyright Protects Expression, Not Identity
The basic issue lies in what copyright actually protects. As Communia’s submission to the Danish consultation clearly articulates, copyright safeguards original expressive works.It doesn’t – and shouldn’t - protect an individual’s inherent characteristics like their image,voice,or likeness.
Think about it: copyright incentivizes creation. It’s designed to encourage artists and authors by granting them limited control over their work. Extending copyright to cover someone’s identity fundamentally alters this principle. it attempts to marketize something that wasn’t intended to be a commodity in the first place,creating significant legal uncertainty.
Here’s a breakdown of the key concerns:
* Doctrinal Inconsistency: Applying copyright to personal attributes clashes with established copyright principles.
* Limited Incentive: Protecting identity doesn’t foster new creative works.
* Legal Uncertainty: Expanding copyright in this way introduces ambiguity and potential for disputes.
The Threat to the Public Domain
The Danish proposal goes even further, suggesting a new, broad copyright for performing artists encompassing their performances. This expansion, Communia warns, would severely restrict the public domain.
Currently,works eventually enter the public domain,allowing for free access and reuse. This is vital for creativity, education, and cultural preservation. Granting performers a new right over their likeness, even in performances of public domain works, would effectively lock away valuable cultural resources.
Consider these points:
* Undue Restriction: A wide-ranging new right would limit access to materials already freely available.
* Lack of Economic justification: There’s no clear evidence demonstrating a need for this expansion.
* Interference with Reuse: Lawful access and reuse of out-of-copyright material would be jeopardized.
Existing Legal Frameworks Are Sufficient
Crucially, the Danish bill’s own recitals acknowledge that existing laws already provide avenues for addressing deepfake harms.These include provisions within criminal law.
If individuals struggle to enforce their rights under current legislation, the solution isn’t to create a new, flawed system. It’s to clarify and strengthen the existing one. Adding another layer of protection risks confusion and could ultimately be counterproductive.
The Rise of Deepfake Technology & Why a Measured Response is Needed
The urgency to address deepfakes is understandable. The emergence of user-friendly AI tools like OpenAI’s Sora, designed to simplify deepfake creation, is accelerating the problem. However, a hasty response based on shaky legal ground is not the answer.
We need a solution that:
* Focuses on Harm: targets the malicious use of deepfakes, not the technology itself.
* leverages Existing Laws: Strengthens and clarifies current legal frameworks.
* Protects Fundamental Rights: Avoids infringing on freedom of expression and access to information.
Don’t Rely on Copyright – Focus on Targeted Legislation
Introducing a new form of copyright to combat deepfakes is the wrong approach. It undermines established legal principles, threatens the public domain, and risks creating more problems than it solves.
Instead, policymakers should focus on clarifying and strengthening existing laws, ensuring individuals have effective recourse against the harmful use of deepfake technology. A measured, targeted approach is essential to protect both individuals and the principles of a free and open society.
Follow me @glynmoody on Mastodon and on [[[[Bluesky](https://bsky.app/profile/glynmood