Copyrighting your face and the war on synthetic identity

It sounds bold. But also confusing. Because legally, copyright has never protected who you are, only what you create. Copyright covers original expressions like songs, scripts, and photos. Your face, voice or gait? Those typically fall under personality rights (also called publicity rights) a different legal doctrine that gives individuals control over the commercial use of their identity.

So what Denmark is really doing is something novel - blurring the boundary between these two legal regimes in order to address a fast-moving threat i.e. deepfakes.

But can this actually work?

Legally, it’s complicated. Copyright typically protects original expression, not biological features. Denmark’s move bends that precedent by arguing that in a synthetic media age, your likeness is no longer passive. It can be stolen, replicated, monetised. And therefore, like a song or a screenplay, it deserves authorship.

But that’s not a universally held view. Critics argue that likeness rights already exist under privacy and defamation law. Why graft copyright onto something that wasn’t creative to begin with? And how enforceable is it, really? If a deepfake of you appears on a US-based platform, what does Danish copyright law actually compel them to do?

That’s the catch. There’s no global framework for synthetic identity, which means enforcement will be patchy. Even so, symbolic legislation like this creates pressure, encouraging other countries to follow suit, platforms to adapt, and companies to rethink what data they touch and train on.

Does this mean people can charge for their face?

Possibly, in the short term. But it’s more about blocking misuse than monetising identity. But in the long term, it’s not hard to imagine licensing regimes where celebrities, influencers, or even everyday users charge for synthetic replicas, virtual endorsements, or AI-generated cameos.

That brings us to platforms. If facial features are copyrighted, what happens to social networks like Facebook, TikTok or YouTube, whose business models depend on billions of faces being uploaded and shared?

Would Meta have to compensate users for their face being used to train future AI models? Would platforms need to build opt-in synthetic rights frameworks, similar to royalty payments in music?

It’s not unprecedented. In other sectors, this already exists. Shutterstock pays contributors when AI is trained on their images. OpenAI now signs deals with publishers. Identity could follow a similar path, but with far more friction.

And what about unintended consequences?

For one, it could spark a wave of litigation. Not just from individuals, but from AI models, platforms, and even employers caught in legal grey zones. It may also create a digital class divide between people who can afford to enforce their identity rights and those who can’t.

There’s also a deeper ethical tension. How do we balance the right to self-protect with the right to innovate? If every face, voice and gesture is copyrighted, are we limiting the creative commons or saving it?

The bottom line

Decidr’s legal council Virginie Wu said,

“The legal innovation is interesting, but the enforcement and international coordination challenges are where the real story lies. Denmark might be creating a template, but without broader adoption, it's more symbolic than substantive. More broadly, this is the problem of law and technology. Legal frameworks have always lagged behind technological innovation and we’re perpetually playing catch-up, retrofitting old legal concepts onto new realities.”

Denmark’s move is imperfect, but it’s a first attempt to solve a problem that’s not going away. In the future, identity isn’t just personal, it’s infrastructure. And the systems we build to govern it will shape everything from trust to trade.