Jump to content

Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Denmark

Add topic
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
[edit]
Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Is the WWF panda logo actually not protected by copyright, and so can it be uploaded on Commons?
@Aymatth2: I couldn't find either "U 1998:946 S" nor "NIR 69:3". Do you have a link or a book name? The RedBurn (talk) 10:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have tracked down what happened.

So User:CommonsDelinker should perhaps have removed the whole line, not just the file name, and I should have thought for 5 seconds before making the line visible again. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for this research! For some reason WikiBlame couldn't find it when I tried.
About this claim, actually since http://domstol.fe1.tangora.com/robots.txt disallows search engines we couldn't find even the pdf files linked for the sketches of windows and doors. There's a search engine (http://domstol.fe1.tangora.com/page13990.aspx) but it doesn't search inside pdf files, only in the summary (http://domstol.fe1.tangora.com/S%C3%B8geside---domme.13990/V-0098-01.15.aspx for sketches of windows and doors). The RedBurn (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

So are Denmark stamps copyrighted or not?

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • I would say they are copyrighted in the normal way, typically publication + 70 years unless the author is identified, in which case life + 70 years. They are not public documents, and there are no special rules for works made for the government. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
+2. I added a section to the article about how they are copyrighted per the normal term. Feel free to change the wording if it can be improved on. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Nonconsensual AI "deepfakes" law

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 hour ago32 comments7 people in discussion

Per NYT, Denmark is on track to pass a new kind of copyright restriction on unauthorized/nonconsensual synthetic or AI-generated media depicting living people. It is not limited to pornographic or sexual images and it targets platforms hosting the images, not individual creators/users. The mechanism would be part of Denmark's copyright statutes (I'm not super clear on the exact specifics of how that would work). Obviously it hasn't passed and is not yet law, but I imagine it might be worthwhile to start thinking about what would need to be added to this page if it does pass. Other references: The Guardian; Vice; and Time. Here is the press release from the Danish Ministry of Culture on the proposal and their work with legislators. 19h00s (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Without reading the links yet, but would Commons act any different regarding this than e.g. {{Nazi symbol}} and {{Skyddsobjekt}}. How would they add such a law into a copyright sense - I'm not following (yet). Will need to read those links.. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Legally, we only have to follow US law. We choose to follow the copyright law of the source country as a matter of courtesy and ensuring the reusability of our media in the jurisdiction in which it is most likely to be reused, but also choose to ignore it if it conflicts with our idea of what copyright should be (e.g. King James Bible in the UK, which is under perpetual copyright). Here, they might call it copyright and put the text in a law that primarily concerns copyright, but as far as we are concerned, IMO any law that grants rights to the subject of an image (as opposed to the creator) is not legitimately about copyright but rather about personality rights. So for our purposes it should go in COM:IDENT. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
This is a super interesting discussion, thank you! (and apologies for not noticing the earlier discussion at the Village Pump, I should've realized this is beyond just copyright issues). I think I'm most interested to find out exactly what the language in the bill is; as you say, it really seems to be a personality rights issue, not copyright. But legislators/the Ministry of Culture have gone to pains to specify that this is a copyright restriction, which feels odd and out of step with broader legal definitions. 19h00s (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
According to the category "However, images of King James bible pages are allowed on Commons since electronic copies do not infringe this printing right." Meaning this have nothing to do with Commons ignoring UK copyright (since we aren't violating it in the first place) Trade (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
We are definitely making an exception to our usual requirement that the making of physical copies must be allowed for a work to be considered free. After all, that's why GFDL was banned; electronic copies merely require a live hyperlink, while physical copies require the entire text of the GFDL verbatim printed on the medium. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I still think Commons should get consensus before deciding to ignore the law rather than treating it as a given Trade (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
The whole idea of a clear distinction between copyright law and personality rights does not apply to Denmark the same way as it does the US. There is nothing unusual about having this mechanism being part of copyright law Trade (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

According to this website the law is expectec to come into force the 31. March 2026 so this is no longer theoritical. It's a real thing we need to figure out how to deal with before it becomes an issue

The law also makes it illegal to generate AI images or audio that are meant to replicate the voice or artstyle of any Danish voice actor, musician or artist.  Question King of Hearts, do you also consider this part of the law to also be a "not legitimately about copyright but rather about personality rights". If not is it still optional for Commons to follow it? Or can we just decide to only ignore specific of the law? @King of Hearts: --Trade (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Google Translation
  • The bill introduces a new general protection for all citizens against the misuse of lifelike, digitally generated imitations of their personal characteristics, such as appearance and voice.
  • Specific imitation protection is introduced for performers and artists against the unauthorized use of digital imitations of their artistic performances.
  • The protection for artists' performances is extended to also cover performances that are not of copyrighted works, putting them on an equal footing with performers.
  • Both new protections last for 50 years after the death of the person or artist concerned.
  • Exceptions are made for use in connection with caricature, satire and parody, unless the imitation constitutes harmful misinformation.
  • Violations of the new rights could give rise to civil liability for remuneration, compensation and indemnity, but not punishment.
  • The bill is a direct response to technological developments, in particular the spread of artificial intelligence and deepfake technology.

Authorization is granted for the Minister of Culture to set rules for digital communication with the Copyright Licensing Board.

In other words while nobody from Wikimedia Danmark will be prosecuted or jailed for this, there is a very real risk that they might incur civil lawsuits resulting in fines (of an unknown amount)

If any files hosted on Commons were generated explicitly in the style of any Danish artists we might also face issues--Trade (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest that we ask Wikimedia Danmark to help weigh in with their expertise or ask them to conduct some actual legal research into this (that's why they get donations and grants right). I'm sure that they could help do a deep-dive into this - if they have not done so already leading up to this new law. I am also sure the Danish Wikipedia community are also discussing this locally on their local Village Pump. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

So what do you personally think? Should Commons respect the law? Or should we ignore it with a non-copyright restriction template? Trade (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'm not confident enough to assess the full implications of the Danish law myself—especially given the ambiguity over whether it's truly a copyright matter or more about personality rights, so I think it's premature to make Commons-wide decisions until we get input from someone with subject matter expertise in Danish law. Ideally, that would come from Wikimedia Danmark or via a Wikilegal write-up. On a broader level, I generally think we should aim to respect copyright laws in all countries, even if we find aspects of them questionable or out of step with international norms. If Denmark has explicitly placed this mechanism within its copyright framework, we should take that seriously. That said, before we talk about changing policy or voting on anything, we need much more clarity about the actual legal impact and scope of the law. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Looks like a ban on deep fakes and copying the artstyle, appareance and voices of Danes. Isn't that a fairly straight forward scope? Trade (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Flagged this for editors on Danish Wikipedia at their Village Pump. --19h00s (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Since I was pinged: I would ban deepfakes almost entirely. The only time I would allow them is where they have proved newsworthy (or somehow otherwise notable) in their own right, and are either from countries where either there is no legal issue (copyright or otherwise) about posting them or we have the consent of the person falsely depicted (presuming here than no country will prevent people from making AI representations of themself; it they do, we should abide by that as well). Deepfakes are poisonous to any supposedly respectable media repository. - Jmabel ! talk 23:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Do you feel the same way about AI-imagesin the style of specific artists? Trade (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Jmable on deep fakes. I'm frustrated about "in the style of"; it's really hard to tell, and there's no reason to make it more criminal for AI copies than humans. But we should generally avoid AI images in the style of specific artists, except as examples of what AI can do; they're out of scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Some of these images have been featured in the news if you haven't noticed. Out of scope would not really work here Trade (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the ping. I'm mostly of the same opinion about it as Jmabel is. Non-notable deepfakes are OOS anyway (or at least should be) and there's a good argument given the text of the law IMO that Commons hosting notable ones wouldn't be an issue. Since it clearly says "misuse" or otherwise using the images as "harmful misinformation" is illegal. Not "use" in general. Although I'd support implementing warning template similar to the one for Nazi symbols as a supplement to that. But ignoring the law outright doesn't seem tenable or in alignment with exiting policies. So I don't really see any other option here outside of just banning all deepfakes in general regardless of if they are notable or not or the country of origin, which doesn't seem workable. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Since it clearly says "misuse"
The law says that it exists to protect citizens from misuse, not that's it's a requirement for it to be enforced.
"otherwise using the images as "harmful misinformation" is illegal"
The text explicitly states that the exceptions for parody/satire does not apply if the media results in "harmful misinformation". It again does not say that it's a requirement for the plaintiff to prove
If the plaintiff were required to prove harm or malice for the law to be enforced it would have said so (the same was as defamation in the US works). But it's not stated at any point Trade (talk) 02:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Trade: Maybe I'm just missing something here but it seems like they would have to show (at least on a basic level) that the image is "misuse" or websites could essentially ignore take down complaints by saying there's no harm there and/or that the image is just satire or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
You already misuse at the point in time where you made a deep fake of someone without consent. That's the point Trade (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Jumping in to say that actually doesn't seem to be the case. Several explainers I've read have said the act that would infringe is publication or public sharing of any kind, and whichever platform it was shared on would be liable, not the creator/user. You can make these infringing works and share privately. (or if they're protected satire, you can publish/use/share publicly) Here's an explainer I read from the Danish law firm Bech Bruun. 19h00s (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
It almost seems like the depicted party becomes the "author" as far as copyright is concerned in Denmark, because they basically get the same rights that traditional "authors" would normally get. And the original "author" (really just "prompter") can still share the work privately, just as with any other copyrighted work that isn't "their" intellectual property (but if an "infringing" work is satire, the original "author" keeps the rights). This kind of gets mushy/difficult to parse though because it's a fundamental reorientation of the notion of the "author" in copyright, so I might just be overreaching. 19h00s (talk) 03:35, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
And lastly, because I realize I started this and chimed in but never offered my tangible opinion, I do think we should respect the law. It could become difficult to enforce, may put Commons users/admins in the strange situation of evaluating degrees of "satire" in a work, and I personally would like to see a broader ban on AI depictions of people and specific artists' styles, but I do fundamentally think a country has the right to expand their definitions of "copyright". Denmark's government says this is copyright, distinct from personality rights; that's their sovereign right imo. To badly quote a previous unrelated U.S. court decision, this sort of change could easily create a kind of "mutant copyright" that causes a host of other unintended consequences, but that's for the Danish legislature and courts to sort out, not us. 19h00s (talk) 03:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
We should have a policy on AI-generated photos and videos that depict real people. However, this policy should be guided by first principles and not driven by a desire to comply with any particular country's laws. We can have a warning template similar to the one for Nazi symbols if Danish law could be relevant to likely reusers, but I wouldn't support treating Danish subjects any different from, say, American subjects as far as deletion is concerned. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@King of Hearts: I really doubt there's any chance a proposal for a site wide ban on AI-generated media of real people would go anywhere. Especially considering how much the pro AI people have been pandered to on here, like you topic banning me from ANU when I reported Protospective for his less then steller behavior around the topic. You can't just give people a free pass on things like off-site canvasing one day and then expect the same group of users to allow for reasonable standards the next. The ship for any kind of policy around anything having to do with AI-generated media has pretty much sunk at this point. At least baring a clear stance against it by the WMF, every other project banning it, or something else along those lines. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
There is also the fact that such a ban would conflict with SCOPE in many cases. Trade (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
It's not like there couldn't be an exception for images that are being used on other projects like English Wikipedia has for ones used in articles. The problem is that you can't even suggest it without the pro AI people endlessly capitulating about censorship and how people who want reasonable standards just hate the technology or whatever. Again, the pro AI crowd has been to bent over backwards to at this point for any kind of ban, standard, or anything else having to do with AI to be implemented on here. Probably it would just be ignored if one was like every other guideline anyway. I'd love to be wrong though since eventually something is going to have to be done about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Denmark&oldid=1057191135"