Whether you are an actor, musician, politician or an ordinary person, your face and voice are a part of your identity. However, AI tools have made it very easy for anyone to copy someone’s face and voice using just a couple of pictures and audio files. Through this, people can use deepfake content for advertisements, promotions, etc. Often, they do so without the person’s permission. This has raised consent and privacy issues.
Even if the content is not misleading or defamatory, using someone’s identity without their permission is still wrong. This has raised major questions for lawmakers: should your face and voice become the next form of digital property?
Denmark has recently introduced a bill against unauthorized use of people’s faces and voices. Even Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has trademarked her voice. Even though both cases have completely different legal approaches, it raises the same concern.
Deepfakes Raise Questions About Identity and Consent
When it comes to deepfake laws, the main focus is often on the content itself. Whether the content is misleading, whether it involves any sort of fraud, etc. Although these are extremely important questions, deepfakes can still cause issues even when everyone is aware the content is fake.
Unauthorized usage of someone’s appearance and voice raises consent and privacy issues. For example, imagine someone uses a popular actor’s face or voice to create an AI-generated video for an advertisement. The ad clearly states it was created using AI. Therefore, people will know the actor did not willingly appear for the advertisement. But the actor’s face and voice will still remain in the ad without their permission.
Here the issue isn’t whether the advertisement is misleading or not. It’s more about whether someone has a right to use another person’s face and voice without their consent.
This is why identity rights are important. A person’s face and voice are part of their identity and carry a financial value. Like, an actor earns money by appearing in films and advertisements. A musician earns money through their voice. Apart from celebrities, ordinary people also deserve to have control over how their face and voice are used. Therefore, deepfakes raise concerns about consent, privacy and financial loss.
Denmark Is Moving Towards Stronger Likeness Rights
Denmark has suggested several changes into their copyright laws. This gives people more control over having their face or voice used without their permission. Denmark has introduced a bill that would ban people from sharing realistic deepfake content of people’s faces or voices without their permission.
The proposed law in Denmark would give ordinary people and performers more protection against the unauthorised use of their faces, voices and performances in digital content. However, it’s important to know this law doesn’t restrict every use of AI content.
Instead, it allows certain types of expression such as parody, cartoon, satire, and political or social criticism. However, it does have its limitations, as any content involving misinformation or serious risks would be restricted.
This bill is based on a political agreement made by Denmark’s previous government in June 2025. Culture Minister Zenia Stampe said the proposed law aims to address the growing ease of creating and sharing fake images and videos using AI.
ALSO READ: Denmark Moves to Ban AI Deepfakes Without Consent
Giorgia Meloni Has Filed for Trademarking Her Voice
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s attempt to trademark her voice highlights the need to protect people from AI-generated voice copies.
Trademarks usually protect names, logos and other signs linked to a business or product. However, registering a voice as a trademark does not give someone full control over every recording or imitation of it. The protection depends on what is registered and how the law applies.
AI tools can copy a person’s voice and make it sound as if they said something they never actually said. Like, a fake recording could make Meloni appear to support a policy, make a controversial statement or promote a product. People might believe the recording is real before she has a chance to respond.
A trademark may help challenge some unauthorised uses of a voice, especially in advertising or other commercial activities. However, it may not cover every type of fake recording or political message.
Meloni’s case shows that existing laws may offer some protection against the misuse of AI-generated voices. But these laws have limits. Clearer rules may be needed to protect people’s voices and identities from being copied without their permission.
ALSO READ: Italy’s Meloni Tries to Trademark Her Voice Against AI Deepfakes
Should People Have Ownership Rights Over Their Faces and Voices?
Giving people more control over their faces and voices could help protect them from misuse. They could challenge others who use their identity without permission, especially when someone makes money from it.
It could also push businesses to ask for permission before using AI to copy a person’s face or voice. Companies that create virtual influencers, digital actors or AI advertisements would need to be clear about how they plan to use someone’s identity.
However, protecting a person’s identity is different from treating it like property that can be bought and sold.
A person’s face and voice are part of who they are. People should have a say in how they are used, even after signing a contract. Giving a company permission for one purpose should not mean it can use that person’s likeness however it wants.
For example, an actor might agree to let a film company create a digital copy of them for one movie. That should not give the company the right to use the same copy in advertisements or other films without asking again.
Contracts should clearly state how a person’s digital copy can be used and how long the permission lasts. They should also explain whether the company can change the copy or use it to train AI systems.
There is another concern. Stronger legal protection could be easier for celebrities and wealthy people to access because they can afford lawyers and court cases. Ordinary people who become victims of harmful deepfakes may not have the same resources.
Any new rules should make it easier for everyone to seek help and take action, regardless of their income or how well known they are.
AI Development Must Put Consent First
Technology companies should make consent an important part of how they create their AI tools. Companies need to consider how their products handle requests to copy someone’s voice or create a realistic digital version of a person.
Online platforms also have a role to play. They should make it easier for people to report content that uses their face or voice without permission. They should also handle impersonation complaints more effectively and provide clear information about whether content was created using AI.
Watermarks and content credentials can help people identify AI-generated content, but they cannot replace consent. Even if an AI-generated video is clearly labelled, it could still violate someone’s rights. Similarly, a real recording can be edited or combined with fake content to make it seem as though someone said or did something they never did.
Lawmakers, technology companies and online platforms will all need to address these problems. Each has a different role to play, and no single solution can prevent every form of misuse.
The Law Must Protect Identity Without Limiting Free Speech
Giving people stronger rights over their identity could help protect them from deepfakes. However, these laws must also protect freedom of speech.
Journalists may need to use a public figure’s voice when reporting on an issue. Filmmakers may create digital versions of real people for historical films. Comedians may imitate politicians, and artists may use AI-generated content to comment on social issues.
These cases should not be treated in the same way as fake advertisements or intimate deepfakes made without someone’s permission.
Lawmakers need to set clear rules about when these uses are allowed. They should consider why the content was created, how it is used and whether it could harm someone. At the same time, people should have a way to challenge the misuse of their identity. These laws should not allow powerful people to silence criticism or stop others from expressing their views.
The main goal should not be to give people complete control over every image, recording or discussion involving them. Instead, the law should prevent others from using their identity without permission in harmful or unfair ways while protecting free speech and creative work.
The Future of Deepfake Laws Depends on Identity Rights
The new bill introduced by Denmark and Giorgia Melon’s move to trademark her voice shows strong ways of protecting personal identity. Both cases point to a possible change in deepfake laws. Instead of focusing only on whether AI-generated content is false or misleading. Future laws should concentrate on giving people more control over how their faces and voices are used.
However, making these changes will require clear rules. Lawmakers must decide what counts as an unauthorised digital copy and when permission is needed. They must also protect the use of AI in journalism, art and public debate. Just as importantly, ordinary people should be able to take legal action when someone misuses their identity.
The main question is not whether people’s faces and voices should be treated as property that can be bought and sold. It is whether people should have a say in how AI uses their identity, especially when creating a digital copy has become so easy.
