Denmark's deepfake bill would make whoever posts a voice clone prove they had consent

Denmark's culture minister, Zenia Stampe, tabled bill L 49 on 8 Oct 2026. It would amend the Danish copyright act so that realistic, digitally generated imitations of a person's voice, appearance or other personal features can't be shared publicly without that person's consent. The tabling statement proposes that it take effect on 1 Jan 2027.

This is a bill, not a law. Parliament's record shows a first reading on 22 Oct and a referral to committee. RetsNyt counts eight new committee questions, covering overblocking, consent, the satire exception and the cost to businesses. Committees can amend bills, so the text could still change.

What the bill would do

The bill text adds two separate protections.

• § 65 a, for performers and artists. A realistic digital imitation of a performer's performance can't be made available to the public without the performer's consent. Protection lasts 50 years from the performance, or 70 years from first release if a sound recording comes out within that window. The notes give a direct music example: if a recording of a song is used to build a realistic imitation of the singer, and that imitation goes out through a streaming service, it needs the singer's consent.
• § 73 a, for everyone. A realistic digital imitation of any person's physical features, including voice, appearance and movements, can't be made public without consent. This protection lasts until 50 years after the year the person dies. Caricature, satire, parody and criticism of power or society are exempt, unless the imitation is misinformation that could seriously endanger someone's rights or significant interests. News reporting gets a narrow exception.

The scope has firm limits. The rule covers making an imitation public, not making it, so private use (the notes mention a private party) is outside it. "Realistic" means it could obviously be mistaken for the real person. Sound-alike bands playing live are not covered because they aren't digitally generated, and the ministry says it isn't trying to restrict legitimate cover versions.

The enforcement tools are civil, not criminal. A court could order an infringing imitation removed from the medium it was published on, which the notes say includes social platforms and content-sharing services. Someone who breaches § 65 a would owe fair remuneration, damages and compensation for non-financial harm. § 73 a carries no fine, but the notes point to damages and compensation through the civil courts. It also requires neither intent nor commercial use, so careless and non-commercial sharing counts too.

The burden of proof

This is the part working musicians should read twice. In the notes to § 73 a, the ministry says it is the person who makes the imitation public who must prove that consent exists. Consent has to be voluntary, specific, informed and unambiguous. It can be withdrawn at any time, though withdrawal only affects future publication. If it was given in a contract, withdrawal follows ordinary contract law.

Explainer posts on X picked up on exactly this point: one thread stressed that the person posting would have to show they had permission. Another corrected a claim that Denmark had already passed the law. That correction is worth repeating: none of this can be enforced until parliament passes it.

What it means for artists

Today, a Danish singer whose voice turns up on a cloned track has to rely on rules written for other problems. The bill's notes list them: marketing law, data protection, the EU AI Act and the criminal code. The ministry says it wants to give anyone a clear legal basis to get such imitations removed, especially from social media, alongside the platforms' takedown duties under the EU Digital Services Act. It also notes that streaming services carry more and more tracks with one-to-one imitations of real vocalists, which compete with the originals and can discredit them.

Three details cut the other way, and an artist with a contract should know them:

1. Old contracts are untouched. Under the transitional rule, §§ 65 a and 73 a don't apply to agreements made before the law takes effect. Agreements made or extended afterwards will be judged under the new rules. Any recording or management deal you renegotiate in late 2026 is where this gets decided.
2. Performer rights can be pooled. The notes say § 65 a rights can be transferred by contract, including to a collective management organisation, and that extended collective licensing can apply to them. The ministry argues that clearing rights one by one would be too hard at scale. That deliberately contrasts with § 73 a, where collective deals without individual consent are ruled out.
3. Who is covered differs. § 65 a protects performers who are nationals or residents of the European Economic Area. § 73 a covers every natural person, including foreign nationals. An Indian or American singer cloned on a service available in Denmark would rely on the general personal-features rule rather than the performer right.

How it compares with the US

The closest US equivalent, the NO FAKES Act, is also still a bill. The Recording Academy reports that the Senate Judiciary Committee approved it by voice vote on 18 Jun 2026, with post-mortem protection of up to 70 years, and that it still needs the full Senate and the House. LA Magazine notes that the revised version added a counter-notice process for restoring removed content. Both bills rest on consent. The difference is design. The US bill builds a platform notice-and-takedown system. Denmark puts the right inside copyright law and relies on the courts plus existing EU platform rules.

What we think

Making the publisher prove consent is the most useful thing in this bill for working singers. Without a rule like this, the practical burden tends to fall on the person who was cloned, who has to show that a track is fake and that they never agreed to it. A rule that flips that, where the uploader with a convincing clone must produce the permission, changes who carries the cost of a dispute.

But that rule currently sits in the ministry's explanatory notes to § 73 a, not in the wording of the law, and the notes to § 65 a only say consent follows existing copyright practice. If Denmark means it, the committee should write the burden of proof into both sections. Otherwise the strongest protection depends on how a court reads the notes.

The collective-licensing route deserves the same scrutiny. It's sensible for broadcast-style mass use, but it also creates a path for a performer's "imitation right" to be licensed in bulk under terms the individual singer never negotiated. Combined with the carve-out for pre-2027 contracts, the real contest won't happen in parliament. It will happen in the contracts and collecting-society mandates signed over the next two months. Artists and their unions should read those before the law takes effect, not after.