Socialists push for EU law on deepfakes

European legislators are calling for EU-wide regulations to ban noxious deepfakes and hold technology platforms responsible for preventing their spread.

A draft of the tech objectives of the center-left Socialists and Democrats group in the European Parliament, seen by POLITICO, calls for a ban on harmful, non-consensual or deceptive deepfakes — a move that would require platforms and AI providers to prevent their spread rather than wait for victims to complain.

The push comes amid a Europe-wide debate over who controls a person’s digital identity as AI increasingly allows for the easy production of everything from a politician's fake endorsement to the clone of your neighbor's voice to pull off a scam. Denmark this month introduced a plan to amend its copyright law to bar sharing digital replicas without consent. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni applied to trademark a recording of her voice to protect against unauthorized use.

Despite the increased public attention and legislative activity, competing laws across borders could allow deepfakes to proliferate and make enforcement difficult both for platforms and authorities.

“The current trend towards different national solutions only creates legal confusion bad actors could exploit,” German S&D MEP Tiemo Wölken, a key legislator on Parliament’s copyright and AI report, told POLITICO.

A recent report that 50 MEPs have been targeted by sexualised deepfakes was a reminder that the technology can do serious harm. Even if so-called "nudification" apps will be covered by an update of the AI Act, the new socialist push signals growing momentum in Brussels to address the broader issue of deepfakes.

The S&D proposal doesn't specify the mechanism for implementing the ban, but some see following Denmark's path of applying copyright law as the most effective solution. Still, legal experts warn that creating new copyright-style protections for people's digital identities could backfire, potentially allowing companies to acquire control over their AI-generated likenesses.

“Don't bake it into copyright,” said Stina Teilmann-Lock, an associate professor at Copenhagen Business School. “Because then you just create problems for copyright and you might not solve the real issue.”

Simplification

Denmark’s bill would amend the country’s copyright law to protect people's faces, voices and other identifying characteristics. It targets public distribution rather than private creation and allows exceptions for parody, satire and criticism. A separate provision would protect actors and musicians against AI imitations of their performances.

Existing EU rules approach the problem differently. The AI Act sets transparency requirements for deepfakes, while the Digital Services Act tells platforms how to deal with illegal content. New restrictions are due in December on the “nudification” functionality of certain AI systems that produce non-consensual sexually explicit material.

But none creates a general EU-wide right over your digital likeness. A fake celebrity endorsement can cut across several areas of law at once: privacy, consent, platform obligations and commercial exploitation.

“What you don't have very clearly is an ownership claim in EU law,” said João Pedro Quintais, an associate professor at the University of Amsterdam's Institute for Information Law. “It's not that you don't have protection ... but there is no clear framework for ownership.”

Cyprus amended its copyright law in March to protect against unauthorized digital imitations. Belgian lawmakers proposed a new neighboring right — a copyright-like protection — over people's images and voices in September. The Netherlands consulted on draft legislation last year, while Germany's Cabinet has backed separate measures targeting sexualized deepfakes and harmful impersonation more broadly.

Belgian center-right MP Leentje Grillaert, who co-sponsored her country's proposal, pointed to cases of doctors being impersonated in misleading online videos. She said Brussels is moving in the right direction, but not fast enough.

“I think they are going in the right direction at EU level, but we want to make sure that, like in Denmark and the Netherlands, we go further and move a bit quicker,” she said.

Intellectual property

But experts have criticized putting digital identity protections into copyright-style law, questioning whether it is the right tool.

The danger is that intellectual property rights can be licensed or transferred. Performers could end up signing away control of their AI doubles to record labels or film studios — precisely what laws intended to protect them are meant to prevent. Denmark's general protection is non-transferable, but its separate performers' right could be licensed.

University of Amsterdam law professor Bernt Hugenholtz argues that existing privacy and personality rights already offer substantial protection. But a patchwork of national regimes creates its own problem.

“The mere fact that we are seeing now so many national proposals being floated, that in itself is already a reason for the EU to do something,” he said.

In March, the European Parliament called on the Commission to examine measures against unauthorized digital replicas. Danish S&D MEP Christel Schaldemose, who was involved in that effort, wants Brussels to assess whether common rules would help.

“I would now like the Commission to respond to Parliament's call and assess whether EU-wide legislation would add value alongside national initiatives such as Denmark's,” she said.

The Commission is already seeking feedback on possible changes to EU copyright rules, with a consultation running until Nov. 3. An earlier call for evidence raised the possibility of stronger protections for performers against AI-generated impersonations.

Wölken said he expects digital-replica protections to feature in the Commission's forthcoming copyright initiative and wants safeguards that extend beyond performers. “What we need are clear rules that protect our personal likeness against non-consensual AI deep fakes, irrespective of whether the use is outright criminal or not,” he said.

Eliza Gkritsi contributed to this report.