16 October 2026
It is now remarkably easy to clone someone's voice, recreate their face or generate a convincing video of them saying something they never said.
The law is starting to respond.
Denmark attracted international attention in 2025 with a proposal to amend its copyright legislation to protect people against realistic digitally generated imitations of their personal characteristics, including their appearance and voice.
Despite some headlines suggesting Denmark had effectively created "copyright in your face", the proposal is better understood as a new form of personality or digital replica protection housed within copyright legislation. It would generally prevent realistic digital imitations being made available to the public without the person's consent, subject to exceptions including satire, parody and criticism. As at September 2026, however, the proposal has not been verified as enacted law.
Denmark is not alone
A number of jurisdictions are moving in the same direction, although they are using different legal tools.
In the United States, Tennessee's ELVIS Act expanded the state's existing personality rights regime to protect an individual's voice as well as name, image and likeness, particularly in response to AI cloning. California has also introduced protections dealing with digital replicas of performers and the use of AI-generated versions of a person's voice or likeness in contracts.
At federal level, the proposed NO FAKES Act of 2026 would create rights relating to highly realistic digital replicas of an individual's voice or visual likeness. The bill was reported out of the US Senate Judiciary Committee in June 2026, but has not yet become federal law.
The European Union has taken a different approach. Article 50 of the EU AI Act requires people deploying AI systems to disclose when image, audio or video content constitutes a deepfake. Those transparency requirements became applicable from 2 August 2026. This is primarily a disclosure regime rather than a new ownership right over someone's face or voice.
Individual European countries are considering going further. The UK Government said in March 2026 that existing laws do not necessarily give people meaningful control over unauthorised digital replicas and is exploring whether a new digital replica or personality right should be introduced. The Netherlands has also been considering a digital replica right within its neighbouring-rights legislation.
Spain is moving in a similar direction. A bill approved by the Spanish Government in July 2026 would treat the unauthorised use of a person's image or voice using AI for advertising or commercial purposes as an unlawful interference with their image rights. It is now proceeding through Parliament. Spain is also separately developing rules specifically addressing generative AI and performers.
What about Australia?
Australia does not currently have the broad US-style "right of publicity" that gives individuals a general proprietary right over their identity. Existing protection is spread across areas including privacy, passing off, consumer law, copyright and criminal law.
Australia has already criminalised certain conduct involving non-consensual sexually explicit deepfakes, and privacy law can also apply to AI-generated information about identifiable individuals. The OAIC has specifically stated that artificially generated images and deepfakes about an identifiable person can constitute personal information.
There is also a My Face, My Rights Bill currently before the Senate. If enacted, it would introduce a complaints and enforcement regime for non-consensual deepfake material involving a person's face or voice and create a cause of action under the Privacy Act for wrongful use or disclosure of deepfake material.
What should SMEs be doing now?
For businesses using generative AI in advertising, social media, training material, customer communications or content creation, the direction of travel is becoming clear:
- Get clear consent before cloning or materially recreating someone's face, voice or performance.
- Do not assume a photograph or recording being publicly available means it can be fed into an AI tool or turned into new commercial content.
- Make contracts specific. If an employee, spokesperson, influencer, actor or contractor agrees to AI use, spell out what may be generated, where it can be used, for how long and whether the material can be reused or sublicensed.
- Label synthetic material where required, particularly when operating in the EU.
- Check your AI suppliers' terms. A platform giving you technical ability to clone a voice or face does not necessarily give you the legal right to do it.
The bigger point is that a person's face and voice are increasingly being treated as legally protectable assets in their own right.
The precise mechanism differs from country to country, but businesses should not assume that because AI can reproduce someone, the law will allow them to use the reproduction.
For SMEs experimenting with AI-generated marketing and content, getting permission first is rapidly becoming the safer starting point.
This article provides general information only and is not legal advice.
