BlendedBoris Blog: Simple Blockchain Ownership Registration

Denmark Deepfake Law: What Bill L 49 Means for Blender Artists, Digital Doubles and 3D Scans (2026) | Blended BORIS | Digital Art IP

On 8 October 2026, Denmark's culture minister Zenia Stampe tabled bill L 49, which would make it unlawful to publish realistic digital imitations of a person's appearance, voice or movements without that person's consent. The proposed start date is 1 January 2027. The bill still has to pass the Danish parliament, the Folketing.
The bill amends the Danish Copyright Act. It follows a broad political agreement reached in June 2025 and is a second attempt: an earlier version lapsed when Denmark went to a general election. Stampe says a central aim is to get social media and other platforms to remove illegal deepfakes quickly. Speaking about AI-made fakes, she told the Copenhagen Post:
“It can lead to misinformation and create doubt about what is real.”
Zenia Stampe, Danish Minister for Culture, 8 October 2026
Most coverage frames L 49 as an anti-deepfake law for politicians and celebrities. For Blender artists, it reaches further. The draft does not only target AI: according to an analysis of the bill text, it also covers conventional digital editing. Digital doubles, photogrammetry scans of real people, realistic portrait sculpts, facial rigs built from a real face and motion capture of a real performer all sit close to its core definition. Here is what the bill says, what is still open, and how to build consent into your Blender workflow now.
TL;DR: Denmark's deepfake bill in one paragraph

Bill L 49, tabled on 8 October 2026, would add a new section 73a to the Danish Copyright Act: realistic, digitally generated imitations of a person's appearance, voice and movements may not be made available to the public without consent, and the person who publishes must prove that consent exists. Fantasy creatures and clearly stylised portraits are generally outside it, and caricature, satire, parody and criticism are exempt. Protection would last until 50 years after the person's death. Remedies are civil, with no criminal penalty. For Blender artists working with real likenesses: get written consent, store it with the project, keep dated records of what you published and when, and stylise when you cannot get consent. It is a bill, not yet law.

What does Denmark's deepfake bill L 49 actually say?

The bill text is so far only available in Danish. The most detailed English summary is an analysis published by PPC Land on 9 October, and the points below follow that reading of the draft. Wording may still change in committee.
  • The core rule (new section 73a). Realistic digitally generated imitations of a natural person's appearance, voice and movements may not be made available to the public without the consent of the person imitated.
  • Realistic means confusable. An imitation is realistic when there is an obvious risk of confusing it with a real depiction of the person.
  • Not only AI. "Digitally generated" covers AI tools and conventional digital editing alike.
  • Publishing, not making. Creating an imitation is not unlawful in itself, and private sharing, for example at a private party, is generally outside the rule. The trigger is making it available to the public.
  • No intent needed. Negligent or accidental publication is also covered.
  • The publisher proves consent. The burden of proof sits with whoever makes the imitation available to the public.
  • Consent can be withdrawn at any time, without formalities. Withdrawal affects future publication only.
  • Long protection. The right lasts until 50 years after the end of the year in which the person died, and it applies to all natural persons, including foreign nationals.
  • Civil remedies. There is no criminal penalty. Courts can award damages and compensation for non-financial harm, and can order unlawful content removed from the platform where it was published.
A separate new section 65a protects performers and artists who are nationals or residents of a European Economic Area country: realistic digital imitations of their performances would also need their consent.

Which Blender projects could be affected?

Nothing in the bill names 3D software, and courts will decide the edge cases. But the definitions map closely onto common Blender work. The table below applies the bill's main tests, as summarised above, to typical projects. Treat it as a reading of a draft, not legal advice.
Blender projectLikely position under the draftWhat to do
Realistic digital double of a real actor or client, published in a trailer or portfolioCore case: realistic imitation of appearance made public. Consent needed; the publisher must prove it.Get written consent that names the uses, and keep it with the project.
Photogrammetry or face scan of a friend, uploaded to Sketchfab or ArtStationPublic availability of a realistic likeness. Consent needed.Ask before scanning and again before publishing; record both.
Realistic portrait sculpt of a celebrity as fan art, posted onlineRealistic and public, so within the rule unless an exception such as caricature or parody clearly applies.Stylise clearly, or do not publish the realistic version.
Clearly stylised cartoon or caricature of a real personClearly stylised portraits are generally excluded; caricature is exempt if it is a clear expression of humour or ridicule.Keep the stylisation obvious. Elf ears alone may not be enough.
Fantasy creature or alien loosely based on a faceGenerally excluded.Avoid making the real person recognisable.
Motion capture of a real dancer applied to a realistic characterMovements are covered by section 73a, and section 65a covers performances by EEA performers.Include mocap and performance use in the consent.
Test render of a likeness kept on your own machineCreating it is not unlawful in itself; private sharing is generally excluded.Do not post it publicly without consent.
Character artists will recognise the overlap with their daily work. Building a believable head from reference, as in our guide to sculpting character heads in Blender, or rigging a face for expression, as in facial rigging for character animation, is exactly the skill set that produces confusable likenesses. The bill does not stop that work; it regulates publishing a realistic real person without consent.

What does "realistic" mean for 3D artists?

The test in the draft is whether there is an obvious risk of confusion with a real depiction of the person. According to the analysis of the bill, fantasy creatures, alien figures and clearly stylised portraits or paintings will generally fall outside, but subtle changes, such as adding elf ears to an otherwise photoreal face, may not be enough to escape the rule.
For 3D work, that points to a practical scale. A photoreal scan with skin pores and a real person's proportions sits at one end. A chunky, stylised figurine with exaggerated features sits at the other. Most disputes will be about the middle, and a court will look at the whole piece, including the render, the pose and any name in the title. This is also why AI matters here without being the whole story: AI tools make realistic likenesses fast, but a hand-sculpted photoreal portrait is just as digital under the bill's wording. We looked at a related problem, false attribution by AI, in what ChatGPT signing real cartoonists' names means for 3D artists.
Keep dated proof of what you made, and when you published it.

BlendedBoris is a Blender add-on that timestamps your work on a blockchain, so you have a tamper-evident record of each file alongside your consent forms and licences.

👉 See how BlendedBoris works

Who has to prove consent, and why does that matter?

Under the draft, the person who makes the imitation available to the public must prove that consent exists. For a freelancer, that is the most practical change in the bill. A verbal yes from a friend you scanned, or a client email that says "looks great", may not be enough evidence years later.
Consent can also be withdrawn at any time, and withdrawal affects future publication. If a person withdraws, you would need to stop publishing their likeness from then on, which means you need to know exactly where it is published. Two records help: the consent itself, with the uses it covers, and a dated list of where and when you published the work. Our guides to art registration and provenance and auto-save and version control in Blender cover how to keep the second one in order.
Note what consent under L 49 is not. It is not a copyright licence for your model, and it does not decide who owns the mesh. You can own the copyright in a sculpt, as explained in whether 3D models automatically have copyright, and still need the subject's consent to publish it.

What about performers, voice and motion capture?

The bill covers voice and movements, not only faces. For animators, that matters in two ways. A realistic recreation of a real person's voice in an animated short would need consent under section 73a. And under section 65a, realistic digital imitations of a performance by an EEA performer, a singer, an actor or a dancer, would also need the performer's consent. The analysis notes that this extends protection to artistic performances such as acrobatics or magic, while sports performances are excluded.
If you record motion capture with a performer, or build a character from a session with a real actor, put mocap, voice and likeness use into the same written agreement. Our guide to building a successful Blender freelance career covers client contracts more broadly.

What is still uncertain?

  • Passage and final wording. L 49 has been tabled, not passed. The analysis of the draft notes several inconsistencies in cross-references and terminology that may be corrected in committee.
  • Platforms. Courts could order removal from the medium where content was published. The explanatory notes include social media and content-sharing platforms but exclude hosting services under the EU Digital Services Act, which the analysis calls internally inconsistent.
  • Cross-border reach. The right applies to all natural persons, but how Danish courts would deal with an artist publishing from another country is not settled by the reports.
  • Physical objects. The rule is about digitally generated imitations made available to the public. Whether and how it touches a 3D-printed figurine sold online, as opposed to the render on the listing, is not addressed in the coverage.
  • The AI Act. The bill does not change obligations under the EU AI Act. A deepfake that carries an AI label but was made without consent would still be unlawful under the draft.
Denmark is not alone in moving on likeness and AI. For a wider view of national approaches, see our overview of international AI art copyright laws, and on our blog the pieces on international AI art laws and where AI art legislation is heading.

What should Blender artists do now?

  1. Ask before you scan or sculpt a real person for publication. Get consent in writing, and treat a release form as part of the job, not an afterthought.
  2. Name the uses. Portfolio, client delivery, marketplace sale, social media, animation, voice and motion capture: list what the person agreed to.
  3. Store consent with the project. Keep the signed form next to the .blend file and the source scans, so it travels with the work.
  4. Stylise when you cannot get consent. A clearly stylised or fantasy version is generally outside the draft rule; a near-photoreal face with a small tweak may not be.
  5. Keep a dated publishing log of where each likeness is online, so you can act quickly if consent is withdrawn.
  6. Timestamp your files and records, so you can show what existed and when. Our guide to copyright best practices for Blender artists and the round-up of common copyright problems for 3D artists cover the rest of the routine, and our DMCA takedown guide helps when someone else misuses your work.

How does this fit the bigger picture of data, AI and control?

L 49 is about who controls a person's likeness once it becomes data. Our sister sites covered the same tension from three other angles this week.
Whether the data is a face, a CAD model or an exam answer, the pattern repeats: rules are catching up with what digital tools make easy, and the people with clear records are in the strongest position. Our earlier analysis of the NoAI tag ruling in Beaulier v. Roblox and our round-up of landmark copyright cases for 3D artists show the same lesson from the courtroom side.

Conclusion

Denmark's bill L 49 would turn consent into the default for any realistic digital imitation of a real person that is published, and it puts the burden of proving that consent on the publisher. It covers AI and ordinary digital editing alike, faces, voices and movements, and it would last until 50 years after the person's death. It has not passed yet, and its wording may change. But for Blender artists who work with real likenesses, the sensible steps do not depend on the final text: get written consent, name the uses, keep it with the project, stylise when in doubt, and keep dated records of what you made and published.
Timestamp your Blender work and the records that go with it.

BlendedBoris records a blockchain timestamp of your Blender files from inside Blender, giving you dated proof of authorship to sit alongside consent forms, licences and registration.

👉 Get started with BlendedBoris

FAQ: Denmark's deepfake bill and 3D artists

What is Denmark's deepfake bill L 49?

It is a bill tabled in the Danish parliament on 8 October 2026 by culture minister Zenia Stampe. It would amend the Danish Copyright Act so that realistic digitally generated imitations of a person's appearance, voice and movements may not be made available to the public without that person's consent.

Is the Danish deepfake law already in force?

No. L 49 is a bill and still has to pass the Folketing. The proposed date of entry into force is 1 January 2027.

Does the bill only cover AI deepfakes?

No. According to an analysis of the bill text, "digitally generated" covers both AI tools and conventional digital editing, so a realistic hand-made 3D likeness can fall within it.

Is it illegal to make a realistic 3D model of a real person in Blender?

Under the draft, creating an imitation is not unlawful in itself, and private sharing is generally excluded. The rule applies when a realistic imitation is made available to the public without consent.

Are stylised characters and caricatures allowed?

Fantasy creatures, alien figures and clearly stylised portraits are generally outside the rule, and caricature, satire, parody and criticism are exempt, except for misinformation that could cause serious danger. Small changes to a photoreal face may not be enough.

Who has to prove consent?

The person who makes the imitation available to the public. That is why written consent stored with the project is the safest approach.

How long does the protection last?

Until 50 years after the end of the year in which the person died, according to the analysis of the draft.

Can a blockchain timestamp replace consent?

No. A timestamp, for example with BlendedBoris, gives dated proof that a file existed at a certain time. It helps your records, but it does not replace the subject's consent or a copyright registration.
2026-10-17 16:30 News