Okay, I will investigate what Danish laws might have been broken by posting a photorealistic AI-generated video of a person without disclosing its AI nature, especially when the video depicts a person in a negative or controversial situation and has gained significant viewership.

I will do this by:

1. Searching for relevant Danish laws concerning defamation, privacy, and any specific regulations on manipulated media or misinformation.
2. Looking for Danish court verdicts or administrative rulings related to AI-generated content, deepfakes, or similar issues to understand how such cases might be treated.
3. Searching the web for recent guidelines or discussions from Danish authorities or relevant organizations about AI-generated content, as this is a new and evolving legal area.

Let's start by searching for relevant Danish laws. Okay, I will investigate what Danish laws might have been broken by posting a photorealistic AI-generated video of a person without disclosing its AI nature, especially when the video depicts a person in a negative or controversial situation and has gained significant viewership.

Here's how I'll proceed:

1. I have already searched for relevant Danish laws concerning defamation, privacy, and any specific regulations on manipulated media or misinformation. I will now analyze these findings.
2. Next, I will search for Danish court verdicts or administrative rulings related to AI-generated content, deepfakes, or similar issues to understand how such cases might be treated.
3. Finally, I will search the web for recent guidelines or discussions from Danish authorities or relevant organizations about AI-generated content, as this is a new and evolving legal area.

Based on the initial search of Danish laws, several pieces of legislation appear relevant:

Potential Legal Violations

• Defamation (Ærekrænkelse) under the Penal Code (Straffeloven)

  • Straffeloven § 267 criminalizes intentionally or recklessly making a statement or performing an act that is capable of harming someone's honor or reputation. An AI-generated video depicting a person in a false and negative light could certainly qualify.
  • Straffeloven § 268 states that the penalty for defamation can be increased (up to 2 years imprisonment) if:
    1. A serious accusation is untrue.
    2. An accusation is made or disseminated through a mass medium (which a social media platform with 3 million views could be considered) and is suitable for significantly harming the defamed person. The photorealistic and undisclosed AI-generated nature of the video, if it portrays untrue events, would be central to this. As noted in Rigsadvokatmeddelelsen Freds- og ærekrænkelser (§§ 263-275 a), a "beskyldning" (accusation) under § 268 refers to a statement of facts that can be proven or disproven, and the term "usand" (untrue) implies that the perpetrator intended for the accusation to be false.

• Identity Misuse (Identitetsmisbrug) under the Penal Code (Straffeloven)

  • Straffeloven § 264 e criminalizes the improper use of another person's identity, which is suitable for causing them harm or inconvenience. Creating a photorealistic AI video of an identifiable person and attributing actions or words to them that are not their own could constitute improper use of their identity.
  • According to the preparatory works for this provision (as mentioned in Rigsadvokatmeddelelsen Freds- og ærekrænkelser (§§ 263-275 a)), violations are typically fined DKK 10,000 for a first offense. However, gross violations (e.g., systematic, repeated, particularly offensive, or causing significant harm) can lead to higher fines or imprisonment. The fact that the video is photorealistic and has reached a large audience could be aggravating factors.

• Data Protection Laws (Databeskyttelsesloven and GDPR)

  • A photorealistic video of an identifiable person involves the processing of personal data. The Databeskyttelsesloven and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) apply.
  • Creating and disseminating such a video without the person's consent, especially if it's for a purpose that is harmful or not legitimate, could violate several data protection principles, including lawfulness, fairness, and purpose limitation (Article 5 GDPR).
  • The depicted person would have rights under GDPR, such as the right to erasure ('right to be forgotten', Article 17 GDPR). As mentioned in Rigsadvokatmeddelelsen Digitale sexkrænkelser, if deletion isn't ordered under criminal law, the data subject can invoke GDPR Article 17 directly with the data controller (the poster of the video) or complain to Datatilsynet (the Danish Data Protection Agency).

• Media Liability Act (Medieansvarsloven)

  • Medieansvarsloven § 34 states that the content and conduct of mass media must be in accordance with good press practice ("god presseskik"). While this law traditionally applies to established media, its principles might be considered, especially given the wide dissemination of the video.
  • The act also contains provisions regarding liability for content and the right to reply (Medieansvarsloven § 37).

• Potential for Deletion Order

  • Straffeloven § 271 allows a court, upon conviction for defamation or identity misuse, to order the deletion of the offending content (e.g., the video). This can be ordered of the convicted person or anyone who has control over the content, potentially including the social media platform, as detailed in Rigsadvokatmeddelelsen Freds- og ærekrænkelser (§§ 263-275 a).

• Digital Services Act (DSA) Enforcement

  • The new "Lov om håndhævelse af Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning om et indre marked for digitale tjenester" (Lov om håndhævelse af Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning om et indre marked for digitale tjenester) implements parts of the EU's Digital Services Act. While the primary focus of your question is on the poster, the DSA imposes obligations on online platforms regarding illegal content. The platform hosting the video could have obligations to act once notified of its potentially illegal nature. The preparatory works discuss "udbredelse til offentligheden" (dissemination to the public) in the context of online platforms.

The lack of disclosure that the video is AI-generated is a significant factor, as it misleads viewers and can exacerbate the harm to the depicted person's reputation and dignity.

Now, I will search for relevant verdicts. Okay, I will investigate what Danish laws might have been broken by posting a photorealistic AI-generated video of a person without disclosing its AI nature, especially when the video depicts a person in a negative or controversial situation and has gained significant viewership.

I will do this by:

1. Analyzing the previously found Danish laws concerning defamation, privacy, and any specific regulations on manipulated media or misinformation.
2. Analyzing relevant Danish court verdicts related to AI-generated content, deepfakes, defamation, and privacy violations in a digital context.
3. Searching the web for recent guidelines or discussions from Danish authorities or relevant organizations about AI-generated content, as this is a new and evolving legal area.

Based on the information gathered, here's an analysis of the potential legal violations:

Potential Legal Violations Under Danish Law

The act of creating and posting a photorealistic AI-generated video of an identifiable Danish person without their consent and without disclosing its AI nature, especially if it's defamatory or invasive of privacy and widely viewed, could lead to several legal issues:

1. Defamation (Ærekrænkelse) - Straffeloven (Penal Code)

   • Straffeloven § 267: This provision criminalizes intentionally or recklessly making statements or performing acts capable of harming someone's honor or reputation. An AI-generated video depicting a person in a false and negative light (like arguing after being refused boarding with an emotional support kangaroo) would likely fall under this if it's untrue and damaging.
   • Straffeloven § 268: This section allows for an increased penalty (up to 2 years imprisonment) if a serious accusation is untrue, or if an accusation is made or disseminated through a mass medium (a social media platform with 3 million views could qualify) and is suitable for significantly harming the defamed person. The photorealistic nature and lack of disclosure that the video is AI-generated would be key factors, especially if the depicted events are false.
     • Case law, such as Dom om ærekrænkelse og tortgodtgørelse efter Facebook-opslag and Dom om injurier og tortgodtgørelse efter udtalelser på Facebook, demonstrates that creating and sharing manipulated videos on Facebook with false and defamatory statements can lead to convictions under Straffeloven § 267. In these cases, individuals used programs to animate still images and add fabricated audio, which is analogous to AI-generated deepfakes. For instance, in Dom om ærekrænkelse og tortgodtgørelse efter Facebook-opslag, a witness confirmed creating a video using a picture of the plaintiff and a program to make the mouth move, adding a defamatory message. The court found certain statements ærekrænkende (defamatory).
     • The Rigsadvokatmeddelelsen on Freds- og ærekrænkelser (§§ 263-275 a) clarifies that for § 268, an "accusation" must be a statement of fact that can be proven or disproven, and "untrue" implies intent that the accusation is false.

2. Violation of Privacy / Unwarranted Disclosure of Private Matters - Straffeloven (Penal Code)

   • Straffeloven § 264d: This law prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of pictures or information about a person's private circumstances, or in other circumstances where the person can demand it be kept from the public. Even if the events are fabricated, using a person's photorealistic likeness in a compromising or private (albeit fake) scenario, and disseminating it widely, could be seen as a violation, especially if the depiction itself is something that "åbenbart kan forlanges unddraget en bredere offentlighed" (obviously could be demanded to be withheld from broader public).
     • The case Dom for overtrædelse af Straffeloven § 264d ved offentliggørelse af manipulerede billeder is highly relevant. Here, an individual was convicted under Straffeloven § 264d for publishing manipulated images of another person on Facebook (where the person was depicted with controversial cartoons). The court found that these manipulated images could indeed be demanded to be kept from the public due to potential serious consequences.
     • Similarly, the case Landsretten dømmer for deling af drabsvideo på Facebook - Overtrædelse af Straffelovens § 264 d (though about a real video) underscores that sharing content depicting individuals in situations that should be private can violate § 264d.

3. Identity Misuse (Identitetsmisbrug) - Straffeloven (Penal Code)

   • Straffeloven § 264 e: This provision criminalizes the improper use of another person's identity if it is suitable for causing them harm or inconvenience. Creating a photorealistic AI video where the person appears to say or do things they haven't, especially if negative or controversial, could constitute identity misuse. The high viewership would contribute to the potential harm or inconvenience.
     • The preparatory works for this law, as noted in Rigsadvokatmeddelelsen Freds- og ærekrænkelser (§§ 263-275 a), suggest a starting fine of DKK 10,000, with potential for imprisonment in gross cases (e.g., systematic, repeated, particularly offensive, or causing significant harm).

4. Data Protection Laws (Databeskyttelsesloven and GDPR)

   • A photorealistic video of an identifiable person involves processing their personal data (their likeness, potentially their voice if synthesized realistically). The Databeskyttelsesloven and GDPR apply.
   • Creating and disseminating such a video without consent, for a purpose that is deceptive and potentially harmful, would likely violate core data protection principles such as lawfulness, fairness, transparency, and purpose limitation (Article 5 GDPR).
   • The case Dom om ophavsretskrænkelse og overtrædelse af persondataforordningen ved brug af billeder i kommerciel sammenhæng found a GDPR violation for sharing personal data (name, photo, city district) in a live broadcast without a legal basis. While the AI video might not be "commercial" in the same way, the unauthorized processing and public dissemination of a person's likeness in a false context is a significant data protection concern.
   • The depicted person has rights, including the right to erasure (Databeskyttelsesloven noter referring to GDPR Article 17).

5. Media Liability Act (Medieansvarsloven)

   • Medieansvarsloven § 34 requires mass media content and conduct to align with "good press practice." While social media posts by individuals aren't traditional mass media, the widespread dissemination (3 million views) could lead to arguments about responsible communication, although direct application to an individual poster might be complex.

Consequences

• Criminal Penalties: Fines or imprisonment are possible under the Penal Code.
• Compensation for Non-Pecuniary Damage (Tortgodtgørelse): The victim can claim compensation for the harm to their reputation and personal integrity under Erstatningsansvarsloven § 26.
  • The Supreme Court cases Højesteretsdom om forhøjelse af tortgodtgørelse efter ærekrænkelse and Højesteretsdom om tortgodtgørelse for ærekrænkelse – Udmåling af godtgørelse efter lovændring confirm that compensation levels for defamation have generally been tripled since a 2018 law change.
• Order for Deletion: A court can order the video to be deleted under Straffeloven § 271, as seen in cases like Dom for ærekrænkelse på Facebook: Beskyldning om pædofili. This obligation can be placed on the person convicted or those who have control over the content.

The Significance of "AI-Generated" and "Photorealistic"

The fact that the video is AI-generated and photorealistic, yet presented as real, is a critical aggravating factor. It increases the deceptiveness and the potential for harm, as viewers are more likely to believe the fabricated events. This lack of transparency would likely be viewed negatively by a court.

Now, I will search the web for any recent guidelines or discussions from Danish authorities or relevant organizations about AI-generated content. Okay, I have investigated what Danish laws might have been broken by posting a photorealistic AI-generated video of a person without disclosing its AI nature, especially when the video depicts a person in a negative or controversial situation and has gained significant viewership.

I have analyzed relevant Danish laws and court verdicts, and searched for recent guidelines or discussions. Based on this, here is a breakdown of the potential legal violations:

Potential Legal Violations Under Current Danish Law

The creation and dissemination of such a video could infringe upon several Danish laws:

1. Defamation (Ærekrænkelse) - Straffeloven (Penal Code)

   • Straffeloven § 267: This law criminalizes making statements or performing acts that are capable of harming someone's honor or reputation. If the AI-generated video falsely depicts the person in a negative or dishonorable way (e.g., arguing unreasonably about an emotional support kangaroo), it could be considered defamatory.
   • Straffeloven § 268: Penalties for defamation can be more severe (up to 2 years imprisonment) if a serious accusation is untrue, or if an accusation is spread through a mass medium (a social media video with 3 million views could qualify as such) and is likely to cause significant harm. The photorealistic nature of the video and the lack of disclosure that it is AI-generated would be crucial, especially if the depicted events are false.
     • As detailed in Rigsadvokatmeddelelsen Freds- og ærekrænkelser (§§ 263-275 a), an "accusation" under § 268 must be a statement of fact that can be proven true or false, and the term "untrue" implies that the perpetrator knew or believed the accusation to be false.
     • Court cases like Dom om ærekrænkelse og tortgodtgørelse efter Facebook-opslag and Dom om injurier og tortgodtgørelse efter udtalelser på Facebook show that creating and sharing manipulated videos on Facebook with false and defamatory statements can lead to convictions under Straffeloven § 267. These cases involved manipulating images and adding fabricated audio, which is analogous to the scenario described.

2. Violation of Privacy / Unwarranted Disclosure of Private Matters (Fredskrænkelse) - Straffeloven (Penal Code)

   • Straffeloven § 264d: This provision prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of pictures or information about a person's private circumstances, or in other situations where the person can clearly demand it be kept from the public. Even if the depicted events are entirely fabricated, using a person's photorealistic likeness in a compromising or private (albeit fake) scenario and disseminating it widely could be a violation.
     • The case Dom for overtrædelse af Straffeloven § 264d ved offentliggørelse af manipulerede billeder is particularly relevant. An individual was convicted under Straffeloven § 264d for publishing manipulated images of another person on Facebook. The court found that these manipulated images could be demanded to be kept from the public due to potential serious consequences. This aligns with the scenario of a photorealistic, but fabricated, video.

3. Identity Misuse (Identitetsmisbrug) - Straffeloven (Penal Code)

   • Straffeloven § 264 e: This law criminalizes the improper use of another person's identity if it is suitable for causing them harm or inconvenience. Creating a photorealistic AI video where the person appears to say or do things they haven't, especially if negative or controversial and widely viewed, could constitute identity misuse.
     • The preparatory works for this law (Rigsadvokatmeddelelsen Freds- og ærekrænkelser (§§ 263-275 a)) indicate a starting fine of DKK 10,000 for first-time offenses, with potential for imprisonment in gross cases.
     • Information from Retsinformation also suggests that deepfake pornographic material could currently be punishable under Straffeloven § 264 e om identitetsmisbrug.

4. Data Protection Laws (Databeskyttelsesloven and GDPR)

   • A photorealistic video of an identifiable person involves processing their personal data (likeness, potentially synthesized voice). The Databeskyttelsesloven and GDPR are applicable.
   • Creating and disseminating such a video without consent, for a deceptive and potentially harmful purpose, would likely breach core data protection principles like lawfulness, fairness, transparency, and purpose limitation (Article 5 GDPR).
   • The case Dom om ophavsretskrænkelse og overtrædelse af persondataforordningen ved brug af billeder i kommerciel sammenhæng found a GDPR violation for sharing personal data (name, photo, city district) in a live broadcast without a legal basis. While the AI video's purpose might differ, the unauthorized processing and public dissemination of a person's likeness in a false context is a significant data protection issue.
   • The depicted individual has rights, including the right to erasure (the 'right to be forgotten') under GDPR Article 17, as referenced in Databeskyttelsesloven noter.

Significance of AI Generation and Lack of Disclosure

The fact that the video is AI-generated, photorealistic, and presented as real without disclosure is a critical aggravating factor. This significantly increases the deceptiveness and the potential for harm to the individual's reputation and dignity, as viewers are more likely to believe the fabricated events.

Future Legislative Developments and Guidelines

• Danish Legislative Initiative: The Danish Minister of Culture has expressed a desire for new legislation specifically targeting deepfakes, aiming to amend the Copyright Act to give individuals more explicit rights over their own body, voice, and facial features. This is highlighted in a DR article, "Minister ønsker ny lov mod deepfakes, så 'alle har ret over egen krop ...". The minister notes that current laws may not fully cover all aspects, and the new law would aim to make it easier to demand removal of such content.
• EU AI Act: The upcoming EU AI Act will introduce specific transparency requirements. According to the Digitaliseringsstyrelsen (Reglerne i AI-forordningen and Reglerne i AI-forordningen - digst.dk), AI-generated text, audio, and video content, including deepfakes, that is published to inform the public about matters of public interest, must be marked as AI-generated. This rule will apply from August 2, 2026. This directly addresses the non-disclosure aspect of your query.
• Ethical Concerns and Misinformation: There are broad ethical concerns about generative AI, particularly regarding the authenticity of content and the potential for deepfakes to be misused for spreading misinformation or for fraudulent activities, as noted by SAP (Hvad er generativ AI? | Eksempler, anvendelseseksempler).

Potential Consequences for the Poster

• Criminal Penalties: This could include fines or imprisonment, depending on the severity and specific laws violated.
• Compensation (Tortgodtgørelse): The victim can claim financial compensation for non-pecuniary damage (harm to reputation, distress) under Erstatningsansvarsloven § 26. As established in cases like Højesteretsdom om forhøjelse af tortgodtgørelse efter ærekrænkelse, compensation levels for defamation have increased.
• Deletion Order: A court can order the video to be deleted from the social media platform under Straffeloven § 271, as seen in cases like Dom for ærekrænkelse på Facebook: Beskyldning om pædofili.

In summary, posting such a video could lead to serious legal repercussions under current Danish law, particularly concerning defamation, privacy violations, identity misuse, and data protection. The AI-generated and undisclosed nature of the video would likely be considered an aggravating factor. Future legislation, both Danish and EU-level, aims to provide even clearer rules for AI-generated content, especially regarding transparency.