No Fakes Act

Entertainment industry concerns Actors’ concerns over studios' use of their digital likeness were one of the primary drivers of the Screen Actors Guild–American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) strike in 2023. Negotiators for SAG-AFTRA alleged that the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) sought to use the digital likenesses of actors in perpetuity and would try to replace union members, especially background actors. The AMPTP denied SAG-AFTRA's interpretation of its proposal. Recording labels have also expressed concerns over unauthorized digital replicas of their performers’ likeness. In 2023, TikTok user Ghostwriter977 released "Heart on My Sleeve," an AI-produced song in the styles of Drake and the Weeknd. After the song received millions of streams, the Universal Music Group (UMG) initiated takedown requests to TikTok and YouTube, which removed the song from their platforms. The legal arguments attorneys made were not disclosed; however, commentators noted that they likely used the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). This presented a novel scenario, since UMG did not have licensing rights to "Heart on My Sleeve." According to The Verge, UMG based its DMCA takedown request on an unauthorized sample used at the start of the song for the producer tag. U.S. copyright law generally requires that original authorship be attributable to a human; however, the extent of human intervention needed to satisfy this requirement is not clear. Copyright holders have filed lawsuits against AI companies alleging unauthorized usage of copyrighted material to train their models, though many of these cases remain pending. The right of publicity, recognized in many state-level statutes and common law, allows individuals to bring legal claims against unauthorized commercial use of their identities. It has often, but not exclusively, been applied to celebrities or other recognizable individuals. There is no federal-level right to publicity, and state-level protections vary, especially on issues relating to digital replicas and posthumous rights, which makes it difficult for creators or other individuals to prevent unauthorized use of their likenesses. == Provisions ==

Under the NO FAKES Act of 2025, a digital replica is defined as "a newly created, computer-generated, highly realistic electronic representation that is readily identifiable as the voice or visual likeness of an individual," living or dead. A digital replica can be embodied in sound recordings, images, or audiovisual works in which the individual did not perform or in which the individual did perform but the "fundamental character of the performance or appearance has been materially altered." The Act grants right holders the exclusive right to authorize the use of an individual’s likeness in a digital replica. This right is not assignable during the individual’s lifetime; however, it can be licensed to a living individual for up to 10 years under certain conditions. These exclusions do not apply to de minimis uses or to digital replicas that are sexually explicit in nature. The Act further states that licensing requirements do not apply to licenses established through collective bargaining agreements that contain provisions governing the use of digital replicas. The Act does not impose secondary liability on providers of generative artificial intelligence tools or services whose primary purpose is not the creation of unauthorized digital replicas. Preemption The NO FAKES Act preempts laws that protect "an individual's voice and visual likeness rights in connection with a digital replica, as defined in this Act, in an expressive work." However, the Act preserves state laws governing digital replicas enacted before January 2, 2025, as well as state laws addressing digital replicas that portray sexually explicit conduct. == History ==

In 2023, Senators Marsha Blackburn, Chris Coons, Amy Klobuchar, and Thom Tillis introduced the NO FAKES Act as a discussion draft to lay out the general contours of the proposed bill and solicit feedback. In July 2024, policymakers formally introduced NO FAKES Act in the Senate. Despite bipartisan support, NO FAKES failed to advance during the legislative session. In April 2025, the bill was reintroduced in the Senate and House. == Reception ==

Support The NO FAKES Act has received broad support from stakeholders in the technology and entertainment industries, including SAG-AFTRA, UMG, OpenAI, Warner Music Group, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), The Walt Disney Company, Amazon, Adobe, IBM, Google, YouTube, and others. During consideration of an early discussion draft, the Motion Picture Association (MPA) raised concerns that legislation regulating digital replicas could implicate First Amendment protections. In a statement to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, an MPA representative warned that the bill could have a chilling effect on artistic expression, particularly if heirs could restrict filmmakers’ use of portrayals they oppose. Before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, musician FKA Twigs discussed her experiences using a digital replica to promote her work, as well as discovering AI-generated songs falsely attributed to her online. She emphasized the importance of legal protections that allow artists to control the use of their likeness. In May 2025, country singer Martina McBride appeared before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law at a hearing to speak out against AI-generated deepfakes. At the CNBC AI Summit in Nashville, she told CNBC's Courtney Reagan about the impact of deepfakes on the careers and livelihoods of young singers; the invasion and retaliation of the artist-fan bond. Criticism The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Center for Democracy and Technology, American Library Association, and Computer & Communications Industry Association expressed concern over the NO FAKES Act. The EFF argued that the bill’s DMCA-style notice-and-takedown provisions risk incentivizing online platforms to remove lawful speech protected by the First Amendment, which would effectively enable a heckler’s veto. The organization also warned that such mechanisms could disadvantage smaller competitors that lack the resources to implement large-scale content moderation systems. Legal scholar Jennifer Rothman has similarly argued that the bill has room for improvement, stating that although revisions to the NO FAKES Act addressed some issues, it still primarily benefits record labels and large technology companies rather than performers and individuals. Rothman also noted that the Act permits licensing rights to be exercised by "authorized representatives" without requiring the individual’s direct consent, and that the bill does not clarify how conflicts between an individual and a rights holder would be resolved. == References ==